ASO AC Attendees:
Alan Barrett, AB, Vice Chair
Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH
Naresh Ajwani, NA, Vice Chair
Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Andy Linton, AL
Ron da Silva, RdS
Louie Lee, LL, Chair
Jason Schiller, JS
Hartmut Glaser, HG
Hans Petter Holen, HPH
Dave Wilson – DW
Wilfried Woeber, WW
Therese Colosi, ARIN
Kuo Wei Wu, KW
Einar Bohlin, EB
John Curran, JC
Nate Davis, ND
Susan Hamlin, SH
Leslie Nobile, LN
Sofia Silva, SS
Emilio Madaio, EM
Fiona Asonga, Sebastián Bellagamba, Francisco Obispo
The Chair called the meeting to order at 16:00 UTC. The presence of quorum was noted.
2. Agenda Review
The Chair and ASO AC welcomed Andy Linton, newest ASO AC member, to the meeting. The Chair called for any comments on the agenda. There were no comments.
3. Approval of the Minutes
It was moved by AB, and seconded by JS, that:
“The ASO AC approves the Minutes of March 15, 2011, as written.”
The motion carried with no objections.
NEW ACTION 0407-01: Secretariat to remove ‘Draft” from March 15 Minutes.
4. Open Action Item Review
0622-02: ASO AC WiKi. WW to work with PR and the RIPE NCC on the Wiki. If WW needs more help, he can turn to the Communications Committee. OPEN, ON-GOING.
WW stated it is still in progress as he was unable to discuss with the necessary parties due to his busy schedule. The Chair offered the assistance of other ASO AC Members if needed. WW responded that he needed to discuss matters with ARIN and RIPE NCC staff regarding the possibilities to join in the infrastructure with both RIRs.
0315-01: Secretariat: Remove “Draft” from February Minutes. OPEN.
The Secretariat confirmed this has been done. Chair stated this item as Closed.
0315-02: Secretariat: Establish a table on the website listing global proposals and work on naming schemes. OPEN
The Chair confirmed this is in place and looks very good. He has forwarded the link to the Chairs of the ICANN SO’s and AC’s for their comments. He stated the table complements Olaf Nordling’s report that is updated, but not up to the minute. He asked if all AC members had a chance to look visit the website. AL stated looking for the most recent discussion of a policy is cumbersome, and stated he would explain it in an e-mail and send it to the Secretariat.
The Chair agreed with sending an explanatory e-mail and stated that each region has its own way of posting discussions on policies, and it would help to provide the local designation. He stated he too would send an e-mail.
AB suggested that it might be useful to have extra links for the different steps of the policy.
NEW ACTION 04 07-02: The Chair requested any comments to be sent via e-mail to the Secretariat so that updates can be implemented.
5. Status of Global Policy For IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion
PPFT: DW, AB, FO, RdS
The Chair stated this policy has been adopted in ARIN region, and will be discussed next week at ARIN’s Public Policy Meeting (ARIN XXVII) in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
He also noted that since this was abandoned in the APNIC region, the PPFT is only tracking it. Since Kenny Huang (KH) resigned from the ASO AC, and was a member of the PPFT for this policy, the Chair did not feel another volunteer to replace Kenny was necessary. It was the sense of the AC that no replacement volunteer was needed.
The Chair stated Kenny’s name would be removed from the PPFT going forward, and the proposal will continue to be tracked.
6. Status of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA
PPFT: JS, FO, HPH, TF, FA
It was noted that in the APNIC region, the policy proposal has reached consensus and is in the final 8-week comment period. JS stated that in the ARIN region, it is awaiting the ARIN AC’s acceptance onto their proposal docket and is still an on-going discussion on their PPML.
The Chair noted that the ASO AC should be comfortable fielding questions on the two policies.
7. ICANN Review Teams: Related Activities Update
A) SSR RT Update. HG stated that after the recent ICANN meeting in San Francisco, CA, the team was divided into 2 teams. There is currently a request for input on ICANN’s website; 11 questions published for constituencies based on the SSR-RT. He stated he does not have the results of this yet, but ICANN will have a meeting in Singapore and some specific meetings with the GAC, etc. He stated they have the year to finish, and the progress is going rapidly.
The Chair asked if HG anticipated a need for the ASO to respond to the questions. HG replied that there are questions related to the ASO.
The Chair stated to HG that the timelines are for the Review Team to gather information, and compile it. If he sees any questions that are directed to the ASO, there is no need to alert the NRO EC with a specific question. If that is not the case, please let the ASO AC know. HG agreed.
B) WHOIS RT Update. WW stated there were a few discussions between the WHOIS review team and other groups at the ICANN meeting. Follow-up is needed with regard to intellectual property, and he noted interesting information regarding privacy. He stated there is no way to tell if a person is doing business on the net, or is just an individual on the net. The WHOIS review team is leaning toward the fact that ICANN does not have a WHOIS policy – no description and no policy. Most of the rules that are currently executed are described in various contracts between ICANN and the Registries. This could be a cornerstone of the final report.
WW explained the RT is collecting feedback and information from community at large and are struggling with agreeing on what ‘law enforcement’ is – a concise definition is needed. In the previous millennium, there was law enforcement and there was everyone else. But in other countries there are mandated organizations that are not government bodies – like Telecom regulation. They are private corporations, but have mandates for law enforcement.
The RT is currently discussing a draft for the final report. At the ICANN meeting in Singapore, the RT will meet for a few days and plan to have discussions with ICANN related bodies.
The Chair asked WW with regard to the number side, does the numbers WHOIS have more policies in place? WW replied that: 1) I believes they are under less scrutiny, and there is less discussion. Most people are comfortable with the way the RIRs are operating the WHOIS infrastructure. Some issues in the names world also apply to numbers world. There are no issues in the ASCII Latin scripts, but for international domain names it is more important. In RIPE, they allow other character sets, for example it is requested by Poland, which has different characters and that is essential if you want to the track legal owners of any space. There is much less common ground in the names business. 2) We discussed the different relationship between ICANN and the RIRs, vs. ICANN and the domain registries due to the fact that there is an MoU between ICANN and the RIRs.
8. Status of 2011 ICANN NomCom
WW stated that there are reviewers of 87 statements of interest and this is almost the same amount as there was in 2010. The Board of Directors applications will be submitted for additional questions and background checking. There is intent to have a final meeting either at the end, or after the end of the ICANN meeting in Singapore, to gain consensus on the most qualified candidate. The NomCom had discussions with the community regarding process improvement. WW cautioned that there is a need to be careful not to disclose information about the candidates to protect their privacy; but at the same time there is a need to be open and transparent in the process.
The Chair thanked him and passed on thanks to the 2011 ICANN NomCom for taking ideas from the transparency and review team to the extent that they can be implemented. WW stated that he has made efforts to understand the spirit of the recommendations, with regard to being implementable. He explained that this year they are testing a new approach in contracting with the personnel search firm, and to have them also identify candidates. He felt it is a task that will need evaluation but what he liked the fact that although some team members may have had an idea about a candidate, they did not personally get in touch with the candidate. WW stated he is interested to see if this process works out.
The Chair stated he is interested if it can be applied to the ICANN Board of Directors search.
9. Status of ASO Review
JC stated that the NRO EC has a short list of three contractors to provide the review. They are qualified but also expensive. The EC will decide on which organization to perform the review sometime in May, and the decision will be conducted between now and on-site in Singapore. The review will be beginning very shortly.
The Chair thanked him for the update.
10. Procedure for Selection of Individuals to the ICANN Board of Directors
The Chair stated that the Secretariat took discussion notes in San Francisco; draft a procedure with the changes discussed, and then send it to individuals that wanted to review it before sending it to the list. The Chair confirmed it had been distributed but did not see feedback. He stated he had some changes he would like to see made.
The Chair asked AB or DW if they had any other items to add of which ARIN staff should be aware. AB stated he did receive the draft, but not been able to review it. He clarified that the discussion in San Francisco was not part of the ASO AC business meeting that had minutes; but rather, an informal gathering after the ASO AC business meeting. The Chair agreed, and thanked AB for the clarification.
ND stated that the Secretariat staff welcomes feedback from the Review Team and that staff will incorporate all revisions and send the revised draft back to the ASO AC quickly. The Chair stated he would provide feedback to ND in the next day or so. AB stated he would do the same.
11. Request for NRO EC
The ASO AC would like to ask the NRO EC to collect the Global Policy Proposals (GPPs) that are in ‘limbo’ status. The Chair stated that this request for action came from the informal discussion in San Francisco, where the ASO AC cannot take action without a meeting. For the GPPs that reached conclusion around the world, can there be a way to get the information to the community, or do something different in a proposal, and not just have it as a topic in one region.
AB asked for clarification, do we have a request to propose to the NRO EC, or are we asking for input on what should happen to the proposals that are not progressing but that are also not removed?
The Chair replied that various ASO AC members are in different stages. He asked the Council “Do we ask for advice, or ask the NRO to collect the GPPs?”. HPH stated that he saw 3 possibilities: 1) someone could craft a GPP on how to abandon GPPs; 2) it belongs in the MoU with ICANN; 3) it belongs in the operating procedures of the NRO EC or the ASO AC. He noted there is no clear view, as the global community should have a say before any direction is decided.
JS stated that he agreed with HPH on his third point. He felt that opening the MoU may be problematic, but felt an operating procedure for the EC may be best, and wondered if the ASO AC can provide advice to the EC about the policies in limbo. The first proposal on post IANA depletion is a good example. It is not moving forward. He wondered if it should be tabled, in case ARIN adopts it, and then move forward with it, or let it die? If ARIN adopts it, it needs to pass in the other 4 regions again.
DW stated that RIPE has a policy that has been adopted. The only way to get rid of it is to have consensus to remove it. RIPE looked at the global policy process. He suggested the possibility of a time limit on GPPs, as much as 5 years. For example, if a GPP is adopted in one region, then it is contingent on adoption at the other RIRs within 5 years.
JC stated that this was discussed in San Francisco and it was noted that GPPs do not go to the ASO until they are “adopted with similar text in all regions”. While we show intended GPPs as a convenience for the ASO AC, the language of the MoU states that the ASO AC confirms a given GPP was adopted in all the regions by way of the appropriate processes. The ASO cannot do anything until a GPP is uniformly adopted. The best way to clear out mismatched GPPs is to get a matching one in a given area. The fact that there is record of GPPs that do not match is useful to the community because they can see what is being attempted. GPPs should remain in place until a GPP in the area is adopted, and the RIR will naturally withdraw the other policy. This is the only record of the mismatches.
JS restated for clarification, that an RIR can adopt, for example, the IPv4 2009 GPP, as well as the 2011 GPP, and allow either one to move forward. When all 5 regions adopt one, then that is when the other will be withdrawn. JC thanked him for the clarification.
AL stated it seemed unlikely that APNIC would go back to the 09 GPP, when the 2011 GPP is close to complete. A timeline, as DW pointed out, would help us reach consensus between the regions.
The Chair stated that currently there is nothing to add or to send to the NRO EC, unless the Council felt differently. It was the sense of the AC there was nothing to send to the NRO EC. The Chair stated this item would be removed for future discussion. DW stated that he might want to foster discussion on the ASO AC mailing list, and it may generate a new agenda item.
12. Any Other Business
- Workshop in Singapore. The Chair stated that the ICANN Singapore meeting is in June, and there will be an ASO AC workshop covering significant activities in numbers world. He explained that it is not meant to replace the policy discussion process in each region. Since there is a long lead-time for preparation he asked for volunteers to help with a workshop, one from each region.
The Chair stated he would be representing ARIN. HPH volunteered from RIPE. Chair asked if AL would like to volunteer. AL agreed from APNIC. AB volunteered from AfriNIC. HG stated he would ask SB or FO if they could volunteer from LACNIC.
- Travel to Singapore. The Chair reminded the AC that their travel plans need to be made very quickly, as hotel reservation availability is shortening and there are other conventions in Singapore at the time the ICANN meeting is taking place.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 1:29 p.m. EDT. DW moved to adjourn, and was seconded by WW. The motion adjourned with no objections.