ASO AC 12 November 2014


ASO AC Attendees


Fiona Asonga, FA
Alan Barrett, AB (Vice Chair)
Douglas Onyango, DO


Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Aftab Siddiqui, AS


Louie Lee, LL (Chair)
Jason Schiller, JS
Ron da Silva, RS


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


Wilfried Woeber, WW
Dmitry Kohmanyuk, DK


Einar Bohlin, EB – ARIN
Barbara Roseman – ICANN
Carlos Reyes – ICANN
Selina Harrington – ICANN
Ernest Byaruhanga – AFRINIC
Kuo Wei Wu – ICANN
Laureana Pavon – LACNIC
Gianina Pensky – LACNIC
Izumi Okutani, IO – JPNIC


German Valdez, GV – NRO
Suzanne Taylor Muzzin, STM – RIPE NCC (Scribe)


Filiz Yilmaz, FY
Naresh Ajwani, NA (Vice Chair)


1. Welcome
2. Agenda Bashing
3. Approval of Minutes
a) September 3rd 2014
4. Review Open Actions
5. ICANN Accountability WG
6. ASO December Meeting
7. RIR Reports
a) APNIC 38
b) ARIN 34
c) LACNIC 22
d) RIPE 69
8. ICANN Board Seat 9 Selection Process
9. AOB
10. Adjourn

1. Welcome

GV performed the roll call and quorum was established at 12:03 UTC. LL asked whether Ajay Kumar, the ASO AC member-elect from the APNIC region, was invited to join the teleconference and had been added to the ASO AC mailing list, and GV confirmed that he was added to the list. LL said he would explicitly invite him to the call next time.

2. Agenda Bashing

GV said he had two items to discuss during AOB: the NRO Secretariat transition in 2015 and the ASO AC travel policy for 2015 meetings. LL asked whether Athina Fragkouli or Izumi Okutani from the ICANN Cross Community Working Group charter drafting team would be able to join the call. GV said he received apologies from Athina for not being able to attend and that he would try to contact Izumi.

3. Approval of Minutes

a) September 3rd 2014

TF said that the order of the August and September meeting minutes should be switched on the website, as the August minutes are listed first. TF put forth a motion to approve the September 3rd minutes and AS seconded the motion. There were no oppositions or abstentions and the motion passed.

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.

4. Review Open Actions

Action Item 140903-01: GV to remove the draft status from the August 6th minutes.
Status: Closed.

Action Item 140903-02: GV to send the revised schedule for the ICANN Board selection to the ASO AC mailing list.
Status: Closed.

5. ICANN Accountability WG

IO gave some background on the ICANN accountability discussion and developments. IO explained that she and Athina Fragkouli from the RIPE NCC have been working as part of the charter drafting team for the ICANN Cross Community Working Group (CCWG), which will look at ICANN accountability. She said that, since the NTIA announcement about the IANA stewardship transition, there have been concerns within the community that not having a contract with the NTIA could mean there is no check in place in terms of keeping ICANN neutral.

IO said that Larry Strickland from the NTIA said it’s very important to address this issue before the IANA stewardship proposal has been submitted. She said the CCWG will include stakeholders from across the supporting organizations, including the ASO.

IO said another concern is that many community members feel there are wider concerns beyond the IANA transition that need to be addressed, but that it would take much longer than the planned proposal timeline in order to address all these other issues. As a result, she said, the drafting team has defined two work streams: work stream 1, which relates to issues which should be addressed before IANA stewardship transition, and work stream 2, which relates to wider ICANN accountability issues.

IO said the drafting team has drafted a charter, which was shared with the ASO AC mailing list on November 6th and is also available on the ICANN website.

LL thanked IO for the background and asked whether the NTIA expects the proposal to be submitted in September 2015, when the ICANN contract is up for renewal, or whether it will be submitted ahead of this deadline in order to give the community a chance to make revisions. IO said that it should be submitted at the same time as the IANA stewardship proposal and that she believes the goal is to have it ready by July 2015.

IO added that she didn’t think the NTIA would evaluate the ICANN accountability proposal, and would not expect all of the details to be completed by September 2015. She added that the NTIA contract could be extended beyond September 2015, and that the NTIA’s administration is in place until January 2017.

IO continued that she and Athina wanted to make it clear in the draft charter that work stream 1, which must be in line with the proposal timeline, isn’t so broad that it would end up delaying the IANA proposal, and that the charter doesn’t interfere with the work that the RIRs have already done in defining the way in which ICANN accountability issues affect them. She said this is laid out in the “Goals & Objectives” section of the charter.

IO also said that the draft charter stipulates that, while all the major issues relating to the IANA stewardship transition should be identified before the proposal deadline in September 2015, not all issues need to have been addressed by that time. She also said that anything already being considered by the IETF or the RIRs would be beyond the scope of the CCWG. She said this point is addressed in the “Scope” section of the draft charter.

AS asked for clarification about how the ICANN Accountability Working Group is different from the Cross Community Working Group and which would be responsible for taking over work stream 2.

IO responded that the CCWG will try to address any issues relating directly to IANA’s operation and that the ICANN Accountability Working Group will look more at ICANN’s broader operations. She said there would be close collaboration between the groups to ensure there wasn’t overlap between them.

IO said that after the charter was published, there was a request to increase the maximum number of representatives from the ICANN supporting organizations on the CCWG from five to seven. LL asked whether this is to accommodate representatives from the GNSO. IO responded that this is indeed the case, and that the GNSO believes that five representatives are not enough to accommodate all the smaller groups within the GNSO.

LL said he thinks the ASO AC should expect to include two to three representatives. JS asked whether IO felt that two or three representatives would be sufficient, and IO responded that might be sufficient if those people are very vocal and able to push back, because there are some people who want to expand the scope of work stream 1.

LL said they could make sure the numbers community’s ideas are represented in the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) as well, but that it might be good to push for more representation on the CCWG. IO reiterated that it would be nice to have some support in helping her and Athina limit the scope of work stream 1.

LL asked whether everyone received a copy of the draft charter, and IO repeated that she believed a copy was sent to the ASO AC mailing list on November 6th. LL said that not everyone received a copy and IO asked where she could send it. AS then confirmed that he saw the charter on the ASO AC mailing list and that everyone else should have received it there as well.

LL asked everyone for their opinions about the draft charter and whether anyone felt comfortable in proposing a motion to support it. FA said (via chat) that she would be happy to get involved in the CCWG.

WW asked whether it would be useful to simply increase their number of representatives from two to three, since FA is interested in being involved, and whether there is any formal process around that. LL said he would like to submit candidates to the NRO EC before submitting the final list to the CCWG. IO said she intended to continue contributing, and that it might be worth considering having someone from the RIRs, under the NRO umbrella, contribute as well.

LL said there was a call out in the ARIN region to find representatives to be part of the CRISP team to collect all of the RIR community’s feedback. JS said that three representatives had been selected from the ARIN region: Bill Woodcock, John Sweeting and Michael Abejuala.

IO asked the ASO AC to think about who should be on the CCWG and what communities they should come from, and whether a maximum of seven representatives would be effective. JS said he didn’t have an opinion and would leave it up to the charter drafting team to decide what would be useful in terms of the number of representatives.

AB asked for clarification about the rules on how the number of representatives from each community have been decided. LL suggested that the charter drafting team members would likely also be included on the working group itself, and that the GNSO council has a large number of council members with people from different constituencies, so that five to seven representatives seemed like a compromise.

IO clarified that the question about increasing the number of representatives was not limited to just the GNSO but applied to all the supporting organizations.

AS said he thought it should be fine to appoint three representatives from the ASO AC, and that more than three may not be necessary. LL said he agreed that three representatives would be sufficient to get the work done. He added that only those who are really active and involved should participate in the CCWG in order to keep things manageable and efficient. He said he suspects there may not be seven representatives from any one group, and said the working group is also allowing input from outside the group.

IO said the next steps would be for the supporting organizations to review the draft charter and that the ASO would need to define what process it needed to go through in order to formally express its acceptance of it. LL said they can make their recommendation to the NRO EC public, so other ICANN groups can see whether they’re going in the right direction and are in agreement, and that the ASO AC may need a little more time before saying anything formally. He said he hasn’t touched base with the NRO EC yet. He asked whether others felt it would be possible to accept the draft charter during the teleconference.

JS said he would not be comfortable commenting yet, as he hasn’t had a chance to read through the draft charter in detail. AS said he thought everyone needed more time to go through the charter draft before commenting.

LL asked whether it would be okay to postpone the conversation until the next ASO AC meeting in December. IO said that the call for members could not be made until approval was obtained, and that other groups might have to wait for the ASO AC in that case. She said the other supporting organizations were confirming by the end of November. JS suggested discussing it on the ASO AC mailing list for the next seven to ten days and then having an e-vote on the topic before the December meeting.

WW said he wasn’t convinced the ASO AC has a mandate to formally vote on the issue, and that he wants to avoid spending too much time on this just to find out the ASO AC shouldn’t have done so. He asked for advice from the other members about whether the ASO AC has a formal role in this matter. LL said he thought the ASO AC should advise the NRO EC on this and bring up any concerns they have.

AB said he thinks the NRO EC should be the ones to take formal action, but that they would probably appreciate the ASO AC’s advice, so the ASO AC should take several days to discuss things. He also asked about soliciting input from the broader community on the draft charter if it is available publicly, and asked the NRO Secretariat to do so if that is the case.

AB also asked to post the draft charter as a PDF instead of just a Word document. LL asked GV to convert it to a PDF. IO confirmed that the draft is publicly available on the ICANN website. She said she would ask ICANN staff to make it available as a PDF.

IO said that the CCWG is expected to begin working in late November or early December. LL said the ASO AC could discuss the draft charter on the mailing list within the next seven days and send their advice to the NRO EC, or have a formal vote. He said that would give the NRO EC time to give the ASO AC their feedback by the end of the month. LL said he would let the NRO EC know what direction the ASO AC is headed, so there are no surprises.

IO said that the drafting team would appreciate knowing when the ASO AC feels they can approve the draft. LL said he expects that two weeks would be sufficient, but that he isn’t sure about the NRO EC’s timeline. LL suggested that Athina and Paul Rendek could also check on whether the NRO EC is looking at the draft.

GV said he sent a PDF version of the draft to the ASO AC mailing list.

# Izumi Okutani left the teleconference at 13:14 UTC.

6. ASO December Meeting

LL said that the ASO AC is mandated to have an end-of-year meeting in order to compare the 2014 work plan with what was accomplished during the year, as well as looking ahead to 2015. He asked for volunteers to start the review process ahead of the meeting. AB volunteered for the role.

GV reminded everyone that he would also be opening the call for nominations for ASO AC Chair in December, although this is not part of the December meeting.

7. RIR Reports

a) APNIC 38
b) ARIN 34
c) LACNIC 22
d) RIPE 69

LL said he sent an email with a summary of the different policy proposals from the ARIN 34 meeting to the mailing list. TF said he sent an APNIC 38 meeting report to the mailing list. LL asked whether there were any questions about the ARIN 34 report. EB said the report looked good.

RP said he just sent a LACNIC 22 meeting report to the mailing list, and gave a summary of it, including a policy proposal regarding access to ASN assignments being multihomed, which reached consensus and is now in last call. He said another policy proposal involved enhancing the PDP process within LACNIC, and there was some discussion regarding the appeal process. He said the community moved the proposal back to the mailing list for further discussion.

RP said discussions about the IANA stewardship transition process included a presentation explaining the process, another to receive feedback from the community, and a proposal by three community members that included the creation of a multistakeholder council. He said there was also a presentation from the election committee for the LACNIC Board.

LL asked about the policy proposal regarding the need for ASN assignments being multihomed and whether this wasn’t already a requirement in the current policy. RP clarified that the current policy requires the organization to be multihomed, and that the proposal is to allow for a single upstream provider but to require them to run BGP.

AS asked for further explanation regarding the proposal to create a multistakeholder council.

RP said the main concern of the group who made the proposal is that the NTIA is requesting a multistakeholder approach concerning the IANA stewardship tranisition, and that the way in which this would be achieved wasn’t very clear in the APNIC proposal. He said that LACNIC proposed setting up a team to ensure that a multistakeholder approach is achieved. He said the group received feedback that the multistakeholder approach is already ensured, given the RIR structures already in place.

JV, who was one of the three community members who presented the proposal, said the proposal was meant to ensure a multistakeholder approach, but that it was just a proposal and that it didn’t include details about how this could be achieved. He continued (via chat) that the proposal was meant to ensure the involvement of all stakeholders in the IANA oversight process, and that the LACNIC CRISP team will continue to develop the idea to present it to the global CRISP team.

LL asked for a RIPE 69 meeting report at the December meeting, unless anyone sent a meeting report on the mailing list before that time.

# Kuo Wu left the teleconference at 13:32 UTC.

8. ICANN Board Seat 9 Selection Process

LL said that the call for nominations has gone out and that nominations are sent to the NRO Secretariat. GV confirmed this and said that RIR staff have passed on the call to their communities. He said it would be good to discuss the formation of the review committees during the December meeting.

LL agreed to discuss this during the December meeting, and asked everyone to consider being on the qualifications and interview committees. AB suggested appointing the committees now, and then making adjustments in January if needed, given new appointments to the ASO AC. AB confirmed that he will be reappointed to the ASO AC until the end of 2015. WW also confirmed (via chat) that he will remain for another term as well.

AB said he volunteered to be on one of the committees and asked for clarification about the two. GV said that there is the interview committee and the qualification review committee, and that typically they are made up of the same people but that they are formally two different committees. AB suggested it made sense to appoint both committees now, but LL suggested appointing the first (the qualification review committee) first.

AS volunteered (via chat), WW volunteered (via chat), FA volunteered (via chat), RS said (via chat) he accepted a nomination and so would need to recuse, FA then withdrew since AB had already volunteered from the AFRINIC region. LL asked whether FA or AB wanted to participate, and they decided that FA would be the AFRINIC representative. JS said he would be happy to represent ARIN if LL was too busy, and LL said that was fine. RP said he was checking with JV about who would volunteer, and that RP would volunteer for the LACNIC region.

LL asked for a motion to appoint AS, WW, FA, JS and RP as the members of the qualifications review committee on behalf of the ASO AC. AB put forth the motion and TF seconded. There were no oppositions, RS and WW abstained, and the motion passed.

9. AOB

GV asked about the ASO AC travel policy for meetings in 2015. He stated that the current policy is for the NRO EC to support one representative from each region to attend two meetings, in addition to the Chair, and full support for all members to attend the face-to-face meeting. He said the first ICANN Meeting in 2015 would be in February in Singapore next year, which is very early in the year. He said that normally travel plans would be discussed in January, but that he worries this will be too late to accommodate people who want to travel to Singapore in February. He suggested starting the discussion about who would travel to which meetings in 2015 on the mailing list, and would contact the (known) new ASO AC members as well.

LL said he thought that was a good idea, and that if Singapore is too early to have a face-to-face meeting, then they could discuss the possibility of having it during the June ICANN meeting, which would likely be in Mexico.

WW asked whether the June meeting would be too late to make the selection for the ICANN Board seat. GV confirmed this would be too late, and LL said they were considering doing this during the IETF Meeting in March, which will take place in Dallas, U.S. WW said the timing and location should be checked with the candidates.

The next topic GV discussed was the transition of the NRO Secretariat role from the RIPE NCC to LACNIC on December 1st. He said that the transition is already underway and that preparations are being made regarding the website and minute taking, etc. LL thanked the RIPE NCC staff for their work and welcomed the LACNIC staff into their new role.

RP said they received an email from Adiel Akplogan from AFRINIC requesting collaboration on writing an article for the OECD technical group. He said the topic is economic reasons to implement IPv6, and the group has until November 25th to send them something. LL said the request originally came from ISOC, which LL forwarded to Adiel. He asked whether the ASO AC wanted to be involved and asked for follow-up on the mailing list.

WW said he was a little puzzled by the article’s focus in assuming that IPv6 will be financially advantageous over IPv4, which is not the case in the short- or mid-term. He said the focus seemed to miss the point that IPv6 is needed because of the lack of IPv4. LL said he thought the publication has a particular point of view that he wasn’t sure anyone on the ASO AC was willing to support. He asked for further discussion on the mailing list.

10. Adjourn

LL asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. WW put forth the motion and TF seconded. There were no objections or abstentions and the motion passed. The teleconference ended at 14:03 UTC.

Action Items

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.

Last modified on 29/01/2020