ASO AC Teleconference 9 December 2015
ASO AC teleconference held on Wednesday, December 9th 2015 (12:00 UTC)
Fiona Asonga, FA
Mark Elkins, ME
Douglas Onyango, DO
Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Aftab Siddiqui, AS
Louie Lee, LL (Chair)
Jason Schiller, JS
John Sweeting, JSw
Hartmut Glaser, HG
Ricardo Patara, RP
Jorge Villa, JV
Dmitry Kohmanyuk, DK
Filiz Yilmaz, FY (Vice Chair)
German Valdez, GV – NRO Executive Secretary
Thérèse Colosi, TC – ARIN (Scribe)
Ajay Kumar, AK
Wilfried Woeber, WW
AFRINIC: Ernest Byaruhanga
ARIN: Nate Davis, Einar Bohlin
APNIC: Izumi Okutani
LACNIC: Gianina Pensky
ICANN: Carlos Reyes
1. Agenda Review
2. Review of Open Action Items
3. Approval of Minutes
a) 07 October 2015
4. ICANN CCWG Report
5. ASO Work Plan 2016
6. ASO 2015 Work Plan Review
7. ICANN Board Election 2016
8. Removal of ASO Appointed Members Procedure
9. 2016 Meeting Times
10. Proposed New Logo for the ASO
11. RIR Reports
a) RIPE 71
b) AFRINIC 23
12. Farewell to ASO AC and Board Members
13. Any Other Business
The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:18 UTC. The presence of quorum was noted. HG asked if the newly elected ASO AC members were invited to this teleconference. It was confirmed they were invited, but none were on the call.
GV apologized for any difficulty with the Webex link, and stated that a refreshed link was sent at the start of this teleconference. He noted that as part of Secretariat role, the RIR for 2016 providing support to the ASO AC is ARIN, and that ARIN staff was providing support on this call. He asked for participants to please announce their names when they speak, so that staff can capture their names correctly in the minutes.
The Chair thanked GV for the information, and welcomed everyone to the last teleconference of 2015.
1. Agenda Review.
The Chair reviewed the agenda, and called for any comments. HG suggested including a trip report on the IGF meeting in Brazil. He noted that the ASO and NRO had been very active and believed it important that the minutes reflect a short report due to their hard work on activities including workshops and seminars. He suggested if not today, then a written document by GV perhaps can be crafted. The Chair agreed and asked where HG would like the item added. It was agreed it would be added under item 10, RIR Reports.
GV pointed out that he had sent updated Draft Agenda, with a new item 6, earlier today to the ASO AC. The Chair acknowledged the revised version.
JSw joined at this time (12:29 UTC). The Chair welcomed him to the call.
HG proposed that the ASO send a message to RIPE with regard to the recent passing of Rob Blozkijl. HG stated that Rob was a leader in Europe, very dedicated to the RIRs. He suggested that the ASO AC send the Blokzkijl family their condolences.
ACTION ITEM 151209-01:
The Chair stated the ASO AC would draft a tribute message regarding Rob Blozkjil with the help of RIPE members.
2. Review Open Action Items.`
Action Item 150307-04:
The Chair to send a message to the CCWG IG Chair informing them of AK’s appointment. FY to coordinate with Chair to get this done.
The Chair stated that Naresh had misunderstood that he was no longer part of the ASO AC before his term ended. The Chair determined there was no need to act on removing Naresh from the Council. The Chair stated the need to send a message to the Chair of the CCWG IG for the IG’s acceptance of AK, and the message would be sent this week.
Secretariat to remove draft status from the 02 September 2015 minutes, after incorporating the suggestions sent by JS via the mailing list. DONE.
3. Approval of the Minutes of 07 October 2015.
It was moved by Tomohiro, and seconded by HG, that:
“The ASO AC approves the Minutes of their 07 October 2015 meeting, including TF comments.”
The Chair called for any objections or abstentions. None were noted.
The motion carried with all in favor.
Action Item151209-02: Secretariat to remove ‘Draft’ status from the 07 October 2015 ASO AC Minutes, after incorporating any revisions.
4. ICANN CCWG Report.
Izumi reported that the first version was published and that the comment period was open until 21 December 2015. She noted the document could be found here:
Izumi then provided a recap of changes to the ASO AC, to include that:
1) Wider context affects timelines of ICANN transition, as it needs to go to the NTIA;
2) Any changes do not affect the relationship of the ASO MOU on global policy or numbering services; and,
3) Participating in the ICANN process to make sure no changes are made that would negatively affect the ASO.
With regard to the timeline beyond the public comment period, she noted that revisions would be based on feedback received and requests for each member to provide feedback to the CCWG. After feedback is received, a revised version will be sent to the SO’s on 07 January 2016 and go through an approval process. Once approved, it will be considered final and will go to the ICANN Board on 22 January 2016. It would then be sent to the NTIA by the end of January or early February 2016. Izumi proposed that the ASO AC and NRO EC meet to coordinate on which body will approve the proposal – either both, or either one.
Izumi then highlighted 4 key changes:
1. Changed the single member model to a single designator model.
2. More details were added on the community process and how they will use the process.
3. Enhancements of SO and AC accountability.
4. Ability of challenging ICANN’s position on IANA services and functions – focused on names functions.
Izumi explained the four points in further detail and noted stress test 18 regarding the GAC position and recommendations to the ICANN Board.
With regard to point 2, the community process above, JS noted six bullets on ICANN approvals and asked if are those are the limit to which this workflow could be invoked. Izumi responded that they were and that thresholds levels were set. JS suggested that in event that the SLA are set too high or low, a mechanism should be there to set things right. Izumi asked if he meant there should be the ability to suggest revision. JS answered yes and stated, hypothetically, that if one was not getting the service they needed, they should be able to raise issue and note the SLA is too weak. Alternatively, service could be fine, but there could be a potential to artificially raise the SLA artificially so that IANA function becomes inadequate. A mechanism could be a safeguard to avoid these issues. Izumi acknowledged JS’s concerns stating that there is a review committee in the IANA function proposal and this committee, which is made up of representatives from each region, and the community members can use this as a way to raise issues.
Izumi believed that the RIRs were making public comments on SLA to make sure that the requirements are not overly high, or artificially changing the IANA’s function operations. She was unclear on the process at this point in time, but suggested that it may be more fitting to consider and raise issues on the implementation phase of the IANA Stewardship Transition, rather than ICANN accountability. She believed it would make things more complicated. ICANN accountability is focusing on the names community to supplement it, as it lacks the SLA or MOU that the numbers community has in place. She personally believed it would be more straightforward to address issues around the SLA as a separate process on numbers.
JS stated he had no issue with Izumi’s comments. He had not see any issues come to the level where they are being discussed yet. Izumia stated that the issue has not been raised and suggested that JS ask ARIN legal Counsel and the issue take to the community if needed. She thanked JS for raising the item.
The Chair stated that if there were further questions, to please contact Izumi via e-mail. He invited Izumi to remain on the call if she desired. Due to commitments, Izumi left the call at this time (12:59 UTC).
The Chair stated that item 6 would be discussed before item 5. All agreed.
5. ASO 2015 Work Plan Review.
DO stated that during the ASO AC’s last meeting it was agreed that a report be prepared on the work done in 2015. DO then dropped off the call at 1:00 UTC due to technical difficulties. The Chair asked if someone else would like to provide the overview. The Chair then dropped off of the call due to tech difficulties.
The Chair returned shortly to the call and requested that GV retake roll call to establish that quorum was still intact due to technical difficulties. GV commenced roll call and confirmed that FY had since dropped off the call, but that everyone else was in attendance with 12 members on the call.
The Chair continued the teleconference and provided an overview of the Work Plan. HG pointed out that in 2015 he was appointed an ICG member. His appointment to the Nomcom is for 2016.
The Chair thanked HG and added HG’s appointment to the ICG to the report.
The Chair pointed out that the second ICANN meeting of the year has a reduced meeting schedule focusing on SOs and ACs to hold their own meetings, and to meet with each other. The ASO AC needs to decide if they want to have their first in-person meeting at this time. He stated it would be discussed under the 2016 work plan. He stated that the timetable for voting also needed to be set.
He noted that Nurani Nimpuno would be replacing DK on the Council in 2016, and requested that information be added to this report.
The Chair called for a motion to accept the report.
It was moved by DO, and seconded by ME that:
“The ASO AC accepts the ASO AC 2015 Work Plan, with revisions as noted.”
The Chair called for any objections or abstentions. None were noted.
The motion carried with all in favor.
6. ASO Work Plan 2016.
RP presented his report to the Council, and reviewed the points of the work plan. He thanked DO for his contribution to the report. RP suggested reviewing ASO AC travel to ICANN meetings. He noted that holding public meetings for outreach during ICANN meetings may no longer be needed, as the AC’s in-person meetings are now open to the public.
The Chair thanked RP for the presentation and called for any questions. The Chair stated that the updates to the AC’s operating procedures be finalized to include changes with the text to the Removal of ASO Appointed Members.
JS asked if the AC’s operating procedures could be consolidated into one document. The Chair agreed, noting past difficulty with the reformatting of the text into one procedure. He tasked GV to work on this, and invited the Council to review the update. JS stated he would be happy to consolidate the procedures. The Chair stated that would be fine, but asked GV to work with JS. All agreed.
GV to work with JS on consolidating the ASO AC’s Operating Procedures into one document.
The Chair stated that the ICANN meeting schedule would be discussed on the ASO AC’s list in the interest of time. GV pointed out that if the ASO AC wanted to meet in person at ICANN meetings, that it be determined soon, as the ICANN meeting in Morocco is early next year. Logistically, it needed to be done soon.
The Chair stated that meeting in Morocco needed to be determined before now. He suggested the second or third ICANN meeting of 2016 would be more practical. The ASO AC would be deciding when they will meet next year, and will also decide at which ICANN meeting in 2017 to meet in person at that time.
JS pointed out that with new members in the ASO AC, the Council has not been in a good position to meet at the first ICANN meeting and that it may never be possible. The Chair was in agreement.
Council members suggested the third ICANN meeting seemed to be the most logical. JS noted that in 2016, the timing of the IANA transition is a special case. The Chair pointed out that much of ICANN’s work will take place mid- 2016, and there will be a new ICANN CEO as well. It may make sense hold the ASO AC in person meeting during the second ICANN meeting in 2016. A doodle poll was suggested to flesh availability.
The Chair stated that the RIRs are funding their own regional ASO AC member’s travel to ICANN meetings when it is not funded by the NRO or ICANN directly. He asked the Council to familiarize themselves with the travel policy of their region. The Chair stated that the NRO EC has switched the travel policy for ASO AC travel from funding the Chair plus one Council member from each RIR, to a new policy that only funds travel for the Chair to every ICANN meeting. He stated that this does not change the RIR’s regional policies, which may include travel to ICANN meetings. He reiterated members to check with their own Secretariat for clarification.
JS requested that the Secretariat provide a summary of the travel policies from each RIR.
Secretariat to collect information on each RIR’s policy for their ASO AC members travel, and report back to the ASO AC to assist them in scheduling travel to ICANN meetings in 2016.
The Chair stated that the NRO is supporting travel to ASO AC face-to-face meetings. GV pointed out that it is only for the ASO AC Chair and each RIR will support regional ASO AC members travel to the face-to-face meeting. The Chair thanked him for the clarification.
The Chair stated that at last ICANN meeting, they committed to providing plenary time for the Chair to inform the community on activities with which the ASO and NRO are involved.
ACTION Item 151209-05:
Discuss the 2016 Work Plan on the ASO AC list and have a final plan by the ASO AC’s next meeting in January to accept at that time.
The Chair thanked the respective ASO AC members on their participation and efforts on the Work Plan.
The Chair resumed the agenda in order at item 7.
7. ICANN Board Election 2016.
The Chair asked how many nominations have been received. GV stated that none have been received. He noted that the deadline for nominations closes on Sunday, 13 December 2015. He confirmed that he had sent reminders – the last one was sent on Monday of this week and distributed to the RIR communities.
The Chair asked if there is a date for acceptance of the nominations. GV responded that it depended on the QRC’s decision if a nomination is valid or not. The Chair asked what the deadline for acceptance from the nominee was after the QRC has accepted the nomination. GV stated it was the same day. The Chair believed that deadline should be revised. GV stated that follow up can be done easily after the nomination is accepted. The Chair agreed.
The Chair asked if the Council wanted to extend the nomination period if no nominees were nominees by the 13 December deadline – or let the QRC do this? DO and AS agreed to extend the deadline, if needed. The Chair asked how long it should be extended? He noted that the comment phase is 14 December 2015 to 13 March 2016.
GV stated that it was not uncommon to receive nominations within last 3 days before the deadline and that that has been the trend. He suggested sending out a report on Monday 14 December 2015. The Chair stated that he did not believe there were a number of nominees needed as criteria to extend the period. Nominee’s qualifications are what are important to weigh the decision. The report will be key, as the QRC was established to recommend whether or not to extend the nomination period; with recommendation on how long to extend it. We have time before they are seated.
The Chair noted that the NomCom would need to know as soon as possible for its own appointments. HG agreed. Chair asked if mid-June was acceptable? HG stated the NomCom needed the information before the ICANN meeting in Panama, which takes place at the end of June. The Chair thanked HG for the guidance.
JS suggested the nomination period remain open until two nominees are accepted through the QRC process. The Chair stated it is important to establish a window to close the nomination period, for the world to view; however, it can be extended as many times as needed.
JSw agreed with the Chair, stating that a hard deadline, and the QRC review, is needed. Then, if there are not enough qualified nominees, the deadline should be extended. JSw stated that the deadline should not be extended until we find out if the nominees qualified. The Chair agreed.
JS suggested to honor the deadline, but to continue to collect nominees and hold them from the process. Post-deadline nominees would only be submitted into the process if the QRC determines the nominees received pre-deadline are unqualified.
A) 2016 Qualification Review Committee (QRC). The Chair called for volunteers. He stated that in the past QRC members have been converted to the IC, as they are most familiar to the process, but that it is not a requirement that you would be automatically seated on the Interview Committee (IC). The Chair stated five regional volunteers are needed.
RIPE: to be determined
JS suggested a call-out to the ASO AC list for a RIPE volunteer. The Chair agreed.
Action Item 151209-06:
GV to send a message to include 2015 ASO AC-elected member Nurani. The Chair stated GV should send the email directly to each ASO AC RIPE member.
The Chair called for a motion to accept the volunteers.
It was moved by HG, and seconded by ME, that:
“The ASO AC accepts the volunteers to the 2016 Qualification Review Committee, as presented.”
The Chair called for any objections or abstentions. None were noted.
The motion carried with all in favor.
JS asked if a motion could be made to confirm a RIPE member volunteer without knowing who it is yet? The Chair stated that he was unsure that would be proper procedure, but it can be done for whomever turns out to be the volunteer, once determined. JS pointed out that the motion, as it stands, is in violation of the ASO AC’s Operating Procedures which stated that the QRC must have one volunteer from each region.
Discussion ensued on whether or not to bend the procedure to allow a RIPE member to work on the QRC, due to deadlines, and formally confirm the member at the next meeting in January in an effort to avoid holding up the process of the QRC. FA explained that this had been done in the past, specifically when she was elected to the ASO AC. She was added to list as a volunteer, but approved at the next meeting.
With regard to violating the operating procedures, JSw asked if DK could volunteer through the end of year, and then the Council can appoint a replacement when DK’s term ended. This would satisfy the procedures. The Chair asked DK if he could volunteer through the end of the year. DK stated it depended on the scope of the work, as he had other commitments. DK stated he was willing to volunteer if he was available.
The Chair stated that most of the work would be determining if there were enough good candidates to not have to extend the nomination period. DK agreed to volunteer.
It was moved by JSw, and seconded by JS, that:
“The ASO AC accepts Dimitry Kohmanyuk as the RIPE volunteer to the 2016 Qualification Review Committee.”
The Chair called for any objections or abstentions.
The motion carried with all in favor, and one abstention (DK).
8. Removal of ASO Appointed Members Procedure.
GV stated that there was 4/5ths approval of members and the results were sent to the list. They were then sent to the NRO EC requesting the EC to review the text and for ratification or any questions. There is an NRO EC meeting Tuesday 15 December 2015; and, this item has been added to their agenda. They should reply next week.
The Chair stated these procedures could then be added to the consolidating of the ASO AC’s operating procedures.
9. 2016 ASO AC Meeting Times.
The Chair stated that the ASO AC meeting schedule has been the same for the last several years, being on the first Wednesday of each month, unless moved due to a conflict. He stated the meeting schedule for 2016 would not be finalized at this time but GV will send the dates and times for 2016 in the next few weeks to the ASO AC’s list. JS pointed out that the January meeting time and date needs to be set. The Chair agreed.
ME noted that the next AFRINIC meeting ends the week of 10 June. He requested that the June teleconference be 15 June 2016. The Chair noted that the ASO AC may end up holding a face to face meeting in June. He stated the third Thursday of June would be reserved for the teleconference. HG noted that the LACNIC meeting would be held in the first week in May. The Chair stated the dates and times would try to be kept as close to the same schedule as was for 2015, with exceptions for other meetings.
Action Item 151109-07:
GV to send the dates and times for 2016 ASO AC meeting in the next few weeks to the ASO AC’s list for approval.
10. Proposed New Logo for the ASO.
The Chair stated the Council received new logo graphics from Carlos Reyes of ICANN. The intention of the logo is for each SO and AC adopt for their own communications and website. Carlos stated it was optional to do so, but some have starting to use the logo. The NRO EC forwarded it to the CCG for coordination with regard to approving it for use on ASO communications. The initial responses have been positive. The Chair stated it would be nice for the ASO AC to have a similar look and feel, but not identical, to other SO and ACs.
11. RIR Reports.
A) RIPE 71. DK requested sending his report to the ASO AC list, in the interest of time, as the meeting was running longer than expected. The Chair agreed.
B) AFRINIC 23. ME provided highlights of his report to the ASO AC.
C) IGF 2015. HG had suggested this report be added. There were no comments at this time, but the Chair suggested someone from ASO AC participating of IGF activities write up a report.
The Chair stated that the position for ASO AC Chair is open and nominations need to be received no later than Monday, 14 December 2015 by 24:00 hours. The Chair nominated FY.
JS stated that the call for nominations is open and so far there is only FY as a nominee. We are asking for other names – correct? The Chair stated yes.
The Chair also congratulated JS on his new baby. JS thanked the Chair.
12. Farewell to ASO and Board Members.
The Chair stated that there were members whose terms were ending on the ASO AC and the ICANN Board. The Chair noted DK was the ASO AC member and acknowledged his contribution to the ASO AC on working groups and thanked him for his efforts. He also noted DK’s work on the meetings working group for ICANN, with regard to the new meeting plan crafted to be more effective for ICANN’s mission.
DK stated that it is up to the ASO AC to make ICANN do what we need them to do. We’ve come a long way to be recognized, and we need to continue to be visible. He thanked Chair for making the ASO AC visible. The Chair hoped their paths crossed often the future.
JV joined call at this time (14:40 UTC).
The Chair then sent thanks to Ray Plzak, who’s term was also ending, for his work on the ICANN Board. He noted that many folks praised him for his Board Governance Improvement work and on his work for other committees. The Chair stated that Ron da Silva will be a great follow up to Ray’s work in that area.
HG stated during the ICANN meeting, HG referred to Ray as the ‘Father of LACNIC’, pointing out that LACNIC grew out of ARIN, which use to cover all of the Americas. Ray had a huge hand in getting LACNIC up and running and HG sent him many thanks for that effort. The Chair thanked HG for reminding him of it.
The Chair thanked the Vice Chairs for stepping in and thanked FY for her work helping him along in emergencies and running the workshops. He then thanked GV for his support to the ASO AC. Each year has been great. The ASO AC is improving and enjoying the benefits of GV’s support. Thanks to the Secretariat team that has been assisting GV.
GV stated it was his pleasure to support the ASO AC. He stated he would pass along the thanks to the LACNIC staff for their role as the Secretariat for 2015, especially to the Scribe.
13. Any Other Business.
The Chair called for any other business items.
ME asked if there are going to be other opportunities to volunteer for things in 2016. The Chair stated FA does a wonderful job on the items she volunteers for, and stated there will be more things ME can sign up for.
JS: If there is a new global policy, a new PPFP will follow. If you ME wanted to work with FA to transfer membership, let the ASO AC know – or anyone who wants to volunteer for things. The Chair suggested that ME could possibly run the next workshop.
TF thanked the Chair for his leading the ASO AC in 2015, noting that it was a hard job. The Chair appreciated the comment.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 14:50 UTC. HG moved to adjourn, seconded by DK. The meeting adjourned with no objections.
Last modified on 29/01/2020