ASO AC Teleconference 1 June 2016

ASO AC Teleconference
Wednesday, 01 June 2016


Fiona Asonga, FA
Mark Elkins, ME
Douglas Onyango, DO

Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Aftab Siddiqui, AS

Louie Lee, Chair
Jason Schiller, JSc
John Sweeting, JSw

Hartmut Glaser (HG)
Ricardo Patara, RP (Vice Chair)
Jorge Villa, JV

Nurani Nimpuno, NN

Therese Colosi, TC – Scribe
German Valdez, GV – NRO Executive Secretary

Einar Bohlin, EB
Nate Davis, ND
Susan Hamlin, SH

Gianina Pelsky, GP

Selina Harrington
Carlos Reyes, CR

Filiz Yilmaz
Wilfried Woeber
Ajay Kumar

0. Welcome.
1. Agenda Review.
2. Review of Open Action Items.
3. Approval of Minutes.
a) March 2nd
b) April 13th
4. ICANN 56 Meeting Preparations.
5. Reports.
• ARIN 37
• RIPE 72
• Any Other Reports
6. ICANN Board Election Update.
7. Any Other Business.
8. Adjournment.


0. Welcome.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:05 UTC. He welcomed the attendees to the call.

1. Agenda Review.

The Chair reviewed the agenda and called for any comments. JSc requested a discussion on the Operating Procedures with regard to Board of Directors elections. The Chair agreed to add this to the agenda.

JSc asked if there was any information regarding the election that could be shared on the call. The Chair stated they needed to hear back from ICANN on diligence review. JSc acknowledged, and suggested the discussion be the last item on the agenda. The Chair agreed. GV stated he believed quorum could be lost at that point.

The Chair stated the matter could be discussed after adjournment of the meeting, or AC candidates could leave the call. NN stated that it was important to follow proper procedure by discussing either by email or in a separate discussion. The Chair agreed.

2. Review of Open Action Items.

Action Item 20151209-03: GV to work with JSc on consolidating the ASO AC’s Operating Procedures into one document. JSc stated at the last AC meeting it was decided that the changes to the elections were sent to the NRO EC only, and not the consolidated operating procedures. He was unsure of the status at this time. GV stated the last revisions to the elections were incorporated, and will be forwarded to the NRO EC. GV will follow up with the EC on their approval. OPEN.

Action Item 20160210-03: Chair to request NRO EC update to the ASO AC directly, with reports regarding progress of the new gTLD drafting team. The Chair asked when the next EC meeting would take place. GV stated it would be on 21 June 2016. The Chair stated he would send the request to the EC, and asked for GV’s assistance to do so. OPEN.

Action Item 20160302-03: Chair to find out the status of the Public Safety WG with regard to WHOIS accuracy. The Chair stated that JSc was working with folks on this item, but believed that there was no information available. JSc concurred, stating that he had asked Bobby Flaim and ARIN’s CEO, but they did not have information to provide, and no prior work had ever been done. OPEN.

Action Item 20160302-04: Chair to send an email to the AC’s list regarding participation record on ASO website, so that all members are aware of it. The Chair stated he had not been able to do so, but that it was discussed in their meeting. OPEN

Action Item 20160413-01: GV to send the final draft of the 02 March 2016 Minutes to the ASO AC for review. GV stated it has been done with edits incorporated. CLOSED.

Action Item 20160413-02: GV to set Doodle Poll E-vote of Election Procedure revisions, in order to send the revised text to NRO EC for their approval. GV stated that it was completed. DONE.

3. Approval of ASO AC Minutes.

• 02 March 2016
• 13 April 2016

It was moved by TF, and seconded by HG, that:

The ASO AC approves the Minutes of 02 March 2016 and 13 April 2016, as written.

The Chair called for any comments or objections. There were none.

The motion carried with no objections.

NEW: Action Item 2016-0601-01: GV to post final draft of 02 March 2016 and 16 April 2016 and remove ‘Draft’ from each. OPEN

4. ICANN 56 Meeting Preparations.

The Chair stated that CR was waiting for the date of the meeting of the ASO AC in Helsinki. CR stated that he had requested a workroom and a public session. He needed a date for the ASO AC’s face-to-face meeting, which would be added to the ICANN schedule.

GV stated that he had sent his points to the list last night and, if acceptable, the AC can set the date for the meeting and the workshop.

The Chair stated that FY was taking the lead on coordinating the efforts and would draft the agenda for the public meeting. He asked them to coordinate with her.

The Chair asked for the list of the AC attendees to the ASO AC Face-to-Face meeting in Helsinki. GV stated he did not have the information yet, but would begin to gather the information. The Chair requested that GV try to obtain and include observers.

NEW: Action Item 2016-0601-02: GV to compile a list of the AC attendees to the ASO AC Face-to-Face meeting in Helsinki to include any observers. OPEN.

The Chair stated that the SO and AC Chairs’ meeting has been changed to take place on the Sunday before ICANN 56, which should make it easier for attendees to participate.

FA asked if it was decided that the AC would not take the lead on the ICANN Accountability session? The Chair clarified that the AC was not going to take the lead, but rather had requested the session, as it was an important issue.

CR stated that he sent a request last week to the ICANN meetings team but was not certain if the change had yet taken place. He did not see any issues with the request, but pointed out that an SO or AC group was needed to lead the session. The Chair did not foresee an issue if it turned out to be the ASO AC as the lead, but he had concerns that the domain information would make attendees wonder why the names group was leading the discussion.

DO stated that the AC was the only group who proposed this is a high interest topic for cross-community discussion. He had misgivings on the AC leading the session, but acknowledged that the AC’s feedback and input would be important. He suggested if the AC could finalize the agenda by providing either a presentation or having a panel, without the being the lead, the AC could equally participate in the session. The Chair thanked him for his thoughts.

FA pointed out that the AC would not be leading the discussion, but rather coordinating it; and, having an open discussion on accountability as well as being able to ask questions generating discussion on how to prioritize and discuss it with working group (WG) Chairs.

NN agreed that accountability was an important topic with regard to implementation and did not think it appropriate for the AC to take the lead. She stated it was more appropriate for WG Chairs to hold a session on the matter. She believed the AC should participate and contribute only. The Chair thanked her for her thoughts.

The Chair called for specific items that the AC may want addressed, and to send them to the Chair of the WG to incorporate them. The AC can help steer discussion rather than lead it.

NEW: Action Item 2016-0601-03: AC to compile a list of items for the WG Chair to incorporate into the agenda for the ICANN Accountability session.

The Chair stated that FA had mentioned another item: the Advanced Workstream II Area of ICANN Diversity. He asked if she wanted to discuss at this time with regard to her volunteering for this group.

FA stated she was asked to continue work by the group. She explained that in March it was determined by the Co-Chairs of the CCWG that the Workstream II issues would be worked on by different groups and she was requested to work on one of them. She explained that the group is looking at different issues of diversity and identifying further issues that should be researched. They will provide a report during ICANN 56 and determine how the work shall proceed. The details will be preformed by the CCWG, but this group is forming the framework.

The Chair saw no issue with FA’s work with the group. He was concerned with the WG not ending, as scopes sometimes seemed to change. He cautioned her to not be caught up in work that should not continue. FA agreed, stating that she appreciated the Chair’s support and any ideas from the AC were welcome.

RP joined at this time (12:59 UTC).

5. Reports.

• ARIN 37. JSc provided an update on ARIN-region policies and proposals discussed at the meeting; and, polices that were subsequently ratified by the ARIN Board. The Chair asked if there were any potential globally coordinated policies. JSc stated there were not. The Chair thanked him for the update.

• LACNIC 25. RP apologized for his delay in joining the meeting. He provided an update on proposals discussed at the meeting to include discussions on IPv6. The proposal to change the maximum limit to end users – it is currently at a /32 – and the proposal was to change it to no maximum limit. Therefore, ISPs and end-users could request as much space as they could justify. It was approved. Creating a new category of ISPs was also discussed at LACNIC 25. The Chair thanked him for the update.

• RIPE 72. NN provided an update and stated there was a report on the RIPE website. She provided a brief overview of RIPE-region policies discussed at the meeting. She also discussed the issue of multiple LIR accounts, and that the RIPE Board had banned that option. However the ban was then suspended due to database registration accuracy; and, because it was difficult to investigate the underlying mechanisms behind each LIR. The suspension was approved, and the ban has been lifted. The Chair asked if there were any potential globally coordinated policies. It was determined that there were not. The Chair thanked her for the update.

JS asked if there was any desire in the RIPE community to allow multiple LIRs, but to fix the policy so that a /21 was available legal organizations, instead of the LIRs. NN stated that could be approached in different ways.

JSc asked if she knew if it would be addressed in policy or outside of policy? NN had no information to provide an answer. She stated there was discussion about limiting allocations per entity.

It was noted AFRINIC would have a report posted next week.

• Other Reports. FY provided a report on the ICANN working groups with which she was involved, and trainings provided at the next ICANN meeting.

6. ICANN Board Election Update.

The Chair indicated, as noted earlier, that this year’s participants would need to drop off, or the AC could have this discussion offline. He believed the topic of the procedures could be discussed, as well as lessons learned. He stated that ICANN Board Election Procedures had a clause preventing current candidates who are AC members from participating in Board election discussions and in the elections. He asked, “What about the ones who did not make it into the run off election?” They are no longer candidates. But that might not be fair if they didn’t participate up to that point, and they would need the election materials made available to them to be informed. So, in that regard, is that something we want to allow to occur? The procedures are not clear.

NN stated that since the process had not ended, she did not feel comfortable discussing the topic, even if it was a procedural matter, as there may be sensitivity around it. She stated that she was happy to discuss it after October, but felt the need to excuse herself at this point.

JSc suggested tabling the discussion until after the announcement of the new Board member, and the end of the election process. JSw believed that was the right thing to do. JSc noted the discussion could be had, but not with candidates present. JSw believed it was important to wait until all were able to participate, and JSc agreed.

The Chair tabled the discussion. JSc suggested discussing it before the ASO AC face-to-face meeting, if possible. The Chair stated it could be discussed after process is concluded on the AC’s list, but before the face-to-face meeting.

7. Any Other Business.

The Chair called for any other business. There were no comments.

8. Adjournment.

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 1:16 UTC. HG moved to adjourn, seconded by JSw. The meeting adjourned with no objections.

Last modified on 29/01/2020