ASO AC Teleconference 7 August 2013
ASO AC Attendees
Fiona Asonga FA – Joined at 1:20 PM UTC
Alan Barrett APB (Vice Chair)
Douglas Onyango DO
Naresh Ajwani NA (Vice Chair)
Tomohiro Fujisaki TF
Louie Lee LL (Chair)
Jason Schiller JS
Ron da Silva RS
Ricardo Patara RP
Hartmut Glaser HG
Jorge Villa JV
Hans Petter Hollen HPH
Dmitry Kohmanyuk DK
Wilfried Woeber WW
Andy Linton, APNIC
Emilio Madaio EM, RIPE NCC
Juan Peirano JP, LACNIC
Carlos Reyes CR, ICANN
Leo Vegoda LV, ICANN
Kuo Wei Wu KW, ICANN Board
Ray Plzak RAP, ICANN Board
German Valdez GV, NRO
Ernest Byaruhanga EB, AFRINIC
2. Agenda Review
3. Open Action Items
4. ASN Transfers
5. AC Appointment to the 2014 NomCom
6. ICANN47 Report
7. Date on ASO/ATRT2 Conference Call
LL Welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked for a roll call. GV conducted the roll call. Having noted the presence of quorum, LL called the meeting to order at 12:06 PM UTC and thanked GV for the roll-call.
2. Agenda Review
LL asked for any comments to the draft agenda.
WW stated that he sent a suggestion to add the IANA ASN Transfer Policy to the agenda with 2 minor sub-items: To discuss if the ASO AC answer should go into the ASO AC news section and secondly, to have a discussion about individual region AC members reporting in their respective regions on this matter.
EB also stated that the minutes for the June teleconference are not yet ready due to some logistical and technical issues and will have them ready soonest.
3. Open Action Items
LL asked GV if there are no open action items. GV said there are none, other than a new item requiring the secretariat to publish the draft minutes of the June ASO AC meeting once ready.
# Dmitry Kohmanyuk (DK) and Ray Plzak (RAP) joined at 12:14 PM UTC
4. ASN Transfers
LL asked JS to lead as he has been collecting the relevant discussions on this matter.
JS said the ARIN AC decided to abandon this policy about the time when the APNIC region showed interest in the policy. JS said he has communicated this to the ARIN AC. LL asked for any other thoughts on the topic before it goes back to the mailing list.
WW said formal business on the topic has been taken care of, and the rest would be technical discussions that can happen on the list.
JS said LV sent an email asking if IANA could take any action if such a transfer occurs, and the response was that a global policy would be needed in this area, stating what IANA recommendations could be taken as a result of adopting the APNIC region proposal by the 5 RIRs as a global policy. Another idea was to have a second proposal to take care of regions that do not want inter-RIR ASN transfers and consequent specific IANA recommendations for this scenario.
LL stated that he will post on the list his support for the latter proposal, about having a separate global policy so that the inter-RIR transfer portion would not be a requirement for the global ASN transfer policy, and will propose some write up on the list and the appropriate IANA actions as a result of the inter-RIR transfers.
RAP stated that RIR members can’t apply directly to IANA for a record change if relevant regional policies are not in place. DK said this process would not scale and RAP further said the idea could be applied and then be scaled later.
TF noted that currently, ARIN and APNIC have the same approach as far as IPv4 address transfers are concerned, and asked if IANA recognizes these and updates any record as a result. LV stated that there are different registries for the IPv4 pool: The /8 registry and the ‘recovered pool’ registry. The recovered part contains the general IANA /8 pool and will start to be filled when appropriate per the global policy. LL asked LV to confirm if there is no recording done by IANA when an IPv4 transfer happens. LV stated ICANN has never been contacted by an RIR to update the IPv4 registry as a result of a transfer.
LL suggested taking the topic to the mailing list for more discussions.
5. AC Appointment to the 2014 NomCom
LL thanked HG for the reports he has been sending from NomCom, and asked if there are any questions about the reports.
WW asked if it is known who will be the chair next year. HG said a new chair elect will be appointed in 2014. RAP stated that an interview was done for chair candidates at the Durban meeting and that the chair elect selected for a previous year is not an automatic selection for chairing in the following year.
HG said all nomcom members did an evaluation of the chair and chair elect for Yrjo and Cheryl respectively, and the board has not given feedback if this evaluation was considered.
RAP said with regards to the evaluation from the board members, the board only evaluates members whose terms are up that year. He further stated that the board has not received any information from nomcom regarding its evaluations of the chair and chair-elect positions.
HG stated that he sent all job descriptions of nomcom members to the list in line with the by-laws, and further stated that they are looking for someone that can serve. RAP stated that there is no requirement that the ASO AC appointment must come from the AC, and that the AC can appoint from anywhere. LL stated that if anyone wants to join the noncom and his AC term expires this year, that member should not hesitate to volunteer.
LL asked HG how soon the AC appointment needs to happen for the 2014 nomcom. HG stated that a name needs to be ready by at least 3 – 4 weeks before the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting, and that is probably around end of September.
LL stated there is no AC procedure to appoint a member to the nomcom, but suggested we open nominations for a period of 1 month and perhaps then do an online vote thereafter to formalise it.
WW said he has already done this job and would be interested to serve for another term or two. He further stated that there is a good chance he won’t be in the September teleconference, just in case some feedback is expected from him in that meeting. LL said there is no pressing need to hold a teleconference in September and this business can be done online.
HG said the AC can appoint outside the AC but since the structure of ICANN is difficult, it is his wish to appoint from within the AC, someone that already understands ICANN. LL said this can be incorporated in the procedures, or at least so that AC members are considered first. HG said he supports the procedure of 1 month nominations call.
HPH said although HG and WW have served before in their capacities, perhaps it is time to consider new faces in these positions. LL asked if anyone is opposed to open the call for nominations for both the AC members and outside the AC. HG suggested the call only touches current AC members. LL said for those who are not certain to serve the coming year like HPH, their names would still qualify for nominations.
RAP suggested the need to consider persons of the AC whose terms may or may not expire, and said it is better for it to remain this way. WW also stated that there is no need during the term of nomcom for a member elected from the AC to still be part of the AC and stated there is a need to come up with procedures on how to evaluate these candidates and volunteers, and that there is a need to look externally if there is nobody able to volunteer from within the AC.
JS said he supports including members whose terms are expiring, and also supports including council members-elect. WW asked when the new candidates will be known. LL said 30 days should be sufficient to know the volunteers and one week for voting. He further stated that those interested can state their interest on the list as well as their motivation to serve.
JS asked what happens if there is one candidate. LL said there is no procedure for this, and this can be done ad-hoc, such that if there is one candidate, that candidate is automatically appointed. WW said it is useful to go through a formal vote, even when there is no candidate, because there is a possibility to state “no support” for that candidate as it may turn out that the candidate may not have the support.
LL said if the single candidate does not receive majority of the vote, then that person would be deemed to not have AC support. JS asked what the majority means here. LL suggested 8 or more votes as the majority. JS asked for a motion to make the decision clear.
LL proposed the motion as follows: “The call for candidates will go out for a period of one month for AC Appointments to the 2014 Nomcom. Eligible are current AC members regardless of whether their term expires next year or not and all AC members elect. The electronic vote will be for a period of 1 week in which all AC members are expected to participate. The AC member with the majority vote will be appointed by the AC. In the case of a single candidate, there should be majority support of the full AC.”
# Douglas Onyango (DO) left the call at 1306UTC
LL further clarified that the schedule is to have nominations for one month, then open voting for 1 week with an option to record a vote or abstain.
LL asked if anyone wants to move the motion.
JS moved the motion with the text above as read out by LL.
APB and WW seconded. There was no opposition or abstention.
The motion was carried and LL asked to move to the next item in case there are no further comments on this matter from members.
6. ICANN 47 Report
LL asked WW to lead the discussion.
WW said firstly, he would talk about the formal activities that the AC was involved in. He stated that this time the AC was a small team and that both co-chairs and the chair were not present, and that it was not easy initially to put together all presentations and material. He thanked DK, TF and GV for helping the team come up with content and slides. He stated there were two formal presentations, one with the ICANN Board which was useful and fruitful. One of the things learnt is that the ICANN and ASO collaboration needs more recognition, and that we will be given a dedicated room and a formal liaison that could develop into a secretariat at ICANN to offer more assistance to the ASO.
He thanked the ICANN staff and Board for being collaborative.
RAP said he will be in Los Angeles next week and one of the things to discuss with Fadi is to follow up on what was discussed with the AC in Durban, and if the AC has specific issues to discuss, they can be sent to RAP by email.
WW’s second remark was the invitation by the IPv6 team to have the ASO present and participative. The topic was to describe the Policy Development Process from a more technical view, and if there would be anything that could be done with respect to IPv6 implementation. He stated that there were many presentations that emphasised on the benefits of IPv6 implementation.
WW also stated that everyone in Durban attended other sessions, and that he attended the Expert Working Group sessions which relate to the whois policy and related directory services. He stated that this is a topic that could interest other AC members.
#RAP left the meeting at 1320UTC
HPH said the AC should spend sometime asking what is it we want to achieve at the ICANN meetings. For example, getting support from other SOs as far as IPv6 implementation and other subjects are concerned.
# Fionah Asonga joined at 1350UTC
WW also stated that all ICANN staff involved to support the meeting deserve a heartfelt thank you as they were dedicated.
LL thanked WW and he noted that he now has open communication with David Olive and other Senior staff at ICANN, so as to work on any improvements that can be made. One of the things he has been working on is to request for a dedicated meeting room at every ICANN meeting either for AC members to meet or do their work from there.
GV also thanked WW for the report and stated that he is in touch with David Olive and other ICANN staff. He said in Berlin he met with them to discuss how to better achieve a good meeting in Buenos Aires on matters like relevant committees, webinars, the ICANN registration system (omitting some ASO information) and other issues. He also further stated that the NRO EC wrote to the ICANN Board requesting the reinstatement of the ASO AC scheduled slot that used to exist in the public forum, which was used to report back to the community on numbering topics. GV stated this was mentioned as well in the teleconference with the MSWG.
7. Date on ASO / ATRT2 Conference Call
LL asked FA to Lead.
FA stated that ATRT2 would like to meet with the ASO AC, just like it has already had sessions with other SOs. The members of the SOs represented on ATRT2 have been tasked with answering a questionnaire, which can be found on the wiki. The meeting between the ASO AC and ATRT2 will be focusing on going through the questions in that document during which the ASO AC can write and submit a response to ATRT2. FA stated that it does help if the ASO AC is seen to be participating in this. FA asked other members or LL for comments and feedback.
LL asked FA if there are any current issues within ATRT2 that relate to the ASO AC. FA stated that there is a feeling within ATRT2 that members do not understand the numbering and policy side of ICANN business especially when questions on topics like “IPv4 protection” come up within the ATRT2. FA stated that there are no specific questions within the questionnaire on any numbering matters or the global policy development process.
LL suggested that a date for the ATRT2 and ASO call be set for the reserved September meeting date. FA said this would be fine as ATRT2 is currently studying the Durban report and working on possible recommendations.
JS asked if this is going to be a non-minuted and no required attendance call, or if there needs to be quorum and minutes. LL said it will not be an AC meeting; it is only a scheduled ATRT2/ASO meeting to happen at the reserved date of the September ASO AC meeting. LL asked if there will be observers. FA said there can be observers as this is a meeting with the ASO.
LL asked the ATRT to do the coordination and scheduling and work with GV to ensure that the relevant people are invited as well as the required logistics for the meeting to happen. FA said she will get back with the proposed time and other information for the meeting within 1 week.
LL asked GV to prepare for the ASO/ATRT2 meeting to happen during the September reserved meeting date and time.
WW had a brief look at the ASO news section of the website and thought its useful to include information about the IANA advise on the interpretation of the ASN Transfer policy, and the answer that the ASO AC provided. GV said it is important to have this in there.
WW also said it would be useful to also report back to the appropriate policy working groups in the respective RIR regions about this item.
LL supports the idea of posting the news about the IANA question and the consequent ASO AC answer, and a posting to each region’s policy forum about the link to the publication.
JS said there is the document from HPH about selection or election of ASO AC members to different bodies and it needs to be added to the procedures. HPH said everyone should read it to understand the process and then an electronic vote can be done at the right time. LL said he will let everyone study the document and perhaps call for an e-vote at a point in future and thanked JS for bringing this matter up.
LL asked for a motion to adjourn.
DK moved to adjourn the meeting.
There were no objections.
The motion was carried and LL adjourned the meeting at 1355UTC.
Last modified on 29/01/2020