ASO AC Teleconference 3 December 2014
ASO AC teleconference held on Wednesday, December 3rd 2014 (12:00 UTC)
ASO AC Attendees
Fiona Asonga, FA
Alan Barrett, AB (Vice Chair)
Douglas Onyango, DO
Naresh Ajwani, NA (Vice Chair)
Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Aftab Siddiqui, AS
Louie Lee, LL (Chair)
Jason Schiller, JS
Ron da Silva, RS
Ricardo Patara, RP
Jorge Villa, JV
Filiz Yilmaz, FY
Wilfried Woeber, WW
Dmitry Kohmanyuk, DK
Hartmut Glaser, HG
Einar Bohlin, EB – ARIN
Barbara Roseman – ICANN Staff
Selina Harrington – ICANN Staff
Kuo Wei Wu – ICANN Board
Ajay Kumar – AK
Adam Gosling – APNIC
Marco Schmidt – RIPE NCC
German Valdez, GV – NRO
Laureana Pavon, LP – LACNIC (Scribe)
Draft Agenda ASO AC December 3rd 2014 Teleconference
1.- Agenda Review
2.- Review Open Actions
3.- Approval of Minutes
a) November 12th 2014
4.- ICANN Accountability CCWG
5.- ASO 2014 Review
6.- ASO 2015 work plan
7.- ASO Chair Election
8.- 2015 Teleconference Schedule
9.- AFRINIC Meeting Report
GV performed the roll call and quorum was established at 12:07 UTC.
1.- Agenda review
The Chair reviewed the agenda and called for any comments. No further items were added to the agenda at this point.
2.- Review Open Actions
Action Item 141112-01: GV to remove draft status on the September 3rd minutes, switch the order of the August and September minutes on the ASO website, and make the titles of the meeting minutes consistent.
[LL was briefly disconnected and called back at 12:15 UTC]
3.- Approval of Minutes
- a) November 12th 2014
TF put forth a motion to approve the November 12th minutes and AB seconded the motion. There were no oppositions or abstentions and the motion passed.
4.- ICANN Accountability CCWG
[12.17 FA joined the call]
LL said there was plenty of time to review the charter and that the AC needed to let the NRO EC know whether they supported the charter or not and that the AC needed to vote to see whether to send this support or not. LL added that they also looking for volunteers to work on the charter and the he knew that FA had volunteered. He noted that the NRO EC thought that it might be useful to have one more person and was considering volunteering himself.
AB said that in his opinion the proposed charter looked fine and that once the EC approves the charter the AC should appoint some more people to the group.
LL said that, as time was short, the AC should look to appoint volunteers to the group without waiting for the EC.
FA noted that, in view of the previous arrangement between ICANN and the NTIA, the document seemed like a good start, adding that perhaps a few areas would need some work and then it would be a suitable contract for a broader community. She said that, in her opinion, they should motion for the AC to adopt the charter as written and move on to the next level.
NA said that, if time wasn’t so short, they should suggest adding in this charter a commentary saying that there has to be synergy on working only on the transition. In his opinion, energy is being spent in various events going on around the world, which is not what they should be focusing on right now given the short time line. He said that, unfortunately the focus is being shifted to other areas and that they need to bring the focus to the transition itself.
LL asked NA whether he was suggesting an addition to the carter, to which NA replied that indeed it would be better if the AC could give their own opinion (the AC) and ask them to focus on the transition and nothing else.
LL said he thought the commentary would be useful and that it could be added in the note to the NRO EC. He said that he wasn’t sure whether it would be too late to alter the charter, as all the other groups have already voiced their support to the document as written. He said that they could still get the message across regarding the direction of the work. LL then asked NA if he wanted to draft a few sentences just to make sure that he didn’t mistranslate his thoughts if this was something that the AC waned to incorporate.
NA and JS said that, pending AC approval, they could prepare a few lines to submit in this sense.
LL asked for clarification on whether the note to the NRO EC should include additional comments prepared by NA and JS regarding the points articulated by NA, to which AB replied that both things should be handled as it was not realistic to change the draft right now.
JS said they should vote on the second matter first (whether the AC would like to provide advice/commentary) and that perhaps he’d like to see the charter approved as written.
NA clarified that he was in no way proposing a change in the charter and that his only concern was that they need to focus on what should be done and that is the transition. He said that people are talking about it but that no one is making it as important as they should. NA then suggested that the AC could do this, depending on whether they wanted to make it part of the motion.
LL thanked NA for his clarification.
FA said that, in view of NA’s explanation, they should move to adopt the draft charter as written and provide an advisory on what the AC’s concerns are, so that could become a separate communication as AB suggested.
LL noted that the advice could be sent to the EC in the same message, as the comments are more likely to be heard if they’re part of the same message as the support. He then proceeded to call for a motion.
JS motioned the following:
The ASO AC supports the CCWG charter as written, and recommends the community stay focused on the actions required for a successful IANA oversight transition and appropriately prioritize this work.
The motion was seconded by NA.
GV performed a roll call to record AC member’s votes and these were the results: 13 members in favor of the motion, 1 abstention (WW). HG was absent during the roll call.
WW was asked his reason for abstaining, to which he replied that it was simply due to the fact that he hadn’t followed up on the topic with the required quality and effort and that, while he was not opposed, he didn’t have enough information to express his support.
Action item 141203-01: LL to draft a note to the NRO EC expressing the AC’s support of the CCWG charter as written, including a recommendation that the community should focused on the actions required for a successful IANA oversight transition and appropriately prioritize this.
[12.20 GV lost connectivity and rejoined at 12.25]
5.- ASO 2014 Review
LL asked AB whether he was going to send the review for the 2014 activities, to which AB replied that he’d sent a draft version of the report to the mailing list an hour ago, but that he was not yet ready to move that it be approved.
LL suggested that they approve what they had so far and AB proceeded to read and review the action plan for 2014 included as annex 1 below.
Regarding item 9 of his draft Review of ASO-AC 2014 Work Plan, AB added that he would check the minutes to find what other advice was provided by the AC and asked other AC members if they had anything to add.
LL replied that the other advice provided by the AC was about whether the IANA should be allowed to differentiate between 2-byte and 4-byte ASNs. He added that the AC reiterated its previous advice about allowing an RIR to request non-contiguous blocks of AS numbers to make 1024.
At this point (12.57), AK joined the conference and apologized for being late.
JS noted that the AC had also provided advice to the EC with respect to whether they were going to make a formal agreement about how many 2-byte ASNs to take, and that if so they should do it publicly and transparently.
NA suggested that under item 8 of the review report (Participation at ICANN Meetings) perhaps they could include participation in ALAC.
LL said that the ALAC had happened mostly during ICANN meetings so it could indeed be included under item 8 but that, because there had also been some activity outside of ICANN meetings themselves, perhaps it might be better to mention it under item 7 of the review report (Involvement in ongoing ICANN Outreach program), i.e. we are in support of RIR staff by forwarding announcements about our meetings and fellowship programs about ALAC.
As regards item 13 (appointment of a chair for the following year), LL said that the timetable for election of the chair had been sent along with the call for nominations.
As regards item 11 of the review report (finalize changes to the procedure for amending the ASO-AC Operating Procedures), LL noted that the EC had proposed and accepted some suggestions for changes to the procedure and asked GV whether that item had been closed. GV replied that it had indeed been closed and that he had I updated the operating procedures.
In relation to item 10 (updates to ASO-AC Operating Procedures ), LL also asked whether the updates for the operating procedures for appointing new members had also been also closed, to which GV replied that they had.
Regarding item 6 of the review report (Appoint members to other ICANN groups as required), TF noted that the AC had appointed FY and NA to the Cross-Community WG on IG in early 2014.
LL proceeded to congratulate AB for the work he’d done so far on the report and said that he looked forward to the rest of the details.
NA suggested adding to the report the motion passed earlier during the meeting regarding the AC’s support of the CCWG charter and recommendations regarding focusing on the actions required for a successful IANA oversight transition.
LL said that they should also add that appointed some volunteers to the ICANN Accountability Cross Community WG that this charter is working on. He said that FA had volunteered and that he was also considering volunteering as a fourth individual so the work load could be spread among the AC. He asked whether the AC would like to appoint Fiona to work as part of the Accountability CCWG.
FY said that, depending on the requirements, she might be able to provide her support. She added that her attendance possibilities online or in person could be limited and that, if the AC agreed, she’d love to provide her support. She said that, if the group thinks that a more active role is required, she’d be happy to step down at a later stage and be replaced by someone else.
TF observed that anyone who wants to can join the WG as a participant. LL thanked TF for the reminder and added that he thought that they were also looking for people specifically appointed by the AC.
LL asked FA whether she was still interested in being one of the appointed volunteers, to which FA replied that she was very interested.
NA suggested that there would be no harm adding in the 2014 review that the ASO AC was awarded as multistakeholder custodian by ICANN. He also suggested that the new members appointed to the ASO AC could be involved in debates and deliberations and also volunteer. He said he didn’t see any harm in checking with new members on this.
AK said he would be happy to contribute as part of this group of volunteers to the Accountability CCWG.
/AB was disconnected at 13.10/
FY said that she saw a benefit in having several volunteers because having more people helps move the work forward and that, if someone needs to miss a call, someone else can pick it up and things don’t fall behind.
LL formalized his offer to volunteer for the Accountability CCWG.
AS asked why they needed so many volunteers from the ASO AC’s platform, to which LL replied that the CCWG is only looking 2 to 7 volunteers from each ASO or AC but that at this point they are only suggesting names for the EC to consider putting forward, as perhaps the EC will not offer the volunteers the AC is suggesting.
FY added that she sees great benefit in having quite a few people in these activities because they all have day jobs and this is volunteer work, sometimes with very large workloads.
LL proposed the following motion:
The ASO AC to let the NRO EC know that the AC suggests the names of four volunteers (FA, FY, AK, and LL) to work on the ICANN Cross Community WG.
NA seconded the motion. There were no oppositions or abstentions and the motion passed.
Action item: 141203-02 AB to update the 2014 work plan review report and send it out during the following week for its adoption in January.
Action item 141203-03: LL to let the NRO EC know that the AC suggests the names of four volunteers (FA, FY, AK, and LL) to work on the ICANN Cross Community WG.
6.- ASO 2015 work plan
LL said he’d asked for this to be included on the agenda so that they could start working on the 2015 work plan. He asked whether there were any suggestions and said they could discuss the schedule under item 8. He also asked whether there were any volunteers for drafting the work plan for 2015.
FA said that, if there were no other volunteers, she would work with AB on drafting the work plan for 2015.
Action item 141203-04: FA and AB to draft the ASO AC 2015 work plan.
7.- ASO Chair Election
LL noted that the nomination period had been open and asked that nominations be sent to the list. He added that the nomination window would close within two weeks and that they would have an online election and hopefully announces the new chair during their next meeting.
GV noted that, according to procedures, during December meeting the date on which the voting will run should be decided so that the secretariat can prepare the platform for the 7-day voting period.
[13.34 AB rejoined the meeting and LL updated him on what he’d missed.]
LL said they might consider having the first ASO AC meeting on January 7th in order to know who the new chair would be before the January meeting but that this was open to discussion.
RS noted that it wasn’t necessary to have elected a chair before the meeting, as one could be especially appointed that day, but he added that he did indeed support the election before the 7th
JC suggested having an electronic vote to elect the 2015 ASO AC chair election starting on January 1st and ending Jan 7th before the start of the ASO AC meeting.
At this point, GV said he’d like to go on record saying that, while the Secretariat is more than willing to support the operations of the ASO AC, the AC should bear in mind that January 1st and December 31st are holidays in most of the western world. He added that they would be asking the RIR staff to work on holidays. As an example he cited the ICANN Board election, which closes on December 31st and comments open on January 1st, which is pretty bad timing for people to work. He finished by saying that this was simply a comment and that it was up to the AC to decide what is best.
AB suggested closing the voting at midnight of January 6th.
WW suggested opening the voting window on December 30th, which should not collide with any end-of-the year celebrations, and closing it on January 5th so that they would still have time to get the results on the 7th.
NA observed that, technically, they couldn’t do it on December 30th, as the composition of the AC would change on January 1st. He added that it has to be in January, otherwise there would be overlap between new and old members.
GV agreed with NA and said that, in addition, procedures say that candidates must confirm their willingness to run as chair by the last day of December, which means that voting in December is not possible.
GV said he didn’t want his words to be misinterpreted, that he’d discussed this with LACNIC staff and that they are willing and ready to open the election on Jan 1st. He said his comment was to consider the people providing support for future processes.
JS said he didn’t feel that the timing of this election was so critical that they needed the staff to work outside their usual days.
At this point, LP confirmed that LACNIC staff would be working on January 2nd.
JS suggested closing the voting window at 10 am UTC, December 7th, as perhaps extending the voting period to the morning hours would helpful for voters.
GV said that the system calculates the results in real time, so there was no problem extending the deadline to the morning of the 7th.
JS submitted the following motion:
To have an electronic vote to elect the 2015 ASO AC chair election starting on January 2nd and including on Jan 7th 2014 at 11 am UTC.
The motion was seconded by TF. There were no oppositions or abstentions and the motion passed.
8.- 2015 Teleconference Schedule
LL said he hadn’t heard any objections to having the 1st teleconference on January 7th at 12 UTC.
GV said that, given the new composition and secretariat support, 12 UTC still seems to be the best time for the ASAO AC to run its teleconferences.
LL said that it wasn’t necessary to decide this right now, but that all members should consider whether the first Wednesday of the month at 12 UTC works for everyone.
9.- AFRINIC Meeting report
AB said he’d sent an AFRINIC meeting report via email earlier in the day. LL asked AB whether there was anything he’d like to highlight.
AB said that perhaps he should mention the long and useful discussion about the IANA transition, our of which 4 points emerged:
– The bottom-up process used by the RIRs should be maintained;
– The status quo should be better documented;
– The use of languages other than English should be made easier;
– There may be a need for small changes, such as adding SLAs and revising MoUs, but there is no need for large changes.
JS said that in the ARIN region there had been discussions about the use of out-of-region and asked AB what he could say about that.
AB said there was a PP for out-of-region use of numbers (the proposal would restrict out of region use of number resources assigned or allocated by AFRINIC to no more than 40% of the total resources assigned or allocated to each AFRINIC member). He said there’d been heated discussions with a little bit of support and a lot of opposition, and that, in the end, the proposal did not reach consensus and was referred back to the mailing list.
RP said he was curious about whether there’d been an election for the ASO AC representative from the AFRINIC region.
LL commented that AB had been reappointed to the AFRINIC board.
AB said DO’s position was up for reelection but that he was unsure of what happened.
GV said he’d seen some tweets from AFRINIC Communications saying that Mr. Douglas Onyango had been elected to ICANN ASO AC.
LL thanked GV for another year of his support as secretariat, adding that he knows it’s not an easy task that but hopefully it will get easier.
GV replied that it was his pleasure to support the group and noted that the transition for the new staff (LACNIC) had gone smoothly. He said that LP had supported the ASO AC in the past, so she’s familiar with the work and happy to be working with the group.
LL also thanked the RIPE NCC staff for their work.
TF said they shouldn’t forget to thank NA. LL presented his thanks to NA for his many years of support and work and commented that NA had received a certificate from ICANN, recognizing his work in front of the whole community.
AK also thanked the group, said it had been his first meeting and a learning experience, and that he would like to thank NA especially for encouraging him to join this group.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 14:13 UTC.. NA seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously.
Open action items
Action Item 141203-01: GV to remove draft status of ASO AC November 12th 2014 minutes.
Action item 141203-02: LL to draft a note to the NRO EC expressing the AC’s support of the CCWG charter as written, including a recommendation that the community should focused on the actions required for a successful IANA oversight transition and appropriately prioritize this .
Action item 141203-03: AB to update the 2014 work plan review report and send it out during the following week for its adoption in January.
Action item 141203-04: LL to let the NRO EC know that the AC suggests the names of four volunteers (FA, FY, AK, and LL) to work on the ICANN Cross Community WG.
Action item 141203-05: FA and AB to draft the ASO AC 2015 work plan.
Review of ASO-AC 2014 Work Plan (prepared by AB)
This document consists of items from the ASO-AC’s 2014 Work Plan, interspersed with notes on the status of the items.
1.- Appointment of Chair/Vice Chairs.
Early in January of the new year, hold an electronic vote for the Chair for that year. The list of candidates, and the voting timetable, should have been finalised during December of the previous year.
Chair to invite two Vice Chairs during January meeting.
– LL was elected as Chair.
– LL invited AB and NA to serve as Vice Chairs.
2.- Policy Proposal Facilitator Teams (PPFT)
In January, confirm or re-appoint PPFT members for all current Global Policy Proposals (GPP);
Create a new PPFT for each new GPP, as and when new GPPs appear.
– There is no GPP on the table.
– At the ASO-AC meeting on 8 Jan 2014, FA, TF, JS, DK and RP were appointed to a PPFT team on standby in case of future need.
3.- Set timetable for meetings
The time of the January meeting should have been set during December of the previous year.
In January, set the timetable for other meetings during the year.
Set a place and date for a face to face meeting of the entire ASO-AC.
– The meeting schedule was set, including a face to face meeting co-located with the ICANN meting in London in July 2014.
4.- Approve work plan
In January, approve the work plan for the year.
– The 2014 work plan was adopted in January 2014.
5.- Begin the appointment process for the ICANN Board seat No. 9
Appoint members of Qualification review committee (QRC) and Interview Committee (IC);
Conduct reviews and interviews of candidates;
Make the appointment
– The timetable was adopted at the ASO-AC meeting on 3 September 2014.
– The call for nominations was published on 24 October 2014.
– The nomination phase is in progress.
6.- Appoint members to other ICANN groups as required
– Hans Petter Holen was appointed to the ICANN Nomination Committee (NomCom);
– Fiona Asonga was appointed to the ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2);
– Hartmut Glaser was appointed by the ASO-EC (NRO-EC) to the IANA Oversight Transition Coordination Group (TCG) after a suggestion by the ASO-AC;
– Izumi Okutani and Athina Fragkouli were appointed to the drafting committee for the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability);
7.- Involvement in ongoing ICANN Outreach program –
8.- Participation at ICANN Meetings
– The ASO-AC had a presence at every ICANN meeting. ASO-AC representatives held discussions with the ICANN Board, held public activity reports, and interacted with some other groups within ICANN.
9.- Participation in RIR policy process.
– ASO-AC members were present at all RIR public policy meetings.
– After each RIR meeting, an ASO-AC member from that region presented a report to the ASO-AC on policy proposals that had been discussed.
10.- Updates to ASO-AC Operating Procedures
– At the ASO-AC meeting in February 2014, a new procedure for appointing members to various bodies was approved. It was passed to the NRO-EC for ratification.
11.- Finalise changes to the procedure for amending the ASO-AC Operating Procedures, started in 2012.
12.- Ongoing tracking of Global Policy Proposals (GPPs).
– No GPP is on the table.
13.- Begin the process for appointing a chair for the following year.
In November, call for nominations, seconds, and expressions of interest; In December, finalise the list of candidates.
In December, set the timetable for voting. The vote itself will be held early in January of the following year.
– A call for nominations was published in November 2014.
14.- End of year review of actions performed during the year.
In November, call for a volunteer to prepare a review report for the year that is coming to an end.
In December, consider the report.
– At the ASO-AC meeting in November 2014, AB volunteered to prepare this review report. I will continue to work on this in January.
15.- Draft work plan for following year.
In November, call for a volunteer to prepare a work plan for the following year. The work plan should be approved during January of the following year.
– No action has yet been taken.
– In March 2014, the ASO-AC advised the IANA that the first IPv4 allocation post exhaustion did not need to wait for any particular date, but subsequent allocations must be at the six-monthly intervals specified in GPP-????.
– Other advice to IANA
Last modified on 29/01/2020