ASO AC Teleconference 8 December 2011

ASO AC Attendees:

Alan Barrett, AB, Vice Chair
John Robert Hountomey, JRH

Naresh Ajwani, NA, Vice Chair
Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF

Louie Lee, LL, Chair

Sebastián Bellagamba, SB
Francisco Obispo, FO
Hartmut Glaser, HG

Dave Wilson, DW

Therese Colosi, ARIN


Ernest Byaruhanga, EB

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

Adam Gosling, AG
German Valdez, GV

Sofía Silva, SS

Emilio Madaio

Leo Vegoda, LV

Ron da Silva,
Hans Petter Holen,
Andy Linton,
Jason Schiller,
Olof Nording (observer),
Ray Plzak (observer)

Fiona Asonga,
Wilfried Woeber

1. Welcome.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 11:06 a.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review.

The Chair reviewed the agenda.

3. Approval of the Minutes.

It was moved by AB, and seconded by NA, that:

“The ASO AC approves the Minutes of November 10, 2011, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

New Action Item:

1112-01: SECRETARIAT. Remove ‘Draft’ from November 10, 2011 minutes on the ASO AC website.

4. Open Action Item Review.

1006-02: CHAIR. Send the documents to the EC for approval. OPEN.

At the last meeting, the Chair stated that since the ASO AC did not make changes to version that was forwarded as the final draft to the NRO EC, he had forwarded a note to the NRO EC letting them know that the Council adopted the same version that was sent to the EC for tentative approval.

The ASO AC had already received this approval from 4 of the 5 EC members. Section 7 of the AC Operating Procedures has been updated and can be found at:

The Chair stated that the fifth EC member has not commented to date. The item will remain open until such time that the EC member sends his comments.

1110-01: SECRETARIAT. Remove ‘Draft’ from the October 6, 2011 minutes on the ASO AC Website.

The Secretariat confirmed this had been done. The Chair stated the action item as Closed.

5. ASO Review.

At the last meeting, Tom McKenzie, ITEMS review team member, suggested the team provide the next draft for the final report to the ASO AC by 01 December, keeping the final draft deadline of 09 December.

The Chair stated that he has not received the final draft, and will contact the EC Chair to find out if he has received it. The Chair called for any discussion. There were no further comments.

The Chair asked if the ITEMS team received any further updates from the Council. There were no further updates sent to the ITEMS team.

6. ASO AC Workplan.

A) 2011 ASO AC Work Review. The Chair provided an overview of the ASO AC’s accomplishments for 2011 to include:

  • Finalizing the changes to the Procedures for the Selection of Individuals to the ICANN Board of Directors and he thanked everyone who worked on them;
  • He noted great strides were made in reaching out to the ICANN community regarding who the ASO AC is, and what it does;
  • Completion of work for the 2011 ICANN NomCom and he thanked WW for his efforts.
  • 2012 NomCom and Review Teams are underway, and he thanked HG and WW for their efforts in this area.
  • All the work related to Global Policy Proposal activity.

The Chair requested that any other items be presented on the ASO AC list as a supplemental report.

B) 2012 ASO AC Workplan. The Chair called for items that the ASO AC believed needed to be accomplished in 2012.

AB suggested:

  • Nominations to the ICANN Board seat No. 9. He noted this is currently in process for 2012.
  • Deal with ongoing Global Policy Proposals (GPPs), or new ones that arise.
  • Meetings in conjunction with ICANN feedback sessions for improvement.

The Chair suggested:

  • Reviewing suggestions for improvements from the ASO Review. He stated they should be reviewed to see if they need to be implemented or not, and state why in a public manner and call it “Responses to the ASO Review”.
  • Chair/Vice Chair positions. Each year there is a new ASO AC Chair elected, and that person then appoints Vice Chairs.
  • Policy Proposal Facilitator Teams (PPFT). A new PPFT needs to be created for any new GPP’s, and the members on the PPFT for current GPPs need to be re-appointed.

The Chair called for volunteers to write up the work plan for approval at the January 2012 ASO AC telecom, and to circulate ahead of time, offering suggestions to add or remove items. AB volunteered.

C) 2012 ASO AC Meeting Schedule. The Chair stated that the ASO AC needed to discuss the January teleconference date & time, the 2012 schedule of teleconferences, and consideration for their annual face-to-face meeting.

  • January 2012 ASO AC Teleconference. The Chair stated that the January date and time suggested by the 2012 Secretariat (APNIC) is 8:00 UTC on the first Thursday of each month. HG proposed to wait until the new ASO AC members are in place to decide the matter as the AC as a whole. The Chair stated the January meeting needed to be decided at this point in time. HG proposed it be held at the same time it has been held, but only for the January meeting. AB suggested circulating a list of comparative times to see how it affects each Region.
  • The Chair agreed that feedback from each person on the time period would be helpful. GV stated that APNIC can provide options for different time zones and when the Secretariat can be available. He noted the time is customarily based on when the Secretariat can perform the function. The Chair stated that the current suggestion would be 6:00 p.m. for APNIC on the 1st Thursday. He suggested they look into holding it 4 to 7 hours earlier if possible, and asked if that would that work. GV stated APNIC would send options to the ASO AC’s list, and have a discussion on the best time to hold the teleconferences.
  • The Chair thanked him. HG suggested January 12th be the January teleconference date (the 2nd Thursday) to give the members time to regroup after holidays and vacations, and the rest of the year the teleconferences could be held on the 1st Thursday of each month. The Chair wondered if the 1st Thursday January (January 5th) would pose a conflict.
  • He asked if anyone was opposed to holding the first teleconference on January 12th. DW asked if it would have a negative impact on the ICANN Board Selection. He stated it looked like it would not, but a motion will be needed before the comment period begins on January 17th. The Chair agreed, and stated that holding the ASO AC teleconference on January 12th would be enough time. The Chair stated that the Qualifications Review Committee should keep the AC updated up until that point.
  • 2012 ASO AC Schedule of Teleconferences. It was the sense of the ASO AC that the regularly scheduled teleconferences for 2012 would be held on the first Thursday of each month, except for January, which would be held on the 2nd Thursday (January 12). The time of the teleconferences to be determined.
  • 2012 ASO AC Face-to-face Meeting. The Chair stated that the ARIN Secretariat did not find a meeting that would line up with 2012 ICANN meetings in which to conduct interviews with candidates for the ICANN Board. He suggested either holding the ASO AC face-to-face at an ICANN meeting anyway, where deliberations can be done, but not any interviews, or holding their face-to-face during an RIR’s meeting.
  • He noted that the first ICANN meeting in 2012 will be held in San Jose, Costa Rica and reminded the AC to make arrangements if they intend on attending. He noted the second ICANN meeting would be held in June, which would be too far out in the timeline of the ICANN Board Selection process.
  • He suggested possibly holding the face-to-face at the ARIN meeting in April. HG noted the RIPE meeting would also be held in April, and proposed that the Chair assist with timing the selection process to hold the face-to-face meeting and the interviews together.
  • The Chair stated that ARIN (2011 Secretariat) and APNIC (2012 Secretariat) have been working on it and requested that they send RIR and ICANN meeting dates to the ASO AC list. SH stated she would work with AG to get this to the ASO AC. SH noted for information that the Secretariat function would be transitioning on Monday, December 12th.
  • HG also noted that both RIPE and LACNIC meetings are taking place before the selection procedure deadline in May.
  • The Chair proposed targeting the ASO AC face-to-face meeting to be held during the LACNIC meeting, and that the APNIC Secretariat can put together a list of options. He stated that further discussion would be done via e-mail.

7. Selection of Individuals to the ICANN Board of Directors.

A) Qualification Review Committee (QRC). Committee Members are: AB, SB, TF, HPH, RdS

  • Status Number of nominations received? AB stated that as of 9 November, three nominations and not aware of any subsequent to that date.
  • Number of questionnaires sent out and received? One has been returned.
  • Next milestone: Nomination period ends 16 Jan 2012. Comment period begins 17 Jan 2012.

The Chair noted that a nominee might be at a disadvantage if they wait to the end of deadline to fill out the questionnaire. HG proposed the nomination should be the name of the candidate and posted on the website. If the questionnaire is received on the last day, an extra week may be given to answer the questionnaire so that there are no last minute decisions. Nomination means: mention the name of the candidate, and then have a procedure for an extension of time.

The Chair suggested that nominees have up to a week to complete questionnaire once received. AB stated there is no deadline in the procedures for the questionnaire. The Chair stated it is not fair to the current nominees, if a deadline is set before the end of the nomination period, but that the ASO AC should notify them that it is mid-January.

EB stated that, per the procedures, nominees that do not fill out the questionnaire will not be considered as candidates. AB stated that the procedures should be followed, and proposed it be made clear on website that candidates do not leave filling out and submitting the questionnaire until the last minute. DW agreed with clarifying the deadline, and preferred it be done this way, than allowing extra time.

EB stated ARIN would send out a clarifying notice. The Chair thanked him.

B) Interview Committee (IC). Committee members are: AB, NA, RdS, HG.

Status: A volunteer is needed from the RIPE region by February 2012. DW stated that he would discuss it with the other RIPE members who are not on this teleconference. The Chair thanked him and asked to be copied on the correspondence. He asked they decide promptly. He offered that the committee could elect a Chair, if they desired. He noted that the interview phase begins February 20, 2012.

HG stated that there is a comment period and asked for clarification of what that meant. The Chair explained it is to post candidates names and have the general public comment on the candidates. SH confirmed this was correct, and that those comments would be posted by the Secretariat. HG proposed a moderator. SH noted the guidelines state that anyone can submit comments and they will be displayed in real-time and conclude at the same time as the Interview phase.

The Chair stated the guidelines needed to be followed. SH stated that it is up to the next Secretariat to determine how comments get posted. HG asked if is it fair to post comments no matter what is stated in them. AB stated they allow both positive and negative comments. DW suggested asking ICANN for advice, as he believed they must have dealt with this issue in their processes.

HG agreed and proposed the Chair ask ICANN General Counsel for advice. He did not want to see the website used for personal discussions, and believed there needed to be a procedure in place. NA proposed checking with the Interview Committee, and the Chair. If a comment is libel, he believed that the Chair and the committee were capable of making such decision.

The Chair stated that it may seem overly cautious, but it would be difficult to develop guidelines after viewing a message that we may want to moderate. He stated he would ask ARIN’s Legal Counsel for advice, and APNIC’s possibly. We do have the committee that can review the comments if they are defamatory in some manner. DW agreed.

The Chair requested that APNIC, when the period is open, approve comments prior to posting them, and not automatically post them. AG reiterated that the procedures stated that they would be posted publicly in real time, and that he would also talk to APNIC’s Legal Counsel.

The Chair called for someone to take notes for updating the election procedure. There are 2 updates:

  1. Improve the posting process with regard to comments regarding candidates; and,
  2. The nominee questionnaire deadline.

8. Status of GPP-IPv4-2010: Global Policy For IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion.

PPFT: DW, AB, FO, RdS. The Chair stated this GPP was abandoned in one region, and withdrawn in another region. AB stated that it expired in AfriNIC region on the 1st of December, according to their policy procedures. The Chair asked him to send that information to ON for updating. AB agreed and stated he would also send it to the ASO AC list.

9. Status of GPP-IPv4-2011: Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA.

PPFT: JS, FO, HPH, TF, FA. The Chair called for updates. He noted that last calls have been closed. There was no further update. The Chair requested the PPFT to continue working on the report for this proposal.

10. ICANN Review Teams: Related Activities Update.

A) Security Stability Resiliency Review Team (SSR RT) Update. HG stated that during the last ICANN meeting the RT met most of constituencies and many ideas and exchanges took place. Their final decision was to prepare a draft. The first report and timeline will be done this week. They will circulate the draft to team members and will have an update early in January.

B) WHOIS Review Team (WHOIS RT) Update. WW was unavailable to provide an update at this time, but the Chair stated he had attended their meeting in Dakar, during ICANN’s meeting, and stated that they met for several days with spirited discussions. People are working on this and are very passionate about the topic with regard to how to accurately interpret the input they are receiving. The Chair stated he was encouraged to see this.

11. Status of 2012 ICANN Nomination Committee (NomCom).

HG stated, as a note of record, that one of the members of the SSRT from China was just appointed as the new V.P. for ICANN in the Asia region. HG stated this member will most likely need to be replaced on the team, but HG was not certain of this yet.

HG reported, with regard to the NomCom, that the normal processes are underway and there would be a teleconference held next week. They have had one face-to-face meeting (Dakar) and 2 more conference calls to do. There will be more information in January after the calls take place. He stated that the trend in the new NomCom is not to consider people who are not elected by the Supporting Organizations (SOs) – to use second channel to reach the Board – if one does not have votes in the SO, they would not be considered and give other candidates a chance. He stated the NomCom is looking for geographical and gender balance, and quality of candidates. HG believed that if a technical candidate is elected, it is fine to be chosen by the SOs, but if someone were needed with a finance or law background, for example, those types of people would not be found through the SOs. There is a proposal to the effect that the candidates that do not win, will not be in the election. This discussion is in the works.

AB stated that Board members that are directly appointed by the SO’s are 2 members from each SO. He noted that this is much less than half of the Board and the NomCom provides the others. He believed it was not fair to restrict anyone. HG clarified, stating that the three SOs nominate six candidates, the at-large community nominates one, and the Board nominates one. This leaves eight more candidates (the other ½), and the NomCom nominates them.

HG stated that he agreed with AB, but recognized that the NomCom is not under ICANN. It is a free committee with its own Bylaws and procedures. The majority will make the decision. AB believed it short sighted to restrict the pool to no involvement whatsoever with ICANN. HG stated that his position is that he was not in favor and would not support the idea.

The Chair asked if the NomCom could consider previous candidates. HG stated that normally candidates could resubmit for the next year if they are not accepted, by answering ‘yes’ to having their name resubmitted for the next year on the questionnaire. If they answer ‘no’, they would not be considered the following year.

12. Report of ASO AC Activities at ICANN 42 (Dakar).

The Chair stated the roadshow was accomplished, and that he had met with three different groups led by the SSAC. He stated that they could have met for longer than the half hour they had; and, that there is reason to meet again during ICANN meetings as a whole group and then split into working groups.

He also reported that the ccNSO asked questions more related to policy than about the ASO AC, and how they can work with the ASO AC. They are interested in ASO AC activities, and in the controversies going on in policy making in our regions. They are realigning into different regions, as some countries don’t fall into regions with which they are satisfied. They are looking into RIR regional boundaries, and may move around if needed. There is an opt-out.

The Chair further stated that he met with Councils of SOs, but not with the SO’s, and that there is opportunity to meet with the SOs.

The Chair reported that there were more attendees at this ASO AC workshop. He noted the format was changed to present a case study for a particular topic or policy proposal. There were more attendees than last time, with a lot of first timers in attendance. On the last day, when the ASO Chair report was given, and the ASO AC Chair was to provide it, there was confusion between the actual ASO and the ASO AC. Therefore, John Curran, President of ARIN, presented the report. It was similar to the NRO update that had been given, and it was recognized for clarity that there is an ASO and there is also an ASO AC.

13. ASO AC Chair Election. EB reviewed the following:

  1. Procedure: Section 4.4
  2. Nominations: 1-14 Dec 2011. EB stated that any nominee can self nominate. APNIC, as the 2012 Secretariat, will handle the election portion.
  3. Election: Period to be approved by AC. AG stated that APNIC looked into the election process and the software platform. He asked if the ASO AC was happy with it. He stated that there are no nominations at present. EB confirmed this, and stated that close out dates are needed. The period cannot be longer than 7 calendar days – pick a start/end date for the election to run.

AB replied to AG’s question about the software platform, that the one used in past was fine. The Chair agreed. AG thanked them for their input.

The Chair informed the Council that it will be noted how many votes each candidate received at the end of the period. The new Chair will be announced prior to the January teleconference, if the period closes by then. The new Chair will call for Vice Chairs. The Vice Chars need to be from different regions, and are subject to the approval of AC.

The Chair then proposed he election period to begin Tuesday, January 3, 2012, and end on Monday, January 9, 2012. He then called for a vote on the dates.

It was moved by DW, and seconded by AB, that:

“The ASO AC will hold the election period electronically from 1 minute past midnight UTC on January 3, 2012, until 1 minute before midnight UTC on January 9, 2012.”

The Chair suggested an amendment to end the election sooner if all members have voted. DW and AB agreed to the amendment.

The motion carried with no objections.

14. Any Other Business.

The Chair called for any other business.

The Chair stated that he sent updates to the election procedures regarding the duties of the Chair and Vice Chairs to the ASO AC’s list. The procedures were modified from the previous election, and only slightly, to reflect the term “Vice Chair’ instead of “Co-Chair”. He noted that one more update needs to be done, and that he would make the modification, and resend the document to the ASO AC list.

The Chair called for any objections to the modifications sent to the list. AB stated he agreed with them. The Chair offered to read the section of the procedures regarding the duties of the Chair and Vice Chairs to the Council for reference and any clarification.

4.2. Duties of the Address Council Chair

The AC Chair fulfills a dual role:

  • The AC Chair acts as a point of contact for interested, external organizations. Examples of such organizations are Regional Internet Registries, the IETF, ICANN, and any other organization interested in global IP addressing policy; and,
  • The AC Chair acts as a facilitator and coordinator for internal AC activities.

The AC Chair is not permitted to act or speak on behalf of the entire AC without prior review and consultation with the Address Council. The AC Chair role is not intended to circumvent the already established process for submission of items to the AC or the resolution of those work items.

4.3. Duties of Vice Chairs

The Chair will ask two members of the council to act as Vice Chairs. These Vice Chairs act in two key roles:

  • Vice Chairs act as support and backup for the Chair. In the event that a Chair is unable to act as an AC representative in presentations, meetings or other forums, the Vice Chairs may be asked to fulfill that role; and,
  • As specified below, one of the Vice Chairs will act as Interim Chair in the event that the current Chair resigns.

4.1 Number
The officers of the Address Council shall include a Chair, two Co-Chairs, and such other Officers as the Executive Council of the Number Resource Organization may determine.

The Chair noted that the term “Co-Chairs” in Section 4.1, needed to reflect “Vice Chairs” instead.

The Chair called for a motion to accept the modified procedures.

HG stated that this matter was not on the agenda, and that it needed more time for discussion. He proposed to postpone the matter until the ASO AC’s January 12 teleconference. The Chair agreed the matter was not on the agenda as an item for discussion. HG asked if there was any reason to handle it at this time. The Chair explained it was intended to finish the year with a clean set of procedures, and to have them in place since the ASO Review stated that it was missing. NA did not consider that the matter needed any protocol, as it is normal job functionality, and could be closed out at this time. He supported the motion.

NA moved to accept the modified procedures.

AB agreed with HG that it not be discussed at this time, as it was not on the agenda, and preferred to postpone the discussion, as he had a concern. The Chair stated that if no second were made on the motion, there would not be a vote.

Hearing no second on the motion, the Chair tabled the discussion for the next regularly scheduled ASO AC teleconference, tasking the Secretariat to add it to the next agenda.

HG stated that it was discussed in the past that the term be “Co-Chairs’ and was uncertain if it could be revised to reflect “Vice Chairs” if other ICANN documents reflect it as ‘Co-Chairs’, like their Bylaws. The Chair replied that both of the ASO AC ‘s procedures say “Vice Chairs” and did not believe the ICANN Bylaws reflected anything in them regarding the terminology. AG stated he would research if there were anything about it in the ICANN Bylaws. The Chair thanked him.

The Chair called for any other business items.

HG recognized JRH and FO, as it was their last meeting as ASO AC members, for all of the time they have served on the Address Council. The Chair formally noted this and thanked HG for the statement of appreciation.

The Chair also thanked the Secretariat for their hard work this year, not only for teleconferences and face-to-face meetings, which is a tremendous effort, but also for supporting the ASO at the same time. He also extended special thanks to APNIC for their support in Singapore when ARIN staff encountered flight difficulties and were unable to attend that meeting.

AG noted that AL’s term expires on December 31, but that no decision has been made on the matter.

AB thanked ON for the work he had done as liaison between the ASO AC and ICANN staff. The Chair also thanked to LV, and asked him to extend thanks to Elise at ICANN. LV stated he would do so. The Chair also thanked the jobs done by the appointed ICANN Board members.

Lastly, the Chair thanked the ASO AC Vice Chairs for their support. NA stated it was a great learning experience.

15. Adjournment.

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 12:59 p.m. EST. HG moved to adjourn, seconded by FO. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.

Last modified on 29/01/2020