ASO AC Teleconference 3 April 2002
Takashi Arano (TA)
Eric Decker (ED)
Hans Petter Holen (HPH)
Kenny Huang (KH)
Sabine Jaume (SJ)
Seung-Min Lee (SML)
Barbara Roseman (BR)
Cathy Wittbrodt (CJW)
Raimundo Beca (RB)
John Crain (JC)
Mouhamet Diop (MD)
Ray Plzak (RP)
Richard Jimmerson (RJ), Secretariat
Anne Lord (AL)
Paul Wilson (PW)
- Apologies received
- Agenda bashing
- Update from the Secretariat
- Minutes from February 2002 AC teleconference
- Report from APNIC 13
- Status of open actions
- Follow-up from ASO General Assembly Meeting
- Follow-up from ASO AC Physical Meeting
- Provisional approval of LACNIC
- Committee on ICANN Elution and Reform
- BoD elections
The Chair opened the call at 22:00 UCT (5:00 pm EST).
Apologies were received from Wilfried Woeber, German Valdez, and Hartmut Glaser.
The Secretariat went through the Agenda. The Chair asked for any additions. There were none.
Update from the Secretariat
Regarding the AC physical meeting and the General Assembly notes, the Secretariat reported they had been sent to the ASO AC the day of this call via e-mail for review.
Regarding the Statement of Support for Nominees, the Secretariat reported that notices had fallen off substantially and that he currently receives only a few per week.
Minutes from February 2002 AC teleconference
The Secretariat noted that there were no comments from the AC on the minutes of 2/6/02. He also noted that no official procedure was in place for posting the minutes, but would post them now if there were no objections.
The Chair then asked for any questions. There were none. The Chair then raised the issue of posting the minutes. It was proposed that the Secretariat send the minutes in a timely fashion (within 3 to 5 business days) to the AC for comment to last no longer than 1 week from the time they receive the draft minutes. The Secretariat will then post the minutes to the web identifying them as “Draft” with language stating that they will be approved at next regularly scheduled meeting. All were in support of this proposed procedure.
The Secretariat asked if the AC would then approve the minutes of February 6, 2002. The Chair asked if anyone wanted to re-review them first. None felt the need to re-review. The Chair then asked to formally adopt the minutes. There were no objections. Chair instructed the Secretariat to post the February minutes.
Report from APNIC 13, held in Bangkok, Thailand
The Chair asked for a general overview. TA volunteered to give overview and stated that there were some special interest group (SIG) meetings where topics such as address policy, IPv6, and the emerging LACNIC were discussed. The Chair asked if there were any special changes to policy made that would be useful to keep in mind. TA stated that yes, the IPv6 draft was discussed and a proposed amendment to the language was formed. This will be presented at the upcoming ARIN IX meeting. CJW also noted that there was an ARIN AC meeting during APNIC 13 regarding consensus at APNIC meeting, and reaching consensus at the ARIN meeting to get this issue moving forward.
Status of open actions
The Secretariat read through the following list.
Complete list of open actions
- Action # 12-4 RIRs/IANA
- Circulate draft resource request procedure document to the AC. Secretariat noted that the RIRs are to date still awaiting a response. RP explained that this is due to the RIR/ICANN contract issue. The RIR Joint position was sent to Stuart Lynn in a letter that is posted on the ARIN website and will soon be posted on the APNIC website as well. The Secretariat then suggested removing this item from the list or putting to a shelf list. CJW agreed to put it to a shelve list. The Chair requested time to draft a procedure for this type action and would said that further instructions would be sent to the Secretariat on creating a shelf list.
- The Chair requested time to draft a procedure for this type action and said that further instructions would be sent to the Secretariat on creating a shelf list.
- Action # 0105-7 SEC
- Compile a list of attendees of upcoming meetings for 2001/2002 (ongoing action) As receives messages page is updated. Continual process. Encouraged to send updates to him. RP; remove and set up as procedural item. Chair – good suggestion – request info from ac on attendance to meetings on quarterly basis. RJ: yes – we’ll close this then.
- Action # 0107-11 AC Subcommittee: (BR, ED, HPH, GV)
- Devise procedure for ICANN Board member selection in a Subcommittee:
- Collect ideas and proposals,
- Write draft,
- Adapt results in a face to face meeting
- Chair stated that these issues were discussed at the workshop in Bangkok and that a concrete proposal to bring forward needed to be worked on now. Chair asked ED to summarize what was agreed upon at the workshop. ED asked the Chair if she received the meeting minutes and drafted anything. Chair stated she did have minutes and had written notes. ED then summarized that the minutes the Secretariat sent from informal meeting were accurate with the board member selection process. The Chair stated there were two categories: 1) helping candidates direct their presentations in a more useful way to understand their concerns; and, 2) defining the comment period.
- Candidates and their presentations. Among the suggestions given were creating a questionnaire for candidates to use, giving the AC a better range of comparison among the candidates. In addition, face to face interviewing of candidates was suggested, but the logistics needed to be better defined. Also suggested was an AC meeting or off-line discussion and then post results.
- The Chair asked for any discussion on these issues. HPH thought that conference calls would be hard to organize, and that written support and an opportunity for candidates to meet the AC would be sufficient. PW, however, stated that he would be happy to see as thorough selection process as possible given the extreme importance of the 3 year term position. He urged the AC to try to create maximum opportunity to get to know the nominees before making a decision. PW also stated that APNIC quite frequently interviews by conference call because if no other
- means is possible, conference calls help one to understand the qualifications and level of direct knowledge the candidate may have. The Chair interjected that this also would give the AC the ability to judge the candidate’s presentation skills, which is very important. HPH agreed. The Chair stated that the AC needed to professionalize the process in order to see how candidates would fit into the board.
- One prop was to invite candidates to the GA meeting and set aside time to interview in a structured meeting, and if unable to attend, then have a conference call. CJW also stated the idea of a form/questionnaire that would be an analytical presentation of the candidate. HPH stated that what worked well was having them come to the GA and give a presentation. The Chair then stated that the AC would not be offering to underwrite travel expenses, but just to invite the candidates to the meeting.
- Given this, the Chair moved to adopt the following procedure: have the candidate complete a form; post the results to the web; and, then the AC would review. For those who meet criteria (within geographic eligibility) invite them to the GA meeting, structure an interview with them and view their presentations. If they are unable to attend, conduct a conference call interview. The Chair asked if there were any objections? There were no objections. Roll call was taken and all members were in favor.
- Comment Period. It was decided to limit public comment to no longer than 30 days after the GA meeting. Candidates would be nominated 30 days prior, and comments would be received up to 30 after for a total of 60 days. Following this would be a 30 day internal discussion within the AC, followed by vote. This was accepted by all members by acclamation.
- Given the inundation of public comments, many, at times, inappropriate, the AC discussed setting a time period for comments. It was decided that the internal discussion period would be set at 30 days and any AC member could then propose to shorten or lengthen the internal discussion per subject vote of the AC. ED motioned to adopt this procedure and it was seconded by HPH. There were no objections.
- At this point Mohammad Diop had to get off due to an echo created on the line that was disrupting the call.
- Action # 0109-5 AC
- Continue discussion about physical AC meeting on the ac-coord mailing list. Closed
- Action # 0202-01 SEC
- Post Minutes of January 6, 2002 ASO AC Meeting to ASO Website. Closed
- Action # 0202-02 SEC
- Report on DNSO and PSO procedures for recording teleconferences and posting them to their respective web sites. It was decided that since there was not any public pressure, or internal reasons, to continue recording the calls, this would be discontinued and any archived recordings would be destroyed. There were no objections to this decision.
- If there are future requests for this kind of public access to meetings, the AC will revisit the question.
Follow-up from ASO General Assembly Meeting
Notes to this meeting will be reviewed by the AC. It was noted that there was a general request for greater communication among the RIRs regarding policy development. That some form of communication from region to region about what is going on and how policies were developing would be appreciated.
At this point Mohammad Diop came back on the call.
RP also added that at the GA meeting the issue of IPv6 and how long it took – that it appears it’s been going on a long time was brought up. However RP noted that there are many different and separate aspects to IPv6 policy being discussed.
Follow-up from ASO AC Physical Meeting
Due to a re-occurring echo on the call, the Chair stated that they could not continue the call. She suggested taking this topic to the list and address proposals to it in the next regularly scheduled meeting in May. There were no objections.
Provisional approval of LACNIC
The Chair stated that GV is to come back to the AC from the LACNIC Board on what type of procedure the Board would like. RP stated that members of the LACNIC Board would be at the ARIN meeting, and it would be a good idea to speak with Raul Echeberria (Chair of LACNIC BoD) then.
Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform
Louis Touton had sent a specific request to the AC to comment on before the 31st of May. The Chair proposed an AC subcommittee to address Louis requests. She stated that this topic needed a considered response. The Chair then asked for any volunteers on reading the request and a drafting response. ED, BR and HPH volunteered.
The Secretariat stated that the elections list is available and would send test msgs to list identifying who is on it. The Chair then stated that discussion should be initiated on the list and proposed a time limit of a 4 to 5 week discussion period. She stated this could be proposed on the list as well. The Chair then asked if there were any objections. There were no objections.
MD stated that the information session in Ghana was successful and will try to have more in the future. The Chair was pleased it was useful. ED was asked to send his presentation via e-mail as some were unable to access the website that was given.
There being no further business, the Chair asked if anyone would like to move for adjournment. CJW moved to adjourn and this was seconded by HPH at 23:08 pm UTC.
Open action item list
- Action # 12-4 RIRs/IANA
- Resource request procedure document. RIRS still awaiting response to date. Chair to propose procedure for putting this item on a shelf list. Further instructions from Chair to come to Secretariat. Open
- Action # 0202-02 SEC
- Report on DNSO and PSO procedures for recording teleconferences and posting them to their respective web sites. Secretariat to discontinue recordings and to destroy archived recordings. Open
- Action # 0204-01 Chair
- The Chair requested time to draft a procedure for creating a shelf list. Instructions will be sent to the Secretariat at a later date. Open
- Action # 0204-02 SEC
- Procedure for Minutes. Secretariat to send minutes in a timely fashion to the AC for comment to last no longer than 1 week of original meeting. After they review, Secretariat to then post Draft Minutes to web with header that they will be approved at next regularly scheduled meeting. Open
- Action # 0204-03 ED, BR, HPH, (SEC)
- Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform. ASO-created subcommittee to respond to Louis Touton’s request to comment before 31st of May. Secretariat to create private list in which subcommittee can correspond. Open
- Action # 0204-04 SEC
- BoD Elections. Secretariat to send test mgs to elections list identifying who is on it. Open
Last modified on 29/01/2020