ASO AC Attendees
Alan Barrett AB (Vice Chair)
Fiona Asonga FA
Naresh Ajwani NA (Vice Chair)
Tomohiro Fujisaki TF
Aftab Siddiqui AS
Louie Lee LL (Chair)
Jason Schiller JS
Ron da Silva RS
Ricardo Patara RP
Hartmut Glaser HG
Jorge Villa JV
Filiz Yilmaz, FY
Wilfried Woeber, WW
Dmitry Kohmanyuk, DK
Douglas Onyango, DO, AFRINIC
Ernest Byaruhanga –AFRINIC
Adam Gosling – APNIC
Einar Bohlin – ARIN
Barbara Roseman BR – ICANN
Carlos Reyes– ICANN
Leo Vegoda, LV – ICANN
Kuo Wei Wu KW – ICANN Board
Ray Plzak, RAP – ICANN Board
German Valdez, GV – NRO
Suzanne Taylor Muzzin – RIPE NCC (Scribe)
2. Agenda review
3. Review of open action items
4. Approval of Minutes
a) 6 November 2013
5. ASO AC Chair election and Vice Chair appointments
6. ASO AC 2014 meetings
7. AC travel policy and schedule
8. IANA consultation on draft-housley-number-registries-02 document
9. Implementation Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA
10. 1net and ASO AC role
11. Draft procedure to appoint members to various bodies
12. ASO AC year review
13. ASO work plan 2014
LL welcomed everyone. GV conducted the roll call and established quorum. LL called the meeting to order at 12:04 UTC.
# FA joined the meeting at 12:04 UTC.
LL offered a special welcome to the new members.
2. Agenda Review
LL went through the draft agenda an asked for comments or additions.
RAP suggested adding an item regarding the interaction between ICANN and the ASO and contributing to ICANN’s monthly reports, if time allows.
# RS joined the meeting at 12:12 UTC.
3. Review of Open Action Items
LL reviewed the open action items.
Action 131002-03: (GV to set up a Doodle poll regarding ASO AC teleconference times and dates for 2014. The Doodle poll should let participants see or set their local time zones.) GV sent a table with the ASO AC and Secretariat time zone differences and suggested maintaining the current date and time for 2014 teleconferences of the first Wednesday of every other month at 12:00 (UTC).
Action 131002-02: (GV and JS to work on and produce a merged version/text of the already proposed changes to the ASO AC procedures and share it on the mailing list for an e-vote.) JS posted a draft to the ASO AC mailing list.
Action 131204-01: (FA to draft the ASO AC 2014 work plan.) FA sent draft work plan to ASO AC mailing list before the meeting.
4. Approval of Minutes – 6 November 2013
FY asked whether the minutes needing approval are not the December 2013 minutes. LL explained that the November 2013 minutes need to be approved at this meeting. GV said the minutes must be circulated for comments for one week before they can be approved at the next meeting. Because the December minutes were just sent today, they cannot be approved yet.
LL said he had not had time to review the November minutes yet and asked for a motion from someone who did review them to approve them.
TF moved to approve the minutes, and FA seconded the motion. There were no objections or abstentions. LL approved the November minutes and asked GV to change the status from “draft”.
Action Item 140108-01: GV to remove draft status of November 6th 2013 minutes in ASO website.
5. ASO AC Chair Election and Vice Chair Appointments
LL explained he was the only nominee for the 2014 ASO AC Chair and accepted the nomination. GV, after consulting with ASO AC vice-chairs, sent a suggestion to forego an election and approve LL’s appointment. LL called for a motion to do so. WW moved to approve LL’s appointment and AB seconded. GV took a role call: FA, AB, NA, TF, AS, JS, RS, RP, HG, JV, FY, DK and WW all supported the motion and LL abstained. There were no objections or abstentions. The motion passed to approve LL as 2014 ASO AC Chair. WW congratulated LL and LL thanked everyone.
LL had not asked whether past Vice Chairs wanted to be reappointed or whether anyone else wanted to become Vice Chair. He said he would continue to include them in communications and task them with duties so that they could take over at a moment’s notice. LL asked for any volunteers, noting that they should be from different regions. NA said he would like to continue. AB said he would continue as well. There were no other volunteers. AS moved to approve NA and AB as 2014 ASO AC vice chairs and WW seconded the motion. There were no objections or abstentions. The motion passed to approve NA and AB as ASO AC Vice Chairs for 2014. LL congratulated them both.
6. ASO AC 2014 Meetings
In 2013, the ASO AC meetings changed from being held every month to every other (odd) months. LL asked for feedback about how this worked. WW suggested that there will be a lot happening in 2014 and proposed reserving the meeting time every month and cancelling the extra meetings if they are not needed. AB supported WW’s idea. LL said he agreed with this idea as well, noting that the first half of 2014 would likely be especially busy. There were no objections to this proposal.
LL asked for feedback about the current meeting time of 12:00 UTC. AS, TF and WW all voiced their support of this time. There were no objections.
LL confirmed the group would schedule monthly meetings, with the possibility of cancelling every other meeting, for 12:00 UTC on the first Wednesday of every month.
LL said he didn’t think a face-to-face meeting was required before the ICANN Meeting in Singapore in March, and suggested a face-to-face meeting in June at the ICANN Meeting in London, when the ASO AC will begin work on the ICANN Board appointment. RS supported this idea.
WW said he respected LL’s point of view about there not being much time before the March meeting, but said he believes it’s useful to have face-to-face meetings as early in the year as possible, especially when there are new members on the ASO AC. LL said that perhaps RIR staff could help make travel arrangements for any face-to-face meetings that take place early in the year, especially as this is difficult for new appointees.
# BR left the meeting at 12:40 UTC.
FY pointed out that 2014 will be a busy and interesting year, and because the April meeting in Brazil will be influential, she suggested either a March or June face-to-face meeting, as she felt a September meeting would be too late to be part of the conversation. LL thanked FY for her comment and gave an overview of the Brazil meeting and its purpose. NA said the implications of the Brazil meeting necessitate a face-to-face meeting.
LL said that if the group decides to meet in Singapore in March, they could try to get that process started, but he doesn’t want to delay much longer in making this decision.
LL asked whether to make a decision during the meeting or whether to use a Doodle poll. WW supported the Doodle poll idea but said he’d like to confirm the options during the meeting today.
AS asked about having the face-to-face meeting at the Brazil meeting. LL said he didn’t think a face-to-face meeting as part of the Brazil meeting would be possible unless the group makes its own arrangements, and asked HG for clarification. HG explained there will be a lot of other countries co-hosting the meeting, and that it will not be an open meeting. He said there will be approximately 1,000 people attending the conference and that many details still need to be discussed. He suggested meeting during the March ICANN Meeting instead.
LL suggested that people from ICANN might align themselves with the “business” constituents to ensure they can attend the Brazil meeting in the case that the “technical” constituents quota has already been reached. HG replied that ICANN is not just a technical community, and that they would not be all together at the Brazil meeting as one entity. RAP suggested that the group coordinate with the NRO EC and find out what the NRO EC’s plans are first before going too far with plans of their own.
LL suggested asking the NRO EC whether they could secure invitations for at least the appointed members of the cross community working group (CWG) (namely, FY, NA and Martin Levy) to attend the Brazil meeting and work with them on messaging and strategy. RAP suggested that having members from the community who aren’t part of the ASO AC would be useful, as the meeting will be about much more than just ICANN’s scope. LL said he has not yet seen a call from the RIRs to their communities.
LL summarized the discussion, saying that a March meeting is very soon, and a June meeting is viable, yet after the Brazil meeting in April. He suggested going forward with setting up a Doodle poll so that everyone can mark their preferences.
Action Item 140108-02: GV to set up Doodle poll to determine everyone’s preference about whether to schedule the face-to-face meeting during the March ICANN Meeting in Singapore or the June ICANN Meeting in London.
LL also reiterated the need to coordinate with the NRO EC to determine what their plans are regarding the Brazil meeting.
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.
JS asked about doing a workshop at any of these meetings. LL said that would take time to plan and pointed to RAP’s suggestion about working more closely with ICANN, particularly on their monthly policy report. He asked the group for feedback about whether to do a workshop at either of the ICANN Meetings.
FA suggested a need for the ASO to meet within the ICANN community, and said there’s been a lot of discussion about domain names but not about numbering. She suggested 2014 will be an important year to make sure this is part of the discussion and to reach out to the number community and continue to focus on topics that are relevant to them in order that they continue to see the relevance of the ASO as one of the ICANN supporting organizations. She believes there is a lot of work left to do in this area.
LL agreed that the group should do effective workshops and make themselves available to the ICANN community and help inform them in a useful way. He questioned whether they would be able to organize an effective workshop in time for March, and stated his belief that they would definitely be able to do so in time for the June meeting.
WW noted that workshops are just one aspect of what the ASO does, and that there’s been some consensus that the addressing community should be more visible to the ICANN community at large. In light of this, he said he thinks the group should be able to coordinate their activities in time for the March meeting so whoever is there can meet and start putting plans in place ahead of the June meeting. RAP suggested everyone remember that ICANN Meetings are not meetings just for ICANN members but include people from many other organizations who use that opportunity to get together.
LL said that although the NRO supports sending the ASO AC Chair and five other individuals to the face-to-face meetings, the RIRs may be able to support sending more than one representative from their organizations, and that usually they end up having 8-10 members present at each ICANN Meeting, even if it isn’t an official face-to-face meeting. He said this takes the pressure off of organizing an official face-to-face meeting in March. He suggested planning for a face-to-face meeting for the June meeting in London, but that those attending the March meeting could still meet there, and include others on a conference call. He will work with GV on the Doodle poll so everyone can list their availability and preferences.
FY reiterated that 2014 will be a very important year and asked everyone to think about that in listing their preferences. LL agreed that participation in 2014 will be different than in past years, and that there will be an even greater need for the ASO AC to be heard in the discussions that will take place.
7. AC travel Policy and Schedule
LL suggested submitting detailed travel plans to the NRO EC by February. The NRO EC has committed to funding the Chair and five other members (one from each region) to attend all the ICANN Meetings in order to present a workshop. He suggested the ASO AC members in each region discuss who should attend and asked them to communicate this to GV.
Action Item 140108-04: ASO AC members from each region to let GV know who will attend the ICANN Meetings in 2014 before the next ASO AC meeting.
8. IANA Consultation on draft-housley-number-registries-02 document
LV said that when an Internet draft is in last call, there is a review of the last draft to identify any IANA actions. The IANA actions identified during this review are about the registration procedures for various number registries. He has proposed text for the global policies section and asked for feedback on this text. He explained that the review has no bearing on the content of the document itself, but he can make changes to the wording he’s proposed to the registration procedure sections.
RAP said the RIRs and IANA produced a detailed document about allocating addresses some time ago. He asked whether LV’s text is an update to the document or a replacement for it, and whether it includes IPv6 allocations. LL asked whether any RIR staff are working on this document in the IETF forum. LV asked RAP whether he’s referring to the policy document or instructions. RAP clarified that it isn’t a policy document, but involved IANA and the registries and sets out the justification requirements for address space allocation within the RIR regions. He added that the RIRs should be involved in this.
LV clarified that there are new user instructions going up on the website shortly, but his question is about how to refer to the allocation policy in text that will be contained within the registry. RAP asked whether this text would have to change every time there’s a new global policy. LV said he wants registry readers to understand where the global policies are explained, and this text would point to those policies as published on the ICANN website. He added that they want to have one definite place where all policy documents are published for this purpose.
AB said that LV’s text is clear, but was unclear about where in the document it would be placed. LV clarified that it would be contained in the registry itself, not in the policy document. AB said that if the IANA function is removed from ICANN in the future, the policies should be published on the IANA website. LL said the important thing is that the IANA website points to the accurate, current policies, wherever they are hosted. AB then said he was happy with the current situation. LL suggested moving the discussion about the text’s content to the ASO AC mailing list.
9. Implementation Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA
LL explained that the ASO AC has been asked to weigh in on how the pool is allocated. LV clarified that the policy text is not clear about whether the first allocation should be made immediately after the allocation pool becomes active, or after the first allocation period, which could be six months later.
LL said the ASO AC has had plenty of time to review this and consult with their respective RIR communities, but that he’s only seen feedback from ARIN so far. He asked the other RIRs for their feedback.
AS said he hasn’t started this discussion on the APNIC mailing list yet, as he was unaware who should start the discussion. RP said he did not send it to his mailing list but would do so this week. LV said there was still time for feedback, as long as it was before implementation.
LL asked everyone to get feedback from their respective communities and pass this on to LV, and said he expects an update from everyone within a week’s time.
Action Item 140108-05: ASO AC members to look for feedback in their policy communities on the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanism by IANA implementation with the ultimate goal of providing formal feedback to IANA on this issue.
10. 1net and ASO AC role
# JS left the meeting at 1:37 UTC.
LL said there are three people appointed to a cross-constituency working group, which so far has focused on when to have meetings and what the charter should be. He said there is a suggestion of having conference calls every two weeks, but there has been little action so far.
As far as 1net is concerned, LL said the mailing list is open to everyone to join and provide input. In terms of the ASO AC role, he said nothing specific has been asked of them yet. He asked the group whether the ASO AC should act together formally to provide 1net input, or whether to act on an individual basis. He also suggested they coordinate with the NRO EC about this. RAP said the important question is whether participation is part of the ASO charter, and suggested looking to the ASO and NRO MoU’s.
FY said the technical community is being asked to get involved and that members of the ASO AC may want to follow up. RS suggested the group discuss whether to have a formal representation on behalf of the technical community with the NRO EC. RAP suggested the discussion was beyond the scope of the ASO AC and had to do with Internet governance. LL agreed and said they would approach the NRO EC for guidance about what their role should be.
HG suggested that the ASO AC needs to support 1net after the communal Montevideo Statement. RAP said he agreed with HG but that the question was about how to participate (as individuals or as a group), and that the group should check with the NRO EC about this.
HG suggested people should participate on an individual level. RAP said he agreed, but reiterated that we should check with the NRO EC about whether they also want to present a unified position.
Action Item 140108-06: LL to coordinate with NRO EC about what role the ASO AC should have in 1net participation.
HG said that many people think 1net is ICANN, but that it is more than this and that other communities should understand the ASO’s position and need to hear its voice. He also emphasized the need to support Adiel Apklogan on this venture.
LL thanked FY for providing the comment about individuals being asked to participate. He suggested doing something through the NRO EC if they decide to do something as a group.
# RS left the meeting at 1:59 UTC.
11. Draft Procedure to Appoint Members to Various Bodies
LL suggested the draft procedure is not yet ready for review. JS said the text is as complete as possible at this point and he would like to get some feedback on it. LL asked for more time to review it and suggested opening an e-vote in one week’s time to vote on the draft, allowing for future tweaks. JS agreed with that plan and said section numbers should be added. JS moved to publish the draft procedure to the mailing list and ask for feedback within one week before putting it to an e-vote. AS seconded the motion and there were no objections or abstentions. The motion passed.
Action Item 140108-07: JS to submit to the AC-COORD list a draft procedure to appoint members to various bodies to receive feedback within one week before putting the resulting final text to an e-vote.
12. ASO AC Year Review
LL apologized for not completing the review before now, and asked to go over the group’s activities in 2013 so GV could write the review. Members voiced various actions that were completed, including appointing Kuo Wu to the ICANN Board, advising IANA on AS Number policy, appointing DK and DO to the ICANN Meeting Strategy Working Group, appointing an ASO AC Chair and Vice Chairs, appointing people to cross community working group, and appointing Hans Petter Holen to the 2014 ICANN Nominating Committe,. LL pointed out that the fact they did not process a global policy should also be included. LL suggested finishing brainstorming over the mailing list.
13. ASO Work Plan 2014
FA took the group through the plan. RAP noted that the ICANN Board appointment has to be made early enough that the ICANN Nominating Committee knows who’s been appointed so they can maintain geographical diversity on the board. As a result, he said, the timeline for appointing the member has to be the same as it has been for years.
LL suggested merging items no. 9 and 12 of the work plan. He suggested that the ASO AC is concerned with global policy, and suggested adding this wording to no. 9.
JS asked about the NRO role with respect to global policy coordination. LL responded that that is outside of the ASO AC work plan.
# WW left the meeting at 2:19 UTC.
LL said the wording is vague about whether this is ICANN’s outreach program or the ASO AC’s outreach towards ICANN, and that it is the latter. He said the idea is to reappoint those types of committees within the group at the beginning of each year or new group, and it was not a formal committee appointed in Buenos Aires. The group can now reappoint that committee.
LL asked for further input regarding the work plan. AB asked whether it would be possible to adopt the work plan now. LL said that was possible. AB put forth a motion to adopt the work plan, with items no. 9 and 12 merged. TF seconded the motion. FY suggested following up on LL’s point to clarify the outreach committee’s goal. AB agreed to this. JS suggested some dates and milestones be added with regard to the ICANN appointment. LL agreed, but said that adding specific dates now is premature. The work plan was adopted, with the two amendments of merging items no. 9 and 12, and clarifying the goal of the outreach committee.
LL asked for volunteers for the Policy Proposal Facilitator Team (PPFT), which keeps an eye on global policy proposals in the RIRs and brings them to the ASO AC’s attention. FA, TF, JS, DK and RP volunteered. AS put forth a motion to have those five volunteers be part of the team and FY seconded. There were no objections or abstentions. The motion passed.
Regarding the ICANN outreach committee, which previously included FY, LL, RAP and FA, LL said the group hoped to see some notes from the work they’ve done and what they can propose to the ASO AC as actions going forward. He said one thing the ASO AC could act on right away is to give content to BR to include in the ICANN monthly policy reports about regional RIR policies, and could highlight one or two of interest to the readership. RAP suggested involving the NRO CCG in this. LL agreed this was a good idea.
RAP also suggested the ASO AC get involved in ICANN’s Ethos award in order to recognize people from within the RIR regions and not just those at ICANN. LL said the comment period is open until January 27 and encouraged initial comments from the group. LL suggested formulating a unified ASO AC comment via the mailing list and determining who should be most active on this discussion. LL said he would follow up on the mailing list.
LL put forth a motion to close the meeting. AB, FA and TF seconded. There were no objections or abstentions and the motion passed. LL adjourned the meeting at 14:38 UTC.
Action Item 140108-01:
GV to remove draft status of November 6th 2013 minutes in ASO website.
Action Item 140108-02:
GV to set up Doodle poll to determine everyone’s preference about whether to schedule the face-to-face meeting during the March ICANN Meeting in Singapore or the June ICANN Meeting in London.
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.
Action Item 140108-04:
ASO AC members from each region to let GV know who will attend the ICANN Meetings in 2014 before the next ASO AC meeting.
Action Item 140108-05:
ASO AC members to look for feedback in their policy communities on the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanism by IANA implementation with the ultimate goal of providing formal feedback to IANA on this issue.
Action Item 140108-06:
LL to coordinate with NRO EC about what role the ASO AC should have in 1net participation.
Action Item 140108-07
JS to submit to the AC-COORD list a draft procedure to appoint members to various bodies to receive feedback within one week before putting the resulting final text to an e-vote.