ASO AC Teleconference 5 March 2014


ASO AC Attendees

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

Naresh Ajwani, NA (Vice Chair)
Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Aftab Siddiqui, AS

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

Jorge Villa, JV
Hartmut Glaser, HG

Filiz Yilmaz, FY
Wilfried Woeber, WW

Barbara Roseman BR – ICANN
Carlos Reyes– ICANN
Leo Vegoda, LV – ICANN
Hans Petter Holen, HPH – RIPE/ICANN

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

Ricardo Patara, RP
Dmitry Kohmanyuk, DK (unable to reach)


1. Welcome
2. Agenda review
3. Review open actions
4. Approval of minutes from February 5th 2014
5. NomCom bylaw changes
6. Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA
7. Observers in AC-COORD list
8. NRO EC input on AC procedure to appoint members to various bodies
9. Singapore ICANN 49 preparation
10. AOB
11. Adjourn

1. Welcome

LL welcomed everyone. GV conducted the roll call and established quorum. LL called the meeting to order at 12:06 UTC.

2. Agenda review

LL thanked everyone for participating and reviewed the agenda. There were no requests for additional AOB items.

3. Review open actions

Action Item 140108-03: LL to consult NRO EC on their plan for Brazil meeting and securing invitations for at least CWG ASO appointed members.
Status: Open. LL sent request and will follow up.

Action Item 140108-06: LL to coordinate with NRO EC about what role the ASO AC should have in 1net participation.
Status: Open. LL sent request to NRO EC but has not yet heard back. LL to follow up prior to the Singapore ICANN Meeting.

Action Item 140205-02: LV to send the final text to be included in the Internet number registries section in IANA website to the AC-COORD mailing list on the interpretation in Implementing The Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA
Status: Closed. Item is on the agenda.

Action Item 140205-03: GV to send the approved procedure to the NRO EC for final approval, and add it to the procedure as a draft amendment, pending NRO EC approval.
Status: Closed. GV sent proposed procedure and the NRO EC had some comments. Item is on the agenda.

# JS joined the teleconference at 12:11 UTC.

4. Approval of minutes from February 5th 2014

RS put forth a motion to approve the minutes and AB seconded. There were no objections or abstentions and the motion passed. LL asked GV to remove the draft status from the February minutes.

Action Item 140305-01: GV to remove the draft status from the February 5th meeting minutes.

5. NomCom bylaws changes

HPH joined the teleconference to discuss this item. HPH explained that there is a small NomCom subcommittee writing a proposal to change the ICANN bylaws. Changes are about to extend the NomCom members and to extend terms from one year to two years, and discussion about whether there should be a maximum allowance of two periods (i.e. two two-year terms), and what impact this would have.

HPH explained that the subcommittee will send the proposal to the ICANN Board and it will then go through the normal procedure for changing the bylaws. He said he doesn’t have a timeline for this yet, as this is up to the ICANN Board.

HPH said what he really wants to talk to the ASO AC about the proposal to extend the NomCom. He said the the NomCom is made up mostly of people from the names community, and he wanted to ensure fair representation. He has not yet raised this with the NomCom, as he first wanted input about the ASO AC potentially requesting NomCom seats.

HG thanked HPH for his report and said he supports two-year terms. He asked HPH for clarification on how the terms would be divided, whether members would serve the same two years as one another, or serve them staggered. HPH said the proposal is to stagger the members’ terms. HG said he supported that idea.

HG also asked about having representation from all five regions and said the same question would come up regarding the ccNSO, which only has one seat. He said other groups should be examined as well, because the address community does not have a strong voice.

WW said it was obvious that everyone was expected to serve for two consecutive one-year terms. He said he agrees that continuity is important but questioned whether a hard commitment for two years should be a requirement for being elected to the NomCom, because some people might not be available for that entire time period.

HPH said the NomCom had not yet discussed this, but that it was a good point.

HG said that sometimes the constituencies change composition and that regions don’t always have the same representative, which is very important. He said it’s important for people to know in the beginning how long they’re expected to contribute. He said he sees more of an advantage than a disadvantage to having a two-year term.

HPH then asked the ASO AC about the relevant numbers of representatives on the NomCom. He said that, in the past, he hasn’t felt knowledgeable enough to speak to certain issues. He asked about whether trying to get more people from the numbers community on the NomCom would mean that those people would not then be able to speak about names issues.

LL said that the ccNSO constituency wants its own representatives because they don’t feel represented on the NomCom, not compared to those in the numbers community but in the names community. He doesn’t expect them to disagree if the ASO wants more representation to ensure they’re not being underrepresented compared to the names community.

HPH said the goal is not to increase the influence of the ccNSO, but wanting to ensure this new constituency feels represented, as the others are. He asked for the ASO AC’s opinion on this and on what the NomCom subcommittee should do.

BR asked whether HPH’s concern was about having enough technical representation on the NomCom, or whether he was worried there would be more representation from the names community than from the numbers or any other community.

HPH asked whether BR viewed him as a technical person or not. BR responded that she did see him as a technical person. She said that she understands HPH’s point that, as more people are added from the names community, the voice of the technical community becomes diminished. She said there are people on the names side of things who offer a technical perspective as well, but that she does think that names issues have a larger share of the discussion than the technical (numbers and security) community does. She wondered how to fix the problem without just adding more and more people to the discussion, which she said might lead to everyone having less of a voice overall.

HPH said he isn’t sure what the solution is, either, and that some people don’t see him as a technical person. He said he wasn’t looking at the numbers in terms of having technical versus non-technical people, but realized that the numbers organizations were becoming more and more diluted in terms of representation. He also said that representatives should not just be purely technical, as there are other skills required. He said he simply wants to highlight the fact that the numbers community has less of a voice.

BR said the issue is important but was not sure what the solution is, because adding more people doesn’t always lead to more influence. She will raise the issue within ICANN. HPH said he agreed with BR’s point.

HG said that in his seven years on the NomCom, he only ever saw one person from the GAC. He added that there are some seats that are not used and that the numbers community needs to have more of a voice on the NomCom. He said that other constituencies have many more seats and that now is the time to change the bylaws and secure stronger representation from the technical community.

LL said he thinks the group might be able to justify the need for one or two more seats and that they could ask for five seats if the bylaws change, but then appoint one individual to better understand and address the problem rather than simply having many more people on the committee. He said that in the meantime, it might be good to reserve the right to some extra seats.

HPH said that wasn’t in the proposal, so it would need to be added.

WW said he thought that this proposal to add one person from the new constituency was a minor issue until now, but that the last few minutes of discussion indicate there could be the need to further refurbish the NomCom bylaws. He added that one thing bothering him is an issue about how the NomCom Chair is appointed. He said he doesn’t feel the process is transparent and that it seems to be the ICANN Board appointing the NomCom Chairs. He asked if his understanding is correct.

HPH said the ICANN Board appoints on a yearly basis one NomCom Chair and one Chair-Elect. He explained that the Chair then selects a Deputy Chair. The Chair-Elect is meant to be the next Chair, but the Board can select someone else if they want, and that this is a one-year appointment.

WW said that he thinks the ICANN Board has too much influence over the NomCom.

LL said the discussion has been good, but there are other agenda items to get through. He asked for any last comments.

HPH asked for an offline discussion to try to reach some kind of consensus.

# NA joined the teleconference at 12:40 UTC.

LL asked whether there is also discussion about expanding the number of directors, and HPH said that there hadn’t been any to his knowledge. LL thanked HPH for joining the teleconference for this agenda item.

# HPH left the teleconference at 12:41 UTC.

6. Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA

LL reviewed the agenda item and the feedback so far from the different regions, which is overwhelmingly for option A (starting allocations immediately). He said the group had been waiting to hear from the RIPE NCC and AFRINIC and asked FY and AB for reports.

AB said FA sent a message to the AFRINIC community asking for advice and they received about five messages back. There was not a strong preference but option A was slightly preferred, meaning the first allocation could happen when a region is in a position to need it, and subsequent allocations would take place according to the six-month schedule.

FY said she asked the RIPE community in early February and received seven responses that either demonstrated a preference for option A, or no preference.

LV said that they would appreciate some formal advice, either as a motion or a letter from the ASO AC Chair, in order to have something on the record.

LL said he would prefer a motion in order to record the consensus, but if the ASO AC would prefer a letter, that would be okay.

# AS joined the call at 12:46 UTC.

WW said he’s fine with a motion and suggested using the same procedure as with the allocation of ASNs. He did suggest a succinct letter explaining the group’s actions, but said he would be okay with a motion as well.

DO said (via chat, due to a poor audio connection), that because providing advice to the Board is at the heart of the group’s mandate, he thought the advice would be taken more seriously if they sent a letter. He said that regarding the content of the letter, he was okay with Wilfred’s proposal of including how the group arrived at the advice based on the feedback they received from their regions.

LL said he agreed that a letter would be nice and suggested drafting it on the mailing list.

DO put forth a motion (via chat) to draft a formal letter. AS and WW seconded the motion. There were no objections or abstentions and the motion passed. LL asked for volunteers to draft the first version and DO volunteered.

LV said he would appreciate getting the advice as soon as possible, as IANA may be triggering the policy within the next few months.

WW asked whether the draft would be put to an e-vote or be put on next month’s agenda.

LL said the group will go ahead with drafting the letter and that informal agreement on the mailing list regarding the wording would be acceptable before presenting the advice to IANA. LV thanked the group.

# LV left the teleconference at 12:56 UTC.

JS said that additional pieces of advice were requested, such as a desire in the ARIN region not to give IANA increased flexibility, and that IANA has asked for their hands to be tied in this matter in order to not surprise anyone. He also said that wording should be included about subsequent allocations to the RIRs taking place on the six-month window, as was expected in the ARIN region.

LL said he would support including that additional advice in the letter, below the clear explanation of which option the ASO AC supports.

JS also asked for an anticipated timeline about when the draft would be available from DO and then asked to have a week to discuss it.

DO asked when the text was expected, and LL responded that he hoped it could be available within 24 hours. He said that others can help fill in details about the specific community input received.

Action Item 140305-02: DO to draft the letter of advice regarding the implementation of the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA.

7. Observers in AC-COORD list

LL explained that the ASO AC had a request from a policy chair to be allowed as an observer on the AC-COORD list and he thought that, if approved, the invitation should be extended to others from all five regions, such as HPH and Martin Levy. He said that there hadn’t been follow-up on the mailing list and asked to open up the discussion again.

FY said she hadn’t joined the discussion yet, but that she agrees that those from the NRO NC and observers from the RIRs should be included, but that the group should be careful about including any other observers beyond that. She said she thinks that too many other observers might cause the group to lose focus, and that there are sometimes issues that come up that may make people reluctant to speak openly if they aren’t sure who is listening.

JS summarized the discussion so far. He said that HG proposed 15 ASO AC members plus the five RIR CEOs, two observers from each RIR, three IANA staff, two Board of Directors, the NRO Secretariat and two Secretariat staff, for a total of 38 people. He said that BR explained why there were some ICANN people (currently BR and CR) on there as well, to support the ASO, as well as those providing IANA support (currently LV, FA and FY), as well as some others, including John Jeffrey.

WW said it was a good start to put together a list of people or roles that should be included. He said he wasn’t very worried about adding others if there is a good reason for it, such as HPH and Martin Levy. He said he’s more interested in having a regular review at the start of the year of the observers list to allow discussion about who is on the list and why. He added that some people might want to use disposable email addresses so it’s important for everyone to know who is on the list.

JS said he supports almost everything WW said, but that, as long as a review is done regularly, it doesn’t matter when it’s done and he would actually suggest doing it during the second teleconference of the year because the first is very busy and new members should have a chance to settle in first.

WW said he had no strong feelings about when it should happen as long as it’s on the schedule.

LL said it sounds as though the group does not particularly oppose or support adding new members, but that there are concerns about diluting the group and making sure everyone feels free to speak openly. He said it sounds as though the group is okay with including people that the ASO AC appoints to various ICANN bodies, or other bodies outside of the ASO AC.

WW added that regarding any sensitive topics, there is already a mailing list for the 15 ASO AC members only that could be used. LL said they should ensure those archives are not open to the public.

TF asked whether the current mailing list should be maintained. LL reiterated WW’s point that there is already a list for the ASO AC members only. LL asked GV to send the members of that list around to the group, to confirm it’s accurate and up to date. GV said that the list is up to date, but is infrequently used.

LL asked for any last feedback about this agenda item.

JS asked for clarification about the plan in terms of explaining who should be on the list and why.

LL said the discussion should be taken to the mailing list.

FA asked what had been decided about inviting the RIR’s policy working group chairs. LL said the idea would be to not invite the chairs of all the policy working groups, but there are no objections to having ASO AC-appointed members on the list, including HPH and Martin Levy.

HG said he was okay with inviting observers to attend the meetings, but that they should not be included on the mailing list. He said there were a lot of names included on the list that GV sent to the group in February, and that this list should be updated and cleaned up because there were too many people included and not everyone was an active participant.

LL said he supported cleaning up the list and justifying why each person has been included.

JS put forth a motion to include HPH and Martin Levy on the AC-COORD list and to start the process of cleaning up the list. WW seconded the motion. NA asked for the motion to be repeated. STM repeated the motion. There were no oppositions or abstentions and the motion passed.

8. NRO EC input on AC procedure to appoint members to various bodies

LL said that several members commented on the proposed procedure in terms of wording and organization so that it better fits into the procedure list. He asked GV to review the feedback.

GV said the NRO EC generally accepted the procedure, but there was feedback about some of the wording, since it introduced new terms, and they asked to make the wording more consistent. He said there were some comments about point 10, including the need for clear, written expectations up front. GV will make these changes before sending it back to the NRO EC for their final approval.

Action Item 140305-03: GV to follow up with the NRO EC about their feedback on the AC procedure to appoint members to various bodies, make the requested changes to the text, and send the final text to the ASO AC for their approval.

LL asked the group whether they needed to see the NRO EC’s verbatim feedback, or whether they were happy to just review the final version before GV sends it to the NRO EC.

WW asked for an easy way to see the changes made in response to the NRO EC’s feedback so that the ASO AC can give it a final review.

JS suggested having a week to review the final proposal once it’s been sent to the mailing list, then put it to an e-vote.

LL supported this suggestion.

9. Singapore ICANN 49 preparation

LL reviewed all the preparation that needs to take place around the meeting and asked either NA or FY to give an update on the work of the CWG.

NA said there were several points that should be discussed, including what the group’s focus should be and how much they should be doing around different issues, including Internet governance. He said he feels the group needs to respond clearly about how things can be better from ICANN’s perspective. He said he can share the text that the CWG has drafted with the group.

FY said the issues NA pointed out are being discussed actively on the mailing list, by the CWG and at various meetings. The high-level issues meeting will be on Monday, March 24th at 1:30 p.m. local time, and will focus on feedback about what the working group has produced and the role of ICANN in Internet governance. FY’s role is to ensure the meeting is organized well and these issues are on the agenda. Another important topic is the RIR system and how it interacts with ICANN and there is another sub-group that came up with text around this, which she can forward to the mailing list if people are interested.

LL asked the group to provide feedback to FY about this.

FY said that the group works with very short deadlines, and she would appreciate it if those who are in Singapore could attend the meeting and that remote participation will also be available.

LL asked for an update on the meeting steering committee, to take place on the mailing list.

LL asked about the upcoming webinars as part of the ICANN preparations and apologized for having not yet provided CR with input. CR said he would appreciate LL’s feedback by the end of the week. LL said he would do his best and that he may need input from RIR staff about all the different policies.

LL then asked about whether a meeting room had been secured for the ASO AC and the NRO EC to use. BR confirmed the request had been sent but there wasn’t confirmation yet about which room it would be. LL asked about any other IPv6 or numbers-related workshop, but BR said she didn’t know of any at this meeting other than a pre-meeting policy webinar, which CR had sent LL information about.

LL asked about scheduling time with other groups, such as the NomCom and the ICANN Board. He asked GV to check which other groups that had requested time, such as the SSAC, and to send a summary to the mailing list. LL asked whether they had received a request from the GAC and GV said there was nothing outside of the usual meetings. LL said he wanted to ensure these meetings are formal ones so that they have remote participation facilities, meeting rooms, etc. BR said she would confirm this.

Action Item 140305-04: GV to send a summary to the mailing list of all the meeting requests, along with a link to the calendar.

LL asked for any other topics regarding the meeting. BR said that planning for the Brazil meeting has overwhelmed all other planning at the moment. LL asked everyone to keep an eye out for meeting requests and send these to GV so he can organize things. LL said he will share his contact information in case anyone needs to get in touch during the meeting.

FA asked GV for a summary of meeting requests and LL said that he had already asked GV for this, adding that these will also go on the calendar, which everyone can subscribe to.

10. AOB

HG asked about the composition of the NRO EC for 2014.

GV confirmed that the Chair is Adiel Akplogan (AFRINIC), the Secretary is Axel Pawlik (RIPE NCC) and the Treasurer is Raúl Echeberría (LACNIC). LL added that this information is also available on the NRO website.

# JS left the teleconference at 1:50 UTC.

AS asked whether the ASO AC members should use another way, other than email, to confirm whether they will be attending the teleconference, such as a Doodle poll. LL also said it would be nice to have a quick overview of who will attend along with phone numbers, etc. GV said that sometimes email acts as a catalyst to get others to respond, but that he could try a poll for the next teleconference and see how it works. WW expressed some concerns about collecting phone numbers and other personal information on a public platform. LL said the group should look into whether it’s possible to keep personal information private and, if so, to try using the Doodle poll for the next teleconference.

TF asked for comments about the meeting report on the mailing list.

11. Adjourn

WW thanked the scribe and put forth a motion to adjourn the meeting. TF seconded and the motion passed without any objections or abstentions. The meeting adjourned at 1:59 UTC.

Last modified on 29/01/2020