ASO AC Teleconference 5 November 2009

AC Attendees:

Alan Barrett, AB : AfriNIC
Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH : AfriNIC
Kenny Huang, KH : APNIC
Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF : APNIC
Naresh Ajwani, NA : APNIC
Hartmut Glaser, HG : LACNIC
Sebastian Bellagamba, SB : LACNIC
Louis Lee, LL : ARIN (Chair)
Jason Schiller, JS : ARIN
Martin Hannigan, MH : ARIN
Hans Petter Holen, HPH : RIPE
Dave Wilson, DW : RIPE
Wilfried Woeber, WW : RIPE

Secretariat:

Chris Buckridge, CB : RIPE NCC
Susannah Gray, SG : RIPE NCC

Observers:

Ray Plzak, RP : ICANN
Leo Vegoda, LV :ICANN
Raimundo Beca RB : ICANN
Ernest Byaruhanga EBy : AfriNIC
German Valdez, GV, APNIC
Einar Bohlin EB : ARIN
Nate Davies, ND : ARIN
Ricardo Patera, RPa : LACNIC
Axel Pawlik, AP : RIPE NCC

Absent:

Vincent Ngundi, VN : AfriNIC
Francisco Obispo, FO : LACNIC

Draft Agenda

Welcome
Agenda review
Approval of the minutes from the 3 September 2009 teleconference
Approval of the minutes from the 1 October 2009 teleconference
Review of open action items
ICANN Board Election Process Committee update
ICANN Board Nominations
Communications and Procedures Committee update
Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries
IANA Policy for Allocation of ASNs to RIRs
RIR Updates – APNIC 28, RIPE 59, ARIN XXIV
AOB
Adjournment

Open action items:
Action item 1211-01: The Chair to send a message to the NRO EC Chair with a list of items pending a response from the EC.

Action item 0209-04: WW to work on draft charter for the Communications and Procedures Committee and present it to the ASO AC.

Action item 0409-02: The Communications and Procedures Committee to investigate providing a way for external organisations to easily link to the ASO website.

Action item 0909-01: Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 6 August 2009 meeting from draft.

1. Welcome

The Chair opened the meeting at 13:13 UTC. He welcomed the attendees and noted that there was a high number of participants on the call.

2. Agenda review

LL went through the agenda and added one item:

a. Discuss where a face-to-face meeting might be held so that the NRO can budget accordingly.

3. Approval of the minutes from the 3 September 2009 teleconference

LL explained that the 3 September teleconference was adjourned and that the minutes were very short.

DW proposed the motion “The ASO AC approves the minutes of the 3 September teleconference”. The motion was seconded by SB and there were none opposed. The motion passed.

Action item 1109-01: Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 3 September 2009 meeting from draft.

4. Approval of the minutes from the 1 October 2009 teleconference

SB proposed the motion “The ASO AC approves the minutes of the 1 October teleconference”. The motion was seconded by AB and there were none opposed. The motion carried.

Action item 1109-02: Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 1 October 2009 meeting from draft.

5. Review of open action items

The Chair said he would review only those action items that are not part of the agenda elsewhere:

Action item 1211-01: The Chair to send a message to the NRO EC Chair with a list of items pending a response from the EC.

The Chair had no update on this action item.

Action item 0909-01: Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 6 August 2009 meeting from draft.

This has been completed and the Chair declared the item closed.

6. ICANN Board Election Process Committee update

LL noted that HPH was leading the committee and asked him to provide an update on current actions and recommendations.

HPH apologised for not completing the action.

LL asked if he had a timeline recommendation or if anyone could confirm that the schedule for the upcoming process posted by DW was accurate.

HPH said that he believed it was accurate and mentioned that this would be discussed in the next agenda item.

LL responded that the next agenda item would be about the nominations and said that in order to move on without any recommendations for changes, the ASO AC should, for the upcoming year, continue with process that has already been posted.

HPH gave a short summary of the meeting that the ICANN Board Election Process Committee had held and said that when the committee had looked at the timeline, it didn’t see how it would be possible to suggest changes and have them approved by the ASO AC and the NRO EC before the actual election process had to begin. He added that the committee did have some suggestions on how to improve the existing process and that there were some suggestions to change definitions and texts. He said that there were also some suggestions on how we could change the process in the future. He noted that he would send them to the list later this week.

LL agreed that the ASO AC could not make formal changes at this point as, according the to timeline that DW posted, the election process should kick off within the next couple of weeks.

7. ICANN Board Nominations

LL asked DW to give an overview of the timeline in the current procedure.

DW explained that he had used a calendar to plot the dates for the current procedure and that he had received no confirmation about it. He said that his understanding of version 1.1. of the nominations procedure was that the Nominations Phase is 60 days, the Comments Phase is 30 days, the Interview Phase was 30 days and the Selection Phase is 14 days. He continued that if these phases run consecutively and if there are no gaps between them and if we have to have the Selection Phase completed no later than 1 April 2010, then Nomination Phase must begin on 18 November 2009. He added that there was no allowance for Christmas holidays.

LL thanked DW and asked for comments.

JS asked DW to repeat the phases, which he did, and then give an overview of the proposed dates. DW said if the Nominations Phase started on 18 November, the Comments Phase would start on 18 January, the Interview Phase would end mid-March and the Selection Phase would begin mid-March.

[RB disconnected at 13:25 UTC]

LL said that in previous years, the ASO AC has formed a committee to put together a timeline, work with the Secretariat to make announcements, to process the candidates and present them to the ASO AC. He said that then this committee had morphed into one that conducted the interviews for three chosen candidates and then presented the interview results to the AC. He said in the past the ASO AC has had a face-to-face meeting to conduct the interviews where most of AC members were present. He said if the ASO AC continued on as it has done so, the ASO AC should form the committee now.

[NA disconnected at 13:29 UTC].

The Chair asked the Secretariat to make a roll call because there were some problems with the phone lines. Thirteen members were still on the call and the Chair declared that there was still quorum and that the call should continue.

[NA reconnected at 13:33 UTC].

The Chair called for a committee to be formed unless there were any objections. No one voiced any objections.

SB, MH, NA, JRH and DW volunteered.

AB said that he also volunteered if it was acceptable for two people from the AfriNIC region to be on the committee.

LL said that NA had pointed out last year that it was unclear whether the committee had to consist of one, and only one, person from each region or at least one person from each region.

NA said that his understanding was that it was only one from each region.

HPH agreed with NA and added that the way the procedure is written now is that there should be one from each region.

JS asked if, as there were two volunteers from a given region, the procedure needs to be changed.

HPH said maybe, but they had to stick with the procedure as it is written for now.

AB withdrew his offer.

LL confirmed that the committee would be made up of SB, MH, NA, JH, and DW and added that he thought it would be fine for other people to help.

MH suggested that the Chair calls for observers and clearly identify them and let those people be “helpers”.

HPH stated that he had another proposal. He suggested that they form the committee from one person from each region according to the procedures and, rather than having observers, the committee should involve the rest of ASO AC as much as needed.

MH said that the Nom Com mailing list is open so the members of the ASO AC can involve themselves. He said if people want to make comments, they should clearly identify themselves as observers so there are no questions over adherence to the procedures.

NA seconded this suggestion.

HPH commented that what he had in mind was to report frequently to the ASO AC as a whole and make sure the necessary discussions are held in the plenary rather than with the subset, which may not be valid.

MH agreed with HPH and said that there should be a report on every ASO AC call as a minimum.

The Chair asked for any other comments. There were none. He asked for a motion to the name the five volunteers – SB, MH, NA, JH, DW – as committee members.

HG proposed the motion “The nominations committee will consist of SB, MH, NA, JRH and DW”. The motion was seconded by HPH and there were no oppositions. The motion carried.

Action item 1109-03: Secretariat to set up the Nom Com mailing list so that all AC members are subscribed to it but only the five volunteers – SB, MH, NA, JRH, DW – receive messages. All other members should have access to the online archives. All ASO AC members can post to the list if they have input.

JS asked the Chair if he was going to call for observers and asked if they would be added as active recipients on the list.

The Chair asked the participants if they wanted active observers on the list.

MH proposed that the ASO AC calls for observers and clearly identify each one and give them write access to the list.

The Chair said that he had asked the Secretariat to give write access to everyone.

JS said that the Chair had asked for everyone on the ASO AC to have access to archives. He said there could be outside observers that might need write access.

MH clarified that anyone who is going to participate directly and send messages to the Nom Com list is clearly identified as an observer and that the gate is write access to the list.

JS asked if, based on MH’s statement, everyone that is not on the Nom Com but is on the ASO AC list is an observer by default.

MH said that he did not think so and that he was trying to propose that unless a person has write access to the actual Nom Com list, then they are not technically an observer.

JS continued that the reason he posed his previous question was because the Chair had said that all ASO AC members should have write access to the list.

MH responded that this was unclear and that he thought that the Chair had suggested that the ASO AC members had access to the archives only.

The Chair said he had asked for both write access and access to the archives for the ASO AC members but that he could ask for this to be changed.

JS stated that the believed it was important that there was discussion and consensus on this point.

MH said that the alternative is to declare the entire ASO AC as observers.

HPH agreed that this was a good idea but said he was also open to other suggestions. He added that the ASO AC should think about whether the NRO EC also wants to have observers as, in previous years, the NRO EC has voiced a preference for this so it could observe what is going on in the elections.

MH agreed with HPH and added that he though that the ICANN representatives should also be allowed to observe if they so choose.

HPH asked if anyone from ICANN or NRO EC wanted to comment.

AP stated that the NRO EC would like to observe the elections.

RP added that he thought it would be appropriate if the NRO EC, or selected members of the NRO EC, could observe because they are the ones who approve the procedure. He stated that he did not think it appropriate for ICANN to be on the list as it is an internal ASO AC matter. He added that the presence of the NRO EC offers an auditing function but that he thought it more appropriate to have only the ASO AC members deliberate in private without the NRO EC there.

HPH agreed with RP.

The Chair asked for any other comments. There were none. The Chair then asked if there was consensus.

RP asked how many of the participants had a copy of the procedures in front of them. He continued that he believed that there was a lack of clarity last time because the ASO AC members were trying to follow procedures without having them available in front of them. He advised that people make sure they understand what is written before proceeding.

Several participants mentioned that they were looking at the document.

LL again asked for consensus on how the mailing list should be configured and said that all AC members should be subscribed to the Nom Com list so that everyone could view the archives. He said the five committee members – SB, MH, NA, JH, DW – should be able to write to the list and the NRO EC members should be subscribed so that they have access to the archives. He continued that the ASO AC requests that active observers have write access to the list and that they be specifically identified.

The Chair asked for comments. There were none. He then called for active observers to be specifically identified.

RP asked if someone from the committee was looking at the procedures and documenting what has been said during this call to see what deviations were being made from the current procedures and to determine if those deviations should be added to the procedures.

The Chair stated that no one was formally tasked to do this. He then asked for a volunteer to keep track of the changes to the procedure.

HPH asked if the Chair was referring to the ASO AC operating procedures or the selection procedures.

RP commented that the committee should be looking at the processes and procedures and trying to implement them. He continued that at the same time, deviations from procedure are being made and said that, for example, the document does not call for observers but the AC is getting ready to facilitate observers. He stated that someone should note all the deviations made so that the AC has it recorded so that it can decide whether or not this is what it wants to do when it revises these procedures formally instead of relying upon memory.

NA agreed with RP.

HPH also agreed with RP and repeated that his question was whether the discussion concerned the ASO AC operating procedures or the selection procedures.

RP responded that the operating procedures is the ASO AC’s only formal document.

NA asked if HPH could circulate the presentation that he’d been working on to the committee.

HPH explained again that he had unfortunately not had time to complete this yet.

The Chair asked that HPH circulate the presentation to the ac-coord list when he was ready so that all ASO AC members could see it.

MH said that there is no specific need for a separate mailing list and said that he thought there was a difference between administrative operations and following procedure. He said that putting something in place to help follow the procedure is different to following the procedure and if there was confusion he believes that the list should not be established. He added that the Nom Com list was created two or three election cycles ago in order to separate the traffic from the main list and to avoid cluttering anyone’s mail box. He continued that it was not set up to keep anything secret as it has always been open. He said that if there was a problem during the process, the first thing that could be called upon might be non-adherence of procedure and the mailing list will be added to the list of things the ASO AC did not comply with. He concluded that the discussion should centre around whether this list is for administrative purposes or not and, if it’s not, the idea should be abandoned.

NA seconded MH’s statement.

WW explained that, in the past, there were situations where a separate list was consciously installed. He said at time the only people on the list were the ASO AC members and this was to avoid discussions that should not be public outside those mandated to deliberate on the candidates.

RP said he recalled that and he said it was a truism going back to the first election. He said it is only the members who are required to discuss the candidates.

HPH said this related to practices that went back to before the procedures were approved. He said there are procedures on the table but they are adhering to practices formed before the procedures were put in place. He said if prior practice did not confirm with the procedures then they procedures should be what is adhered to.

RP agreed and said any changes should be noted.

MH asked to withdraw his motion.

WW said he agreed with the comments but the procedure does not talk about the tech support infrastructure to get the work done. He said the procedures should not be a roadblock to helping with the work.

RP agreed with WW and said the deviation related to the matter of observers.

WW said there should not be observers.

JS said the procedures don’t say there can’t be observers. He said it was unclear whether the procedures were inclusive or exclusive.

HPH said the procedure is clear. He said the qualification review committee should consist of one member from each region. He said he didn’t see the need for observers. He said if this was needed then they should just involve everyone.

RP said the qualification review committee was formed so in practice very few AC members would look at the qualifications and this would lead to a large discussion on the wider meetings. He said the idea behind the committee was that it would present a report to the wider ASO AC who could then comment on the report. He said all the committee’s supporting documentation would be available.

HPH said in 7.4.4.3 of the operating procedures there was also reference to an interview committee that may or may not be the same committee.

RP said this was a separate committee with a separate task.

NA said the idea of having a committee was to look at aspects of the election committee. He said anyone outside the committee should not comment, just observe and should follow a code of conduct on this matter.

The Chair said all input from the rest of the ASO AC should go to the whole ASO AC rather than just to the committee. He said it’s up to the whole ASO AC to gether information on the candidates and make a choice.

JS said if there are to be observers then the ASO AC needs to clearly define what they can and can’t do.

RP pointed out that at this point the matter being discussed was the qualification review committee and they only look at the candidates nominated and the documents they provide to show they are valid nominees.

JS agreed but said the same questions would come up for the interview committee.

RP said at this stage the initial cut was being talked about and not the Interview Phase. He said issues as the region where the candidate lives and issues like that is what is at issue.

NA agreed with RP and said in the interviews observers were allowed to be present but were not allowed to comment. He said previously the committee formed did the review and the interviews.

RP said the problem last time is that there was not an interview committee set up. He said there was on committee set up at the start and it was let go to the end. He said this did not follow the procedure.

NA agreed with RP on this matter.

The Chair asked if there was consensus that observers were not needed at this stage.

MH said the business of the interview committee should just be conducted on the ac-coord list.

HPH asked that just the qualification review committee be dealt with here and MH said this is what he meant to say.

HPH said the qualification review committee could make a report that can be viewed by all ASO AC members.

The Chair asked if anyone wanted to make a motion and MH asked what was on the table to be decided at this point.

HPH suggested making a motion to follow the procedures as written.

The Chair said this was a good idea and a motion would only be needed if there were to be a deviation from the procedures.

MH asked if there would be a separate mailing list or not.

The Chair asked if there was a motion to set up a separate mailing list and there was none. He said a separate mailing list would therefore not be set up.

JS asked to make sure everyone was in agreement what it meant to follow the procedures in order to avoid issues later on. He said what was decided was to conduct the review with the five members suggested and the discussion of the review will take place on the ac-coord mailing list and people outside those five members will not make comments.

NA said that this was for the Interview Phase.

JS said the question was regarding inside observers from the ac-coord list because anyone on that list might be regarded as being an observer if business is conducted on that mailing list.

NA said those on the review committee would make a report that would be sent to the ac-coord list and it would be there for everyone on the mailing list to see. He said that people could then comment on the report.

HPH said the Secretariat receives nominations and then forwards them to the review committee. He added that if the committee determines they are qualified then their names are published on the ASO website. He said this was the clear task for the nominations review committee.

JS asked if emails would to be forwarded independently to the members of the review committee.

HPH said that is not mentioned in the procedures. He said if it is practical to have a mailing list then he sees no problem with that. He said the complicated issue is whether observers would be added to the list.

DW said he got the sense the idea that the members wanted to follow the procedures as written and technical issues such as mailing lists might be better left to the Secretariat.

HPH made a motion to establish a mailing list for the qualifications review committee so it could conduct its business. He said he was happy to accept modifications to the motion and for the list to be archived, but he did not want to add more members to the list because this would be deviation from the procedures.

[SB disconnected at 14:50 UTC]

NA seconded the motion and suggested concluding this topic.

The Chair called for a roll call vote on the motion. There was discussion on what the motion should be exactly and DW restated it as follows: “To create a mailing list for the qualification review committee and the mailing list archive should be open for viewing by the ASO AC.”

WW supported the modified proposal.

The Chair noted that the five members of the committee and the Secretariat should have write access to the list.

[SB reconnected at 14:56 UTC]

There was a roll call vote. There were 12 in favour and one opposed. JS asked to have his reservations on his yes vote noted. The motion carried.

Action item 1109-04: The Secretariat to create a mail address for the 2010 ICANN Board Nomination and the mailing list archive should be open for viewing by the ASO AC.

JS was asked about the reservation and he said he thought it was very important to document all this and incorporate it into the procedures.

HPH said he would note this and incorporate it into the suggested changes to the procedures.

Action item 1109-05: HPH to incorporate actions carried out by ASO AC in ICANN Board nominations process into report on suggested changes to operating procedures.
HPH noted that the ASO AC members could only suggest changes to the procedure but they had to be approved by the NRO EC.

DW asked if this was a change to procedures rather than a way of implementing current procedures.

HPH said he was making a general comment on what needs to be done to change procedures but he also felt this was not a change to procedures.

JS said it should also be documented in some operational document that is kept current.

[AB disconnected at 14:13 UTC]

HPH proposed to clarify the procedures by putting it in explicitly and JS agreed that this was a good idea.

The Chair asked MH if he would like to explain why he voted no.

MH explained that he didn’t think it was open enough. He said people should go back and read the report that was created after the last election. He said if it was not 100 percent open and it varied from the procedure then it was not a good idea.

HPH asked MH to suggest a way to make it more open and MH said he thought the business should be conducted on the ac-coord list and the procedure should be adhered to. He said a big problem last time was not following the procedure and there were nine to eleven counts of not following the procedure.

WW commented on the technical tools that the established committee is open to receiving mail in their individual mailboxes. He said this is a fact of life and if you insist on everything being done in the open then you will have a case that people will use different communication channels. He said establishing a mailing list was a tool to support the efficient work of the committee. He said for that committee he didn’t see an openness issue. He said establishing the eligibility of candidates and reviewing documentation relating to that should not be done publicly because you have to respect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

HPH said at one point there was an unspoken motion to send to individual members of the committee and he thought this was impractical so he suggested creating the mailing list. He said he suggested that the business of the committee could be done individually or with the whole ASO AC but there were no comments on this. He said he was surprised there was a different suggestion after the vote was conducted.

WW said the formal process with the vote should be respected and there was a very clear vote. He thanked MH for explaining his reasoning but he saw no reason not to respect the vote.

MH agreed with WW and appreciated his candour. He said he had no desire to change the motion. He said he answered a question that was asked of him and he said he continued to disagree and he hoped this was not an attempt to convince him otherwise.

JS agreed with WW’s and MH’s comments and he said there was a need to go a step further and be clear about documenting what is decided here. He said on the previous nominations committee the members were very clear about accepting more than five members on the committee and then this later turned out to be an issue. He said this illustrated why the decisions should be formalised.

WW agreed and suggested formally establishing the composition of the committee before moving on.

[AB reconnected at 14:17 UTC]

DW asked if the nominations review committee was formally selected.

The Secretariat confirmed that the committee was formally selected.

HPH asked if there should be a formal motion to start the process no later than the date mentioned previously.

The Chair agreed.

HG said he would prefer to have a timeline with some official meetings put on the timeline, such as the ICANN Meeting in Nairobi in March 2010. He said this meeting could be used to organise a face-to-face meeting and the interviews could take place just before the ICANN meeting.

DW said the draft timeline he put out saw the process start on the last date he thought possible if everything was to be completed by 1 April 2010. He suggested directing the Secretariat to open nominations and also establishing a formal timeline before end of nominations phase.

HPH said there would need to be a motion to open the nominations period no later than, for instance, 10 November. He said that would give the Secretariat five days to do the work.

DW said if the Secretariat thought that was adequate then he agreed with this.

HG said the term of RB could be interpreted in two ways. He said, according to the ICANN by-laws, normally the candidate placed by the ASO must be in place within six months of the end of the ICANN Meeting the year before. He said the Seoul meeting last week would mean the term ends at the end of April 2010. He said the other interpretation could be that it refers to an election year, which would make it the end of May 2010. He said it was not clear, therefore, whether the term ends in April or May.

WW said the selection should be made well before the formal deadline.

HG said the middle of March should then be the deadline.

HPH said the process should have started a month earlier if that is the case.

HG said he was pushing for that for two or three meetings. He suggested starting the process today or tomorrow.

CB said the Secretariat would need until at least the following Monday to begin the process.

HPH suggested no later than Tuesday and CB said that would be fine.

The Chair asked if there was a motion.

DW proposed the motion that the ASO AC directs the Secretariat to begin the Nomination Phase for the ICANN Board selection process no later than 10 November 2009.

AB suggested it be exactly on 10 November.

MH proposed that the period open with the publishing of the timeline to the mailing list on 10 November.

HPH said this was dangerous because if the timeline were not published then they would not be in compliance.

AB there are several places in the procedures that are not clear but the time periods for the first two phases are explicitly laid out, so the dates for the Nominations Phase and the Comments Phase can be published even if nothing else can be.

JS said the ASO AC could publish that the Interview Phase would take place within 30 days of the end of the Comments Phase.

HPH suggest doing the timeline there and then. He gave the timeline as follows:

There was a discussion over the length of phases in the procedures and the dates that corresponded to these. The following timeline was arrived at:

Nomination Phase – 12 November 2009 to 10 January 2010
Comment Phase – 11 January 2010 to 10 March 2010
Interview Phase – 10 February 2010 to 10 March 2010
- The deadline for return of written questionnaires is 20 February 2010.
- Face-to-face interviews with selected candidates will take place adjacent to the ICANN meeting in Nairobi, Kenya in March 2010.
Selection Phase – 10 March 2010 to 24 March 2010

WW commented that the procedures allowed for the full ASO AC to take part in the interviews if the interviews coincided with a face-to-face meeting. He said this would remove any issues about who was on the interview committee.

HPH agreed with this.

The Chair read the relevant section from the operating procedures and confirmed that WW was correct.

JS suggested avoiding any overlap between interviews and the ICANN Meeting. He said for the last election there was a candidate actively involved in a constituency.

HG said Tuesday and Thursday afternoon were the best days during the ICANN Meeting.

The Chair said candidates could be interviewed at different points on the same day to avoid clashes.

DW asked if this meant there would be interviews on 9 March, the day before the close of the Interview Phase.

HG said this was indeed the case.

The Chair suggested that a good change in procedure would be to avoid calendar days and go with months as the unit of time in the timelines. He asked HPH to note this.

JS agreed that flexibility in the periods would be good, as would flexibility in not have to start one phase the day after the previous phase ends.

MH said he would like to see a Chair on the nominations review committee that was established earlier.

[MH disconnected at 14:56 UTC]

HG asked if there are 10 candidates how should the three to be interviewed in Nairobi be picked.

NA said all interviews have to be either in person or telephonic.

AB said the procedures are clear that there can be no more than three in-person interviews and they must be all either in person or telephone, not a mixture.

HPH asked if it was possible to do telephonic interviews for all candidates and then do in-person interviews for no more than three.

JS said he believed that was correct.

AB said all further interviews have to be conducted in the same manner.

HPH said they would like to do in-person interviews and the ICANN Meeting provides the opportunity to do that so this should be the master plan and if it can’t happen they should revert to telephonic interviews for all candidates. He said this might change when they see the candidates.

DW said this could be nailed down when the number of candidates is known. He added that the Interview Phase ends during the ICANN Meeting so interviews cannot take place after that.

DW proposed the motion that the ASO AC follows the timeline as set out in the minutes. NA seconded the motion.

The Chair called for a roll call vote. There were ten in favour and none opposed so the motion carried.

Action item 1109-06: The Secretariat to make the announcement opening the Nominations Phase by 12 November and include the timeline.

[NA disconnected at 15:06 UTC]
[HPH disconnected at 15:07 UTC]
[HPH reconnected at 15:09 UTC]

8. Communications and Procedures Committee update

WW said he circulated a final mandate for this committee and asked if there should be a formal vote on the charter.

The Chair suggested tabling this until people had time to digest it and WW agreed this would be a good idea.

WW said the Secretariat has installed a wiki to be tested and he said he did not have time to test it yet, but he agreed with the Secretariat to try get this tested and signed off before the Secretariat function moves to LACNIC in January. He said these were the main issues at the moment. He suggested taking the mailing list for the Communications and Procedures Committee update as a blueprint for configuration of all mailing lists.

The Chair said, going back to the previous topic, that there needs to be an email address created for receiving nominations and it should be nominations2010 or whatever the Secretariat deems appropriate. He said this should be posted with the call for nominations.

WW said this mailing should not direct to the ac-coord list or Nominating Committee but mails should be forwarded manually by the Secretariat.

JS asked if there should be a Chair for the Nomination Review Committee in line with MH’s suggestion, and the Chair agreed this would be a good idea.

HPH suggested asking the committee to elect a chair among its members within a week or else doing it on this call.

The Chair asked if the people of that committee could appoint a chair now and DW said three members were missing from the call. The Chair asked the committee to elect a chair as soon as possible.

Action item 1109-07: The members of the Nomination Review committee to elect a chair from among its members and inform the ac-coord list of the appointment.

9. Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries

The Chair said there had been three RIR meetings since the last ASO AC teleconference. He asked if anyone would like to summarise what took place in the regions regarding the proposal. He said he forwarded some updates to ON before the ARIN Meeting.

DW said that in RIPE the policy was still under discussion and they were waiting to see what happened in other regions. He said they did not see a text that they could work with so far.

JS asked DW if the comments he sent from the ARIN Advisory Council were useful and if he shared them with the community.

DW said he would check his notes on this but the status in RIPE is that they can’t move forward until they see some consensus in the other regions.

AP said the NRO EC has been discussing this and has not reached a conclusion. His personal feeling was that in RIPE they would possibly drop this version and see if there is any intention of redoing a global policy based on a lowest common denominator policy global policy from all regions.

The Chair asked if this would reflect the feelings of the community.

JS asked the Chair to clarify that when he said lowest common denominator he meant returning space to IANA as optional and to be determined by local policy.

AP and the Chair said that was indeed their understanding. The Chair said if we take it to mean it’s optional and a region has a policy that says it’s required then he asked if this was really reflecting the wishes of the community.

AP said the procedural issue at the moment is that now the policy has gone through all regions, it seems the RIPE text is not acceptable in the ARIN region, so this attempt to get a global policy through has failed and the question now is what happens next. He said he was interested in hearing what the communities think about a modified global policy.

JS suggested stating with the ARIN region because that is where the issue lies.

AP said he did not want to imply that any ASO AC members should try to speak for their communities but it would be good to hear the members’ opinions of how the process went.

JS said in past meeting the ASO AC tried to jump start the process by voicing the concerns of their regions, and this is why JS went to the ARIN Advisory Council so he could ask about the reasoning behind the text changes to the policy and give this to DW in advance of the RIPE 59 Meeting. He said if the ASO AC members should continue in this vein then that would be possible.

RP advised listening to AP. RP said when the communities cannot agree on a global policy then, as AP suggests, a revised version that will gain consensus among the communities should be proposed. He said the discussions are going on for a long time and it could take another 18 months to come up with a common proposal and at that stage it would not matter any more.

JS said he was trying to take the advice from AP and RP and it was clear there were concerns about this policy in the ARIN region and what he was trying to do to move the process further to enable drafting of a new policy that would be accepted would be to find out if other regions would accept some of the rewrites from the ARIN region or if those rewrites negate the intention of the global policy completely.

RP said AP was referring to the lowest common denominator and if that section were removed entirely then there would be a new proposal that tells IANA no matter how it receives address space, here is what it does with it.

JS agreed that this was the case and he wanted to know if such a new proposal would find support in the five regions or not.

RP said it would be quicker for someone to make a new proposal and be done with it, for the AC to advise the EC that there is no consensus on the old policy.

JS said he was not clear on what text should go into the new proposal.

RP said you get people from each region to sit down and draft it and send it out.

JS said there are people who have participated in each region and it would be worth finding out what their inclination on a new draft would be.

RP said one such person from each region could sit down as part of a drafting team and then send it out. He said this would be much quicker.

The Chair asked if there was anything that precludes the ASO AC from doing that.

RP said anyone could make a proposal so it was possible to get five members of the ASO AC, one from each region, and ask them to draft a proposal and introduce it into the five regions.

AB agreed with RP but he said it could not be an official activity of the ASO AC. RP agreed that this was the case but he said there was nothing to stop five people who happened to be on the ASO AC from going
ahead and doing it.

JS said he wanted to ask if the NRO NC as a group had any advice to share with the authors of such a global policy.

RP said the longer you spent on doing things like this the longer it would take for the policy to be put to the communities. He said there was only one LACNIC meeting next year so things need to move quickly. He
said the current policy proposal should be declared to have failed and a new one should be drafted and everyone could then move forward.

JS said he was not suggesting a delay to drafting a proposal but was saying that the NRO NC should provide advice if it had any advice to offer.

AP said he agreed with RP and said he would consider the current proposal dead and whatever way a new proposal was arrived at would be fine with him.

DW said that the ASO AC should support the proposers of global policies as much as possible and he was not anxious to be involved in the business of drafting a new proposal.

The Chair said it was basically a matter of taking the second half of the current proposal and using that as a basis for the new proposal.

DW said he might be interested in doing this as an individual but would not do it under the auspices of the ASO AC.

RP agreed that the ASO AC should not be involved but individual members could make the proposal if they wished to do so.

The Chair asked if there were any individuals on the call who would like to become involved in making a new proposal.

JS said he did not see himself becoming the author of a proposal but he said he would like to interact with any potential authors. He said if he could get advice from all the regions he could pass this on to the
authors to help them craft a proposal that would be more likely to be adopted.

HPH asked who the regional authors were and RP said it was primarily RIR board members or CEOs at the time. RP said he was one of the authors at the time but because he was now on the ICANN Board he recused himself
from any further involvement and did not consider himself suitable to become involved with a new proposal because he would eventually have to act upon it.

The Chair said he was inclined to favour a new proposal with new authors at this point.

RP suggested that the ASO AC advice the NRO EC that it did not see the proposal being adopted and that the NRO EC should seek drafters for a new proposal.

WW asked if the ASO AC needed to do this.

RP said the ASO AC did not have to do this but he said this was a logical forum for beginning the process of moving things forward.

HPH suggested the motion that the ASO AC cannot find global consensus on this proposal and it should contact the NRO EC and ask it to go back to the original authors or form a new committee to come up with a revised policy proposal.

RP said this was a clear statement of what he was proposing.

DW said in RIPE, policy formation was not necessarily related to the NRO
EC but to the authors themselves and to the working group chairs in RIPE. He said he had no problem making a recommendation but that they should go back to the authors of the current proposal.

HPH said the NRO EC comes to the ASO AC to make a decision on global policies so it is only logical for the ASO AC to go back to the NRO NC.

AP said HPH was correct in this thinking here. AP said he believed the procedure was that when a policy was passed in all five regions the NRO
EC passed it to the ASO AC for deliberation. He said this has not been done yet and he was not sure it would ever happen.

JS said it should still be possible for the ASO AC to make a recommendation that the process be started again and AP agreed.

RP said the best way to do this would be to go back to the NRO EC.

JS said the policy in ARIN moved to last call and it had rewrites in it and two significant changes (one to make the return to IANA optional and the other relating to how to divide the space given to the RIRs).

The Chair said the problem was with the ARIN Advisory Council and whether they think there is going to be consensus for the part of the proposal that is to be redone.

JS asked whether there was a region where this type of policy would never pass.

AB said he saw nothing in the ASO AC procedures that gave the ASO AC the right to preempt the process in the regions and as far as he could tell the ASO AC just had to wait until the global policy is passed to it. He
noted that this might never happen. He said he also saw nothing that would prevent the ASO AC sending advice to the NRO EC on the progress of the discussions.

JS asked whether anyone on the call thought there were one or more regions where the policy with the ARIN Advisory Council changes would never pass.

HPH said he had a proposal that required, firstly, the ASO AC to do nothing, and, secondly, for HPH to draft an email in a personal capacity stating his opinion on the global policy that he would circulate to the
ASO AC members asking for volunteers to help draft a revised policy that would have a chance of passing in all regions, and this can then be sent to the relevant people in all regions.

JS agreed that this was a good idea except he said he would prefer if the ASO AC provided advice on a new proposal rather than writing the proposal.

The Chair restated JS’s question on whether the proposal ARIN is working on would be likely to be rejected in any other region.

DW said anything was possible regarding RIPE, and he wished to defer to other members regarding their regions. He expressed concern that the policy being discussed has passed in a number of regions but not in
another, so the policy proposal looks wedged. He said he would listen to anyone if they changed the text in his region but he felt that following the changes in the ARIN region it was likely that there would not be
global consensus.

JS said the only way to unwedge the policy proposal would be if the ARIN text were passed in all regions and he asked if people thought this was unlikely to ever happen.

WW said his feeling was that the ARIN text could pass in RIPE but he thought that, having attended the LACNIC meeting, it would fail in that region. He said he thought the policy proposal was trying to do two
things – the first being to create a policy that allows IANA to receive address space and the other being to direct them on how to redistribute that space. He said the first aspect should be easy enough to get
agreement on but the second part tried to redress a historical imbalance in the distribution of IPv4 address space and it would be more difficult to get consensus on this. He said if the ASO AC invested time in
redrafting the policy proposal it should concentrate on the IANA aspect.

JS said this is what the ARIN Advisory Council was trying to do with its rewrites but the rewrite seems unacceptable for the LACNIC region.

WW said there might be agreement if the contentious aspect was dropped from the proposal and different mechanisms might be found to redress the imbalance. He said he had no strong opinion on the matter and he saw no pressing need to revise the thing unless IANA said there was going to be a problem or the community came back and said there was a problem pertaining to IANA operations.

JS proposed the motion that the ASO AC provides advice to the NRO EC that the global policy proposal for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to the Regional Internet Registries will likely not find global consensus.

WW seconded the motion. The Chair asked for a roll call vote. There were ten in favour and none opposed so the motion passed.

Action item 1109-08: The Chair to contact the NRO EC and advise that the global policy proposal for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to the Regional Internet Registries will likely not find global consensus.

10. IANA Policy for Allocation of ASNs to RIRs

The Chair said in ARIN there was a last call for comments set for 13 November and he asked if there were updates from any other regions.

DW said this policy was announced as accepted in RIPE on 20 September.

TF said the call for comments ended in the APNIC region in October.

The Chair urged everyone to send a message on this to ON so he could update his online status page.

11. RIR Updates – APNIC 28, RIPE 59, ARIN XXIV
HG said there was a decision made previously to have the updates sent
via email to the ASO AC list.

The Chair asked if there was anything major from the meetings that needed to be discussed. There was nothing and he asked for the updates to be emailed to the ac-coord list via.

11. AOB

The Chair said there was a need to formalise the decision to have the ASO AC face-to-face meeting during the ICANN meeting in Kenya.

DW noted that the timeline set down by the ASO AC members for the ICANN Board selection procedure would have to be taken into consideration.

HG said the Chair should contact ICANN to see if there was a window in the agenda that could be used. He said there might need to be some flexibility here.

The Chair said he had been in discussion with ICANN staff and it did seem as if the Tuesday and Thursday of the ICANN Meeting were the most likely days.

RP said the ASO AC should decide whether it would be an open or closed face-to-face meeting. He said members might decide to have both.

HPH suggested asking for two hours for an open meeting a whole day for a closed meeting.

WW said he thought these were clerical matters and that the main requirement would be to inform ICANN that the ASO AC intends to meet around the ICANN meeting in March.

HPH said the sooner the dates could be decided then the sooner he could rearrange other meetings and make the commitment to be in attendance at the face-to-face meeting.

DW suggested that the members decide quickly what the schedule will be for the ICANN Board selection meetings and let people know on the mailing list.

JS said there was the possibility that the ICANN Board interviews would have to be conducted prior to the ICANN Meeting and it would be impossible to know this for sure until February 2010.

HG said it would also be possible to have the face-to-face meeting in Brussels in June.

HPH proposed that the members should meet in Nairobi because the deliberation on the ICANN Board candidates would be the most important thing they would have to do.

HPH proposed the motion that the ASO AC holds its face-to-face meeting during the ICANN Meeting to be held in Nairobi, Kenya in March 2010.
WW seconded the motion and there were none opposed. The motion passed.

The Chair asked if there was any other business.

HG announced that as a former member for the ICANN Board he was asked by the Chair of the ICANN Nominations Committee to be Associate Chair of that committee with no voting rights in 2010. He said he would be working with WW and he wanted to disclose this so there would be no conflict of interest and the ASO AC would be aware of this.

HG also said he would like official information on RB’s term on the ICANN Board so he thought it would be good to contact the ICANN legal contact to find out officially if the term ended at the end of April or the end of May.

RP said, because he was Chair of the ICANN Structural Improvements Committee, he would take this action on himself to find out and get back to the ASO AC with the information.

Action item 1109-09: RP to ask ICANN about official end date of RB’s term on ICANN Board and report back to ASO AC with the information.

12. Adjournment
WW proposed the motion to adjourn the teleconference and this was seconded by DW. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 16:02 UTC.

Last modified on 29/01/2020

Address Council