ASO AC Teleconference 6 May 2015

ASO AC teleconference held on Wednesday, May 6th 2015 (12:00 UTC)

ASO AC Attendees

Douglas Onyango, DO
Mark Elkins, ME

Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Ajay Kumar, AK
Aftab Siddiqui, AS

Ron da Silva, RS
Jason Schiller, JS
Louie Lee, LL

Ricardo Patara, RP
Hartmut Glaser, HG
Jorge Villa, JV

Filiz Yilmaz, FY
Dmitry Kohmanyuk, DK

Alan Barret, AB – AFRINIC
Ernest Byaruhanga, EBy – AFRINIC
Adam Gosling, AG – APNIC
Einar Bohlin, EBo– ARIN
John Curran, JC – ARIN
Gianina Penski, GP – LACNIC
Axel Pawlik. AP – RIPE NCC
Barbara Roseman, BR – ICANN Staff
Selina Harrington, SH – ICANN Staff
Carlos Reyes, CR – ICANN Staff

Fiona Asonga, FA
Wilfried Woeber, WW

German Valdez, GV – NRO Executive Secretary
Laureana Pavon, LP – LACNIC (Scribe)

Draft Agenda ASO AC May 6th 2015 Teleconference
0. Welcome
1. Agenda review
2. Review of open action items
3. Approval of Minutes
a) April 1st 2015
4. ICANN Meeting Preparations
5.- ARIN 35 report
6. AOB
7. Adjournment

0. Welcome

At 12:08 UTC it was decided that FY would chair the meeting until they were able to contact LL.

Roll call was performed at 12.09 UTC. Eight members were present on the call, but no AFRINIC representative. According to procedure, quorum was not established.

HG moved to wait 5 more minutes to see if quorum was reached. The motion was seconded and all agreed.

At 12:20 LL and ME joined the meeting, quorum was established and the meeting began.

1. Agenda review

LL reviewed the agenda and proposed adding a brief update on the ICANN Board selection process (current status and future steps according to procedure) after the approval of the minutes.

HG asked if it would be appropriate to add a report from I* meeting after the ARIN meeting report. No objections were heard and the item was added to the agenda.

2. Review of 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 LL to get this done.

Status: OPEN.

Action Item 150401-01: GV to package all ICANN Seat 9 candidate questionnaires and send them to AC members minus RS (Seat 9 mailing list).

Status: DONE

Action Item 150401-02: The Secretariat to set up a meeting one week from today to discuss ICANN Board candidates’ written responses.

Status: DONE

Action Item 150401-03: GV to remove draft status from the March 4th 2015 teleconference minutes published on the ASO website.

Status: DONE

Action Item 150401-04: LL to find out through ICANN Staff in what direction ICANN is going with new gTLD auction funds in order to determine the relevance of ASO involvement.

Status: CLOSED

LL said he would get back to ICANN staff on that, but that if they don’t want to delay a month, they can tentatively appoint someone to keep an eye on that by participating in the auction committee.

LL asked if someone from ICANN staff could inform the AC about the auction funds.

BR commented that there’s no information yet as the group has just started meeting. She summarized as follows: The objective of the working group is to determine how the funds should be used; there’s a range of options available but they haven’t decided in what direction they’ll go.

AK said he’d circulated a paper with his reasons why he thought they should participate in this and asked whether the other members of the AC had had a chance to take a look at the paper and would like to share their views.

LL said they’d come back to this later, but that the item would need to be closed because there is no direction until this group moves forward.

3. Approval of Minutes

a) April 1st 2015

TF asked GV to change the current order of the minutes on the AC website.

TF moved to approve the minutes of the April 1st teleconference. The motion was seconded by HG. Hearing no objections, the motion passed and the minutes were approved.

Action Item 150506-01: GV to remove draft status from the April 1st 2015 teleconference minutes published on the ASO website.

Update Action board selection

LL summarized as follows: The election has concluded, many people checked their votes with their tokens, the winner won by more than majority, the name will be sent to ICANN for due diligence. If due diligence is successful, the winner and the other candidates will be informed.

HG suggested including in the minutes that it was very easy, that there were no problems, no concerns during the selection process, that they had finished in a timely manner according to the overall timeline and followed the plan. He congratulated the AC and the Secretariat.

JS noted that they’d had great candidates this time and that it was unfortunate that they couldn’t pass the other names to the NomCom.

HG asked if they were already to send an official message to all the other candidates to thank them for their participation.

LL said that he’d asked GV to let them know that they are in the next step, that they have a name that they’re forwarding to ICANN staff for due diligence. He noted that it was important to wait until ICANN sends their final position before letting the candidates know and announcing the winner. He said he’d already instructed GV to send two separate communications: 1) one now to inform progress and current status, 2) due diligence.

JS asked whether in future selections the AC should provide all of their names to the NomCom for their consideration as well.

This idea was discussed and the following conclusion was reached:

In the future, the ASO AC can send the full list of names of the interviewed candidates to the NomCom. Once the AC knows who has been selected, the NomCom can stop considering this name.

LL said he’d like to give a few more minutes to the new gTLD auction funds, specifically to whether or not the ASO should be involved. He added that they have the option of appointing someone from the AC or someone not from the AC.

HG said that the AC needed to have a proposal, 2 or 3 bullets to show how interesting it would be for the community to support ICANN regarding this money. He proposed that a small group could put together half page that the AC can approve before further discussing this topic as, in his opinion, asking to participate when there is no proposal is nonsense.

LL agreed. AK seconded the idea and offered to come up with proposals for the AC to consider.

LL asked AK to send a note to the list saying that he’s willing to prepare a proposal with a few ideas for the AC to look at regarding the new gTLD auction funds.

Action item 150506-02: AK to prepare a proposal with a few ideas for the AC to look at regarding the new gTLD auction funds so that the AC can make a decision on this topic during their next call.

4. ICANN Meeting Preparations

LL said that at the ARIN meeting they briefly discussed how the overall meeting schedule might be set up, but that they hadn’t gone into the details of each session. He said that BR and GV offered to take the lead in passing the information forward.

BR said that she and Carlos were going to submit the request for the rooms this week, but that they are not anticipating any difficulties – it’s just a question of what rooms will be available for the AC to use as meeting rooms during the non-public meeting times. She said she’d update when she had further information.

LL said that on Wednesday morning, as usual, they’d have their meeting with the ICANN Board. He said he’d work with Axel to have the agenda hashed out and asked that if anyone has any ideas to please forward them to Axel or himself.

LL commented that they always struggle with what to do with the AC workshop. He said the AC had given the board some information on what the RIRs are thinking about the IANA stewardship transition and asked whether the AC should ask the CRISP team back or move on to something else for this meeting’s workshop.

BR said they’d talked about possibly combining the public meeting and the workshop; perhaps a short public meeting and then highlight a few items that would attract greater audience participation.

LL suggested perhaps being open to observers (e.g., today’s teleconference where observers are also participating). He asked for suggestions on how the AC could make themselves more accessible to the ICANN community and suggested doing a brief update on the different RIR policy proposals during the public portion of the meeting. However, LL added that they have to make sure that people understand that no matter how much they discuss a policy or policy proposal, the only way to have input in the process is through the PDP.

Action item 150506-03: LL will work with Barbara, Carlos and Axel to see what other things would be useful to include for the public part of the AC meeting and workshop during ICANN 53.

FY asked for details regarding the session scheduled for Monday 22nd at 2 pm (Internet Coordination Update Session: Community Representatives from the ccNSO, GNSO, IETF, and NRO/ASO) which was published on ICANN’s preliminary schedule.

AP said that it was a slight variation of what was done in the opening session, where community representatives gave updates of what is going on in their part of the community.

LL asked whether the AC has five/ten minutes to talk about what is going on regarding policies and policy proposals. GV replied that LL’s interpretation was correct and that they could define with ICANN exactly how much time would be given for these reports.

BR said that, according to feedback they got last time from when Alan and Paul did the presentation, everyone appreciated hearing about the activities at the RIR meetings as it gave people a good sense of what’s going on in each area.

FY said that she’d heard talk about the SLAs and how they will be realized. She also asked if this was something they’d like to bring to the ICANN fora, as most of the CRISP team will be on the floor.

LL asked whether the CRISP team would have an opportunity in any part of the ICANN agenda to present their latest thoughts. He added that he needs to think about whether it’s useful for CRISP to talk about this in more than one place.

AB clarified that he’s not on the CRISP team anymore, but that he was not aware of any session the team was organizing. He added that he thought it would be useful for CRISP team to be involved in ICANN meetings and suggested finding out whether they had any other plan; if not, the AC can offer them a slot in the meeting they’re planning.

No objections were heard.

Action item 150506-04: AB to find out whether the CRISP team has any plans for presenting at the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires and see if the AC can help them get their ideas to the community.

5.- ARIN 35 report

JS commented the following regarding ARIN 35:

Two notable things came out of the last ARIN meeting. The one that we need to consider the closest is a report that ARIN gave about hiring outside counsel to overlook the ICANN bylaws. Based on the fact that their bylaws don’t specifically state otherwise, it seems that the organizations that place members on the ICANN board also have the de facto ability to recall or remove these board members. I believe this information has been given to the ARIN community as well as to ICANN. I don’t know what ICANN’s response to this would be (whether they would recognize this authority or try to change their bylaws).
The question remains in front of us is that, if we have the authority to remove the two seats that we appoint to the ICANN board, how would we do that given that we don’t have a procedure to do so.

LL added that if the members that the ASO puts on the board are asked by another group to resign or be removed, the ASO has to be consulted as the group that put them on the board.

JS said there was a proposal to change the nomination requirements which has been passed and is awaiting board approval. He added that, in all, six policies had been discussed and proceeded to provide a brief description of each: Out of Region Use; Remove Operational Reverse DNS Text; Needs Attestation for some IPv4 Transfers; Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4; Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10; Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User.

LL said that the policy session which he’d found particularly interesting for everybody else to follow up on was the panel of the different IPv4 brokers and their views on what’s been happening in 2014, what will happen in 2015, how they see ARIN policy, and what they’d like to see happen with ARIN policy (they’d like to see the bar lowered for transfers). He said that those interested in this topic should go to the ARIN website and watch that session.

JS added that the ARIN meeting report had already been posted.

AK asked whether there had been any discussion between ICANN staff and the CRISP team or ICANN staff and the RIRs.

LL replied that each had given a presentation about what’s been happening in their areas (IANA gave a report about their activity on the global policy that allows them to receive space and give it back to the RIRs, the CRISP team gave an update to the community), but that there had been no dialogue between CRISP team and ICANN staff.

AK asked whether there had been any discussion on the draft SLA.

AP said that he’d attended a very interesting session on the CRISP team proposal and the progress of the SLA. He noted that the SLA was not yet public but under development, but that the community was in favor of publishing the SLA as soon as possible and that they are aware it should be discussed on the IANA XFER mailing list.

JS added that they’d also met with the IANA and discussed the possibility of them regularly coming and presenting a report.

LL said that the IANA had been receptive to this idea but that it would not replace the current process of them talking formally to the. LL added that this idea had not yet been discussed with anyone outside of ARIN, so they could see if the different regions are interested in this and, if there are no objections, they could let the IANA know that they can have a presentation on their policy implementation experience.

6. AOB

Report on what happened at the I* meeting

AP said that the previous week they’d had a meeting among the I* group (the CEOs of some of the organizations responsible for technical coordination of the internet – ICANN, IANA, IETF, IAB RIRs, ccTLDS, , ISOC). He noted that those meetings are an excellent chance to exchange views but are not a decision-making meeting as they participate with their personal hats on.

AP mentioned that they’d discussed many topics, the most import for the AC were Internet Governance and what’s happening at the WSIS+10 forum; that they had all agreed that the IGF would be the focal point for Internet governance issues; the IANA stewardship transition (the position that the various communities are preparing will be “the voice of the people” –this is respected by everybody).

AP added that they hadn’t seen the final plan that the ICG will assemble, but that they support the bottom-up opinion building model and will support what comes out from that process. He also mentioned that there was a bit of a statement from the NRO (a couple of paragraphs on the NRO website) and that some blog posts were also shared.

LL asked if there had been any thoughts cast around regarding NetMundial.

AP replied that they hadn’t talked about NetMundial, adding that it had been a one-time event and that although it was a great success, the IGF is THE outlet for Internet Governance work for the RIRS.

HG noted that the continuation of the NetMundial initiative was not a movement and that the idea is to use the IGF to discuss Internet Governance problems. He added that after Buenos Aires there will be a meeting of the council to decide the best way to move forward.

JS proposed a further item for discussion under AOB:
Do we need a procedure for board removal? Or do we want to wait for ICANN’s response first?

LL said that they might be getting ahead of themselves by starting down that path. He added that it would be nice to have something semi-slashed out for when ICANN came back and said “yes, we’ll recognize your authority in this area,” so he’s on the side of starting to work on developing procedures. He was of the opinion that they might want some legal guidance (what will we need to review, what kind of due diligence, etc).

HG asked JS whether he was asking for the current situation or for after the transition. to which JS replied that he was asking for today, as depending on how ICANN responds and changes their bylaws this might not be a concern in the future.

HG said his concern was that they won’t know what will happen after the transition and that they probably need to wait for the final proposal.

RS said that regardless of the changes, if the number of AC pointed board members is greater than one, a removal procedure is needed.

HG said they could discuss requirements, but that at this point there are many discussions on the table that we don’t know the outcome of.

LL noted that nothing in the new/existing bylaws says anything about a removal procedure, so at some point they’ll need one. He asked whether anybody wanted to start working on this immediately or whether they should wait.

RS suggested that this might be a good topic to work on in person at the face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires. All agreed.

JV (via chat): The CCWG-Accountability has issued a paper for public comments. The membership scheme was raised on it according an input from CWG (the domain names group).

JV suggested reading the paper at

7. Adjournment
There being no further business to discuss, HG proposed adjourning the meeting. The motion was seconded by TF. No objections were heard and the meeting was adjourned at 13.54 UTC.

Last modified on 29/01/2020