ASO AC Teleconference 7 May 2007

AC Attendees:

• Sebastian Bellagamba (SB), Chair
• Sanford H. George (SG)
• Martin Hannigan (MH)
• Hans Petter Holen (HPH)
• Toshiyuki Hosaka (TH)
• Jean Robert Hountomey (JRH)
• Kenny Huang (KH)
• Francisco Obispo (FO)
• Hartmut Glaser (HG)
• Dave Wilson (DW)
• Wilfried Woeber (WW)

Secretariat:

• Samantha Dickinson, Recording Secretary – APNIC

Observers:

• Hisham Rojoa (HR) – AfriNIC
• Donna McLaren (DM) – APNIC
• Son Tran (ST) – APNIC
• Gerard Ross (GR) – APNIC
• Einar Bohlin (EB) – ARIN
• Leslie Nobile (LN) – ARIN
• Raymond Plzak (RP) – ARIN
• Raimundo Beca (RB) – ICANN
• Bart Boswinkel (BB) – ICANN
• Olof Nording (ON) – ICANN
• Leo Vegoda (LV) – IANA/ICANN
• German Valdex (GV) – LACNIC
• Axel Pawlik (AP) – RIPE NCC
• Filiz Yilmaz (FY) – RIPE NCC

Apologies:

• Louis Lee (LL)

Absent:

• Ali Badiel (AB)
• Alan Barrett
• HJ Kwon (HJK)

Draft agenda

1. Welcome
2. Agenda review
3. Final update on ICANN Board selection process
4. Publication of documents
   1. All personal work not required by the process
      • Tracker sheet
      • Questionnaire document
   2. Interview responses written
   3. Interview responses oral and documented
   4. The “bias” email thread.
   5. Letter to ICANN Secretary advising of appointment
   6. Workshop notes from Puerto Rico
   7. Other documents that may be useful to the public
5. AC workshop in ICANN Puerto Rico
6. Any other business
   1. ARIN XIX report
   2. AfriNIC-6 report
   3. Global policies presented in some regions
7. Adjournment

1. Welcome

   The Chair called the meeting to order at 22:30 UTC, noting the presence of a quorum.

2. Agenda review

   The following issues were added to the AOB:

   • ARIN XIX report
   • AfriNIC-6 report
   • Global policies presented in some regions

3. Final update on ICANN Board selection process

   The Chair noted that the process had concluded with the election of Raimundo Beca. The Chair stated that emails had been sent to the selected nominee and the nominees not selected. He noted that the emails to the non-selected nominees included a recommendation to send their CVs to the ICANN Nominating Committee.

   GR confirmed that a notice of the election results had been sent to ICANN.

   The Chair stated that the only remaining action was to publish the election results on the ASO website.

   GR asked the Chair if the number of votes received by each candidate should be published. The Chair said yes.

   MH asked whether it stated in the election procedure document that the vote count should be published or, alternatively, just the name of successful candidate.

   DW stated that section 7.4.5 of version 1.1 of the document required that the total number of votes received by all candidates be published.

   HG asked if the selected nominee had formally accepted. The Chair answered that the nominee had replied.

   The Chair congratulated Raimundo, present on the call, on his selection.

4. Publication of documents

   The Chair asked for comments on the documents listed under this agenda item.

   DW suggested that it seemed odd to publish some of the “bias” email thread but not all of the thread.

   MH stated that the thread could have influenced some of the vote, so the AC needed to think about publishing some of it for the sake of transparency. MH stated he was happy if the thread was not published as long as there was a vote on the issue.

   1. All personal work not required by the process

      • Tracker sheet
      • Questionnaire document

      WW stated that his feeling was that the tracker sheet and questionnaire were internal coordination tools and would not add any information for the community at large.

      MH agreed that the documents were internal, just as the other documents on the list for agenda item 4 were also internal. However, he felt that publishing the documents would maintain transparency.

      WW moved the following motion: “The ASO AC to publish the documents listed in item 4.a. of the agenda, which includes the tracker document and questionnaire.” MH seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. KH, TH, MH, SG, HG, FO, DW, HPH, and WW voted yes; SB and JRH voted no.

   2. Interview responses written

      MH suggested a motion to publish the candidates’ answers to the questionnaire with the candidates permission. He explained that since the candidates weren’t told that the questionnaires may be published before they had completed them, it was necessary to seek the candidates’ permission before the questionnaires could be published.

      RP asked what would happen if a candidate declined to have their questionnaire answers published. He asked if it would be noted on the website that the candidate had declined.

      HPH suggested an alternative motion: that the ASO AC not publish the interview responses based on the fact that the AC had not asked the candidate’s permission in advance.

      HG asked RP what problems could arise if the ASO AC published on the website the names of candidates that declined to have their interview published.

      RP explained that the issue was public perception. He noted that people might think the candidates who declined to have their questionnaires published had something to hide.

      MH suggested a motion to publish the candidate questionnaires with the candidates’ consent and not to have statements noting any candidates that declined to have their questionnaires published.

      RP suggested that the public would still be able to work out who had not consented to be published.

      MH moved the following motion: “The ASO AC to publish the candidate questionnaires with the candidates’ consent and not to state any candidates that had declined to have their questionnaires published.” The motion died for lack of a second.

      HPH withdrew his suggested motion.

      WW asked if the fact that no motion was seconded on item 4.b. of the agenda would mean that the interview responses would not be published. MH answered in the affirmative.

   3. Interview responses oral and documented

      MH moved the following motion: “The ASO AC to publish documentation of the oral interviews with interviewees with the interviewees’ consent”. MH noted that he had spoken to some of the interviewees, and those interviewees were happy to have their interviews published. The motion died for lack of a second.

   4. The “bias” email thread.

      MH noted that the Chair had raised a serious issue on the AC-COORD mailing list and that it should be documented publicly for transparency.

      MH suggested a motion to publish the thread related to the question of the process, the bias question, in full, on the website.

      The Chair disagreed that he had questioned the process.

      MH noted that many observers in the ASO AC meetings did not have non-disclosure agreements and would be able to report on the discussions that had taken place at the Puerto Rico meeting and on the mailing list. MH suggested that by publishing the email thread, it would make the issue transparent.

      MH noted that the issue raised in the email thread had subsequently been resolved, and that there had been agreement that there had been no bias, but he stated that he would like the discussion made public to maintain transparency.

      MH stated that if the ASO AC was willing to publish the Puerto Rico workshop notes, he would be willing to withdraw this motion as his primary concern was making the discussion made public, whether that be through the email thread or the workshop notes.

      WW stated that his view was that anything exchanged on the AC-COORD mailing list was for ASO or ASO AC internal communication. Therefore he would object to disclosing anything discussed on the AC-COORD mailing list.

      WW suggested that If there were issues raised on AC-COORD that had public interest, then those discussions should be taken to a public mailing list. He noted that it would be inappropriate to publish private emails because people might use language differently in public and private spheres.

      MH moved a motion to suspending any action on agenda item 4.d until a decision was made on agenda item 4.f. WW seconded the motion.

   5. Letter to ICANN Secretary advising of appointment

      MH moved the following motion: “The ASO AC to publish the letter to ICANN advising of ICANN of the appointment of the nominated ICANN Board candidate.” WW seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. The motion was unanimously carried by all present.

   6. Workshop notes from Puerto Rico

      MH asked if the ASO AC had published workshop notes before. HPH noted that workshop notes had been published in the past in order to be transparent.

      GR stated that there were five sets of workshop notes published on the ASO website.

      HPH noted that he had assumed that the notes from Puerto Rico would be made public.

      HG stated that during the Puerto Rico meeting, he had objected to the notes being published, as the election had not yet ended. However, as the election had now concluded, HG was happy for the notes to be published.

      MH moved the following motion: “The ASO AC to publish the minutes from the Puerto Rico workshop”. HG seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. JRH, KH, TH, MH, SG, SB, HG, FO, and DW voted yes; HPH and WW abstained, noting that in principle they supported the motion, but since they had not attended the Puerto Rico meeting, they were abstaining.

      MH withdrew the motion on the table for agenda item 4.e. as the workshop notes had now been approval for publication.

   7. Other documents that may be useful to the public

      HG asked MH if the PowerPoint slides MH had prepared about the selection process should be made public.

      MH told HG he was free to make a motion to make the slides public.

      HG stated that he thought it was important to make public all the work involved in the process.

      MH noted that the slides did not correlate with the minutes of the period. He thought that this could create questions. He noted that the ASO AC had redacted a significant portion of the minutes related to that meeting, so that document was not referenced in the minutes. WW suggested that if the ASO AC were to make the slides public, some minor typos in the slides should be corrected before publication.

      MH agreed and volunteered to make the corrections.

      The Chair noted that it would be possible to approve documents to be published on the ASO website at the following AC meeting.

      MH suggested that as long as there was no large contextual change to a document, it was possible for the ASO AC to vote on the slides at the current meeting and make minor edits before it was published. WW stated that it would make sense to publish all the documents at the same time as people would not expect documents to be published over a period of time.

      MH moved the following motion: “The ASO AC to publish the initial presentation by the Nominations Committee to the ASO AC”. HG seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. The motion was unanimously carried by all present.

      GR asked for clarification on the documents referred to in agenda item 4.a. He asked if the AC was referring to the blank interview questionnaire document. MH answered yes.

      GR asked if the background certification document was also included in the documents referred to in agenda item 4.a. MH stated that the background certification document would form part of agenda item 4.e., not 4.a.

      MH clarified that the background certification document was a statement that was completed by nominees about their moral and criminal backgrounds.

      MH moved the following motion: “The ASO AC to publish a blank background certification document on the ASO AC website. WW seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. KH, TH, MH, SG, SB, HG, FO, DW, HPH and WW voted yes; JRH abstained.

      The Chair asked if there were any other documents that AC members thought should be published. There were none.

5. ICANN workshop in Puerto Rico meeting

   The Chair asked if the AC members would agree to hold another ASO AC workshop at the upcoming ICANN meeting in Puerto Rico.

   WW stated that he thought the viability of a workshop would depend on how many AC members would be attending the ICANN meeting and would be able to participate in the workshop preparation.

   MH suggested it might be better to develop a draft agenda before deciding whether to have the meeting.

   MH noted that the agenda of the AC workshop at the last ICANN meeting was in question until the last few weeks before the meeting. He suggested that the AC should develop an agenda for a potential workshop well in advance so ICANN preparations by staff can be more concrete.

   The Chair called for volunteers to produce the agenda.

   HG suggested that the Chair and Co-chairs should create an agenda proposal and send it to the mailing list within the next week to ten days.

   HPH stated that he would be happy to work on the agenda.

   MH asked ICANN representatives about how much notification ICANN would need to accommodate the workshop. BB stated that notification would be appreciated as soon as possible. He noted that if it were to be a smaller workshop, then less notice would be needed. However, if the workshop was larger, more notice would be needed to find an appropriate room.

   HG suggested asking ICANN for a room that could accommodate 50 people. If only 20 or 30 people go to the workshop, it would not matter that some of the seats were empty.

   HPH suggested organising the workshop as soon as possible to avoid clashing with other address-related meetings at ICANN.

   HPH suggested including a global policy update at the workshop.

   BB stated that it would be possible to inform Diane of the AC’s interest informally straight away. However, if the ASO AC could create an agenda quickly, it would help ICANN cater for it better.

   The Chair summarised that the workshop would be held for approximately 50 people, should not coincide with other ICANN sessions related to addressing issues, and include discussion on global policies.

   RP asked if AC members from the ARIN region would be attending the ICANN meeting.

   MH stated that at least one ARIN representative from the AC would be attending.

   SG stated that he would be attending. HG stated that he would be attending as well.

   The Chair noted that it appeared that at least four people would be attending, so a workshop was viable.

   MH asked who would be responsible for organising the workshop from end to end. The Chair stated that he would take joint responsibility with the Secretariat.

6. Any other business

   1. ARIN XIX report

      SG summarised the outcomes of the policy proposals discussed at the ARINX XIX meeting:

      2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria

      Returned to author for revision

      2007-1: Reinstatement of PGP Authentication Method

      Moved to last call

      2007-2: Documentation of the Mail-From Authentication Method

      Moved to last call

      2007-3: Documentation of the X.509 Authentication Method

      Moved to last call

      2007-4: Changes to IPv6 policy – removal of “interim” consideration

      Moved to last call

      2007-5: Changes to IPv6 policy – removal of “multiple /48” justification

      Abandoned

      2007-6: IPv4 PI minimum size change

      Abandoned

      2007-7: Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/ Assignments

      Moved to last call

      2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications

      Moved to last call

      2007-9: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy

      Moved to last call

      2007-10: End Site Immediate Need Policy

      Abandoned

      2007-11: Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy

      Moved to last call

      2007-12: IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal

      Abandoned with acknowledgement that the subject of the proposal still needed to be examined.

      The Chair thanked ARIN for hosting the ASO AC meeting in Puerto Rico.

      RP asked SG to comment on the two round tables held at the ARIN meeting.

      SG asked RP to report on the round tables.

      RP reported that two round tables had been held:

      • Legacy address space (1.5 hours)
      • IPv4 sunset and IPv6 adoption (2.5 hours)

      RP stated that transcripts, executive summaries, and webcasts were available on the ARIN website for these sessions.

      RP noted that a new legacy space policy proposal had been submitted in the wake of the legacy address space round table.

      RP noted that no new proposals had been submitted since the IPv4 sunset and IPv6 adoption round table.

   2. AfriNIC-6 report

      JRH reported that there had been an election for a new AC member to fill the position to be vacated by Ali Badiel in December 2007.

      JRH reported that three policy proposals discussed at the AfriNIC meeting had reached consensus and have been returned to the mailing list for final comments:

      • IPv6 PI Assignment for End Sites
      • Proposal to change the allocation and assignment period to 12 months
      • IPv6 HD Ratio Change

   3. Global policies presented in some regions

      The Chair reminded AC members that when a new global policy proposal is presented in one of the five RIR regions, a member of the AC from that region should formally notify the AC Chair of the proposal.

      The Chair noted that the next AC meeting agenda would include an item on global policy proposal updates.

      The Chair asked if there was any other business.

      GR notified the AC that the current May meeting would be his last ASO meeting, as he was leaving APNIC.

      MH moved the following motion: “The ASO AC formally thanks Gerard for his service to the ASO”. WW seconded the motion.

      The Chair thanked GR for his work and wished him the best for the future.

7. Adjournment

   The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 23:30 UTC. HG moved to adjourn. HP seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously.

Last modified on 29/01/2020