ASO AC Teleconference 5 February 2003

AC Attendees:

Raimundo Beca (RB)
Eric Decker (ED)
Hartmut Glaser (HG)
Hans Petter Holen (HPH)
Sabine Jaume (SJ)
Mark McFadden (Chair)
Kim Hubbard (KH)
Julian Dunayevich (JD)

Listener/Observers:

n/a

ARIN:

Richard Jimmerson (RJ)
Raymond Plzak (RP)

LACNIC:

Raul Echeberria (RE)
German Valdez (GV)

RIPE NCC:

Axel Pawlik (AP)

APNIC:

Paul Wilson (PW)
Anne Lord, ASO Secretariat (SEC-AL)
Gerard Ross, ASO Secretariat (SEC-GR)

ICANN:

Barbara Roseman (BR)

Agenda

  1. Welcome
  2. Apologies received
  3. Agenda bashing
  4. Minutes from 8 January 2003, AC Teleconference
  5. Status of open actions
  6. Nomcom voting: Candidate speeches from Erik Decker and German Valdez
  7. Election process documentation – chairs, co-chair
  8. Roadmap for 2003 – Overview
  9. Location and venue of next workshop in 2003
  10. Draft agenda for GA meeting in Santiago
  11. Update on ICANN RIR negotiations
  12. Any other business (AOB)

    1. Welcome

The Chair opened the meeting at 22:15 UTC.

    1. Apologies received

Apologies were received from: Wilfried Woeber and Takashi Arano

Absent: Seung-Min Lee, Kenny Huang

    1. Agenda bashing

The Chair reviewed the draft agenda and asked if there were any additions or amendments. ED asked about the BOD election process. This matter was deferred to the March agenda.

AL noted that there is normally a report from the most recent RIR meeting. This item was also deferred to the March agenda. AP volunteered to circulate the highlights of RIPE 44 and to provide a brief report in the March AC meeting.

Action #0302-01 AP
AP to circulate the highlights of RIPE 44 and to provide a brief report in the March AC meeting.

    1. Minutes from 8 January 2003, AC Teleconference

The Chair noted that the minutes had been circulated and that the comments received had been incorporated. HG moved to approve the minutes from 8 January 2003. ED seconded the motion. There were no objections. The motion to publish the minutes passed.

    1. Status of open actions

Open action item list

Action #0209-01 SEC
Discuss location of web page (RIR vs. ASO) to post status of RFC 2050 and create web page. SEC stated that this was going up on the RIR web page and apologized to THE CHAIR for all the information he provided and the fact that the web page was still not there. The SEC stated it would be up by the close of the week. WW asked if each RIR would provide a link. The SEC stated that ARIN will keep the site up to date, and all will have links to it.
RJ confirmed that this action has been completed, that the page is now on the ASO website and linked from all RIR sites. Done
Action #0212-03 SEC
Gather information regarding support from the RIRs to the AC for the ICANN Nomcom for 2003 only. RP stated that ICANN has not responded, and that between the CEOs of the RIRs it had been decided that they would not take a position until they see what ICANN’s position will be.
The Chair noted that he had received a message from Stuart Lynn confirming that ICANN intends for all work to be done by teleconference and for there to be no travel required. There remains an open question as to what happens if circumstances arise which do require travel. BR noted that ICANN has said they will cover incidental costs, but have not yet answered the question about travel. Open
Action #0301-01 SJ
January Workshop Report from the Agenda Committee. SJ to send revised Agenda to the list. Done
Action #0301-02 CHAIR, RB, AL
ASO GA Report from the Agenda Committee. Chair, RB, Anne Lord. To be completed before the Workshop in January in Amsterdam. Done
Action #0301-03 HPH
ICANN Budget. HPH to coordinate with the RIRs, and get feedback to ICANN.
HPH said he had thought this was intended as an action on the Chair. The Chair said that he would take on this matter. The Chair will investigate the budget issue; he will work with ICANN to better understand the budgetary process and the AC’s role in that process. He will report back to AC. Open

Shelf list (items pending action outside the ASO AC)

Action #12-4 RIRs/IANA
Resource request procedure document. RP stated that this has been updated. IANA sent a message in late December, 2002, with comments on the document, and the RIRs will be responding to the IANA. The Chair asked at what point the RIRs will have a response. RP stated this should be done sometime in January.
This task is still pending comments from APNIC. Open

    1. Nomcom voting

The Chair reviewed the background to this matter. He noted that HPH and himself had made public appeals for nominations. The two nominees are Erik Decker and German Valdez.

The Chair outlined the proposed selection process: the candidates will be invited to give a brief speech; the AC will be invited to ask questions; and a role call vote will be held. HG suggested that the vote be deferred until the final agenda point, to be conducted in the absence of the candidates. There was consensus that this was the best procedure.

Candidates’ speeches

ED noted that the ICANN Board members hold an important position. He noted that since the reform process, the board appears more insular, and therefore it is necessary to take a sceptical eye to the process and to ensure that anyone selected is aware of the need for transparency and openness.

GV also noted that the ICANN board is very important as is the selection of appropriate people. He noted that he has been involved with the ASO since its creation and understands the processes and requirements. He noted that he has both IP and domain name experience. He also noted that he has the full support from his employer to do what is necessary to serve on the Nomcom.

[The role was taken again at this point. It was noted that SJ – who had apologised in advance of possible call problems – had dropped out of the call.]

Questions from the AC members

KH sought to clarify the role of the Nomcom and asked the candidates what view they had of the best procedures to be developed to appoint members to the board.

ED noted that one of the first tasks for the Nomcom is to determine the procedures by which they shall make appointments to the Board. He noted that he wants those procedures to be transparent and to take into account the views of the constituents.

GV noted that many people criticise ICANN for its lack of transparency. He believes that transparency, accountability, and diversity must be ensured. He also believes that the process must be seen by the community to be open.

The Chair invited more questions. He then asked the candidates whether they would favour a candidate with specific addressing knowledge or one with a more general background.

ED said he would chose someone with more general knowledge, provided they had a sufficient base level of technical knowledge to understand the issues under discussion.

GV noted that he agreed with ED. Although he is very concerned with addressing issues, he recognises that the Board members will be required to take a wider view in order to make decisions.

HG noted that the first Nomcom has a double job. It must prepare the procedures and then elect the first board members.

RB noted that the initial Nomcom will have to nominate eight people, and asked the candidates their views about an appropriate equilibrium of the different constituents and the regions.

ED noted that in the past, there have been concerns in other constituencies about a perceived slant towards the USA. He noted his belief that this is a valid concern and that the Board needs to reflect a more global perspective.

GV noted that the first appointments are crucial in setting the balance of the Board. He noted that he would not like to see too many lawyers taking control of the technical matters. He stated it is very important to strike a balance between background and diversity of expertise.

There were no more questions, so the Chair thanked the candidates.

    1. Election process documentation – chairs, co-chair

The Chair outlined the contents of the document he had prepared and circulated in relation to the election of chairs and co-chairs. This document is an attempt to define what should happen if the chair becomes vacant. The Chair noted that this document had been circulated to the AC list and had received two comments.

The Chair noted that comments he received were on points 7 and 8, specifically relating to the process for the election of chair and co-chair.

The Chair called for comments and objections on the document, point by point.

On point 2, RP noted that there were would a difficulty if the chair’s term ended before the meeting where the election occurred. RE suggested that the co-chair would act as chair pro-temp for the remaining meeting.

HPH noted that holding the meeting in January has been a problem in the past, due to clashes with holiday times in some parts of the world. He suggested changing the date of the election. RP noted that the ASO MoU defines the terms as starting on 1 January. He suggested there was a danger of denying due process to people who may not have formally joined the AC at the time the election is held. HPH suggested that to hold the election in June would be possible and would have the advantage that the AC would know more about the candidates. RP also noted that the criteria for chair is that their term on the AC cannot expire during their term as chair. HG noted that the clash with holidays could be solved by briefly postponing the date of the first meeting of the year.

The Chair expressed his hope that by the next chair election, there would be online voting so that attendance would not be required. There were several statements of agreement with this point.

On point 5, the role of chair and co-chair, RB expressed a concern with proposed process for appointing co-chairs. The Chair noted that this would be dealt with in point 8.

On point 7, RB had already proposed on the mailing list that there should be a mechanism for new members on the AC to be nominated. RP noted that it was important that newly elected members should be able to participate in the nominations. The Chair read the provision that RB had suggested. RP argued that new members who had not been formally seated would need to be made eligible to nominate. RP will help The Chair draft additional text for this.

The Chair asked if there were any objections to the proposed election process. There were none.

RB suggested explicitly stating that nominees are able to participate in the voting. There were no objections to this.

On point 8, RB had suggested that the there be a “co-chair one” and “co-chair two”. The Chair explained he had tried to incorporate this in section 8.4, which proposes a designated co-chair.

The Chair sought the AC’s approval to make the changes agreed in this call, to post those changes for final comments, and then to publish the document to the community.

RB raised questions about the definition of the designated co-chairs. HG said that it needed to be very clear which co-chair is to act. HG agreed with RB that the co-chair one and co-chair two would act only in an interim capacity and would be clearly empowered to call a election to replace the chair. The Chair to incorporate that change.

Action #0302-02 CHAIR
The Chair to incorporate the comments received in the election process document and circulate the revised document for final AC comments.

    1. Roadmap for 2003 – Overview

The Chair apologised that this has not been done. It will be deferred to the March agenda.

Action #0302-03 CHAIR
The Chair to prepare discussion of the Roadmap for 2003 on the March agenda.

    1. Location and venue of next workshop in 2003

The Chair noted that the workshop in Amsterdam was very useful and proposed organising a second one.

RE proposed to hold a second workshop with the General Assembly in Santiago. HG said that although the first workshop had been useful, it was necessary to have a very clear agenda and reason for holding a second workshop. RE clarified that his proposal was intended to take advantage of the presence of the AC members in Santiago.

Action #0302-04 CHAIR, RE
The Chair and RE to prepare a draft agenda for a second workshop to be held later in the year. Chair to identify a teleconference in 2003 to return to the issue of the second workshop.

HG asked whether there was a need to follow any formal procedure to hold a workshop. HPH and RP noted that a workshop was not a formal meeting of the AC and that the regular meeting formalities did not apply.

    1. Draft agenda for GA meeting in Santiago

The Chair asked if there were any concerns with the agenda that has been distributed. HG suggested that it should include the Roadmap for 2003-4. There were no objections to the Chair posting the agenda for public comment.

    1. Update on ICANN RIR negotiations

RP noted that there have been no negotiations or proposals in January.

HPH asked if the RIRs and ICANN are running towards a common goal, or away from each other. RP said they are heading for a common goal but there remain issues with specific language.

    1. Any other business (AOB)

Election of Nomcom (cont’d)

At the request of the Chair, the two nominees left the meeting.

RB noted that in terms of determining quorum, it should be based on the voting members and the absence of the candidates would not affect the quorum. It was agreed that this was correct.

A vote count was taken. By unanimous vote, GV was appointed to the Nomcom.

The Chair will notify the candidates.

There was no other business. RB moved a motion for adjournment. Seconded by KH. Meeting adjourned.

Open action item list

Action #0212-03 SEC
Gather information regarding support from the RIRs to the AC for the ICANN Nomcom for 2003 only. RP stated that ICANN has not responded, and that between the CEOs of the RIRs it had been decided that they would not take a position until they see what ICANN’s position will be.
The Chair noted that he had received a message from Stuart Lynn confirming that ICANN intends for all work to be done by teleconference and for there to be no travel required. There remains an open question as to happens if circumstances arise which do require travel. BR noted that ICANN has said they will cover incidental costs, but have not yet answered the question about travel. Open
Action #0301-03 CHAIR
Chair to investigate the ICANN budget issues; he will work with ICANN to better understand the budgetary process and the AC’s role in that process. He will report back to AC. Open
Action #0302-01 AP
AP volunteered to circulate the highlights of RIPE 44 and to provide a brief report in the March AC meeting. Open
Action #0302-02 CHAIR
The Chair to incorporate the comments received in the AC election process document and circulate the revised document for final AC comments. Open
Action #0302-03 CHAIR
The Chair to prepare discussion of the Roadmap for 2003 on the March agenda. Open
Action #0302-04 CHAIR, RE
The Chair and RE to prepare a draft agenda for a second workshop to be held later in the year. Chair to identify a teleconference in 2003 to return to the issue of the second workshop. Open

Shelf list (items pending action outside the ASO AC)

Action #12-4 RIRs/IANAResource request procedure document. RP stated that this has been updated. IANA sent a message in late December, 2002, with comments on the document, and the RIRs will be responding to the IANA. The Chair asked at what point the RIRs will have a response. RP stated this should be done sometime in January.This task is still pending comments from APNIC. Open

Last modified on 29/01/2020