ASO AC Teleconference
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Teleconference

Attendees:

AFRINIC
Douglas Onyango, DO

APNIC
Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Aftab Siddiqui, AS

ARIN
Louie Lee, LL (Chair)
Jason Schiller, JS
John Sweeting, JSw

LACNIC
Ricardo Patara, RP (Vice Chair)
Jorge Villa, JV

RIPE NCC
Filiz Yilmaz, FY (Vice Chair)
Nurani Nimpuno, NN
Wilfried Woeber, WW

Secretariat:
German Valdez, GV – NRO Executive Secretary
Therese Colosi, TC – ARIN Scribe

Observers:
ARIN:
Einar Bohlin
Nate Davis

APNIC:
Adam Gosling

LACNIC:
Gianina Pensky

ICANN:
Carlos Reyes
Celina Harrington

Apologies:
Fiona Asonga FA
Mark Elkins ME
Ajay Kumar AK
Hartmut Glaser HG

Draft Agenda
0. Welcome.
1. Agenda Review.
2. Review of Open Action Items.
3. Approval of Minutes.
a) Special Meeting of the ASO AC February 10, 2016.
4. ICANN CCWG Report.
5. ICANN 55 Preparations.
a) Agenda Items for meeting with the ICANN Board.
6. Reports.
a) APNIC 41.
b) IANA Transition Update.
c) Other ICANN Group’s Reports.
7. ICANN Board Election Update.
8. Any Other Business.
9. Adjournment.

Draft Minutes

0. Welcome.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:02 UTC. The presence of quorum was noted.

1. Agenda Review.

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council. He asked for any comments. There were no comments.

2. Review of Open Action Items.

Action Item 150307-04: The Chair to send a message to the CCWG IG Chair informing them of AK’s appointment.
The Chair stated the message was sent and GV confirmed. CLOSED.

Action Item151209-03: GV to work with JS on consolidating the ASO AC’s Operating Procedures into one document.

The Chair stated there was activity on this item last month and it is on-going until completed. JS confirmed, stating there were issues in that the previous procedures called out the wrong sections. He resolved this issue, moving pointers to the correct sections. He noted that formatting issues were also pointed out by TF. JS noted that the working document is as good as the previous procedures, at this point. ON-GOING.

Action Item: 160210-01: GV to remove draft status from the ASO AC January Minutes. GV confirmed this has been completed. CLOSED

Action Item: 160210-02: FA to forward ICANN CCWG Report update to the ASO AC mailing list.

The Chair stated this has been completed. He asked for a confirmation, GV confirmed that FA sent a report to the AC-COORD list right after the teleconference last month. CLOSED

Action Item: 160210-03: Chair to request NRO EC update the ASO AC directly with reports regarding progress of the new gTLD drafting team.

The Chair stated that this has not yet been completed. He asked if GV had possibly asked the EC on his behalf. GV stated he had not.

The Chair asked GV if he would do so today so that the AC is aware prior to going to ICANN 55. OPEN

FY stated that she was concerned since ICANN 55 is next week and there is a lot going on between CCWG, ICANN, etc. The deadline for comments for the charter organizations to the CCWG proposal is March 8. It would have been beneficial if Izumi was on the call. GV stated that Izumi had been invited but was unavailable. FY understood. She asked if he could send a note to Izumi to send a short report to the AC on the latest information the AC is aware prior to going to ICANN 55.

The Chair acknowledged the valid concern and thanked her for coming forward. He stated there are public sessions in the schedule for ICANN 55 to help discussions during the week so that everyone is on the same page. Without the information from Izumi, it will be difficult to participate in the first session during ICANN 55.

AS noted Izumi had indeed sent an email yesterday to the IANA transfer mailing list. The Chair asked AS to please forward it to the AC immediately. AS did so.

NN stated that the ASO AC needed to be aware of the minority statement made in the report by ICANN 55. FY stated that the NRO EC and CCWG are discussing how to handle the March 8 deadline. It would be helpful to have a summary as soon as possible from our representative, so that those at ICANN 55 will have ample information for discussions.

NN asked if she could update the AC on the minority statement, as it was a very important item. The Chair agreed to do so.

NN stated that the ASO representatives in CCWG met with NRO EC on next steps. There is a very tight timeline for all approvals and with the ICANN Board approving the statement by 10 March 2016. It has been agreed that the NRO EC will drive the approval process, and noted that ASO AC has put into the minority statement that the number community does not rely on work stream 1 for accountability but they’ll use the contractual measures currently under discussion. The proposed SLA is to be in place at the time of IANA transition. The conditions, if signed, will only take effect when ICANN is released from the IANA contract; but it is required to be signed within a short timeframe. They want it in place as part of the current process and not post transition. No action is required on the part of the ASO AC, but it is important to be aware that these events are happening next week.

The Chair thanked her for the information. He called for any questions. JS voiced a concern about the line that says ‘..negotiation of number community SLA is nearly complete’. He asked if that would be undertaken by the CRISP team. NN stated it is between the RIR’s legal teams and ICANN, but the CRISP team has been asked that it take place on the public list. RIRs had published a draft at the end of October and ICANN had taken time with its latest comments. RIRs have responded on the NRO website. Revisions were rejected and the CRISP team has commented on the SLA as to whether or not it is still in line to the CRISP proposal. The 4th version is now available, and the team will comment by the end of this week.

JS acknowledged her comments. He stated he would read the proposal. He stated that the minority statement suggests that only completing the negotiations with the Numbers Community on the SLAs and signing a contractual agreement (or “SLA”) between the RIRs and ICANN is needed to resolve all ICANN accountability matters with respect to the Numbers community.

JS was concerned that community was given the opportunity to provide appropriate input into ongoing SLA development process post signing the MoU, and questioning the judgment of compliance and non-compliance with SLAs, but there has been no such input.

NN stated she’d be happy to talk to him separately. The CRISP team’s comments will be published. There have been comments on the previous draft by community members. The team welcomes those comments on the IANA Transfer mailing list. JS stated he would be happy to comment there and thanked her for the information.

Action Item: 160210-04: Chair to inform AK of his appointment to the new gTLD drafting team.

Chair stated this needed to be done. OPEN

Action Item: 160210-05: Per the Chair, GV to add IANA Transition Updates to the ASO AC Agenda until such time it is no longer needed. ON-GOING

3. Approval of Minutes.

Special Meeting of the ASO AC February 10, 2016.

It was moved by TF, and seconded by JSw that the ASO AC approve the 10 February 2016 Minutes of the Special Meeting of the ASO AC, as written.

The Chair called for any objections or abstentions. There were none.

The motion carried with no objections.

NEW ACTION ITEM: 16-0302-01: GV to remove draft status from 10 February 2016 ASO AC Minutes. OPEN

4. ICANN CCWG Report.

Previously discussed.

5. ICANN 55 Preparations.

The Chair stated feedback was needed for agenda items for their meeting with the ICANN Board. GV stated there were two questions from ICANN to the ASO and NRO that he would be sending to the AC’s list.

CR stated the questions were with regard to a) with regard to diversity and the community groups – are they are making an effort to be more diverse? and, b) Opinion on the CCWG’s report.

The Chair asked if the AC wanted to answer the two questions during this meeting. JS stated he did, but asked if the ASO AC should collaborate with the EC before doing so. The Chair agreed the AC should collaborate with the EC before a full answer is provided to the ICANN Board. However, the Chair believed it prudent to get the AC’s thoughts at this time to begin the process.

The Chair stated the first question had two parts. The first part was in regard to diversity “How is your SO/AC doing in enhancing diversity in all dimensions?” The Chair began the discussion stating that he believed each RIR had a Nominations Committee (NomCom) with certain guidelines for considering diversity. He suggested asking each RIR’s NomCom to share criteria on what diversity means to them.

JS stated that at a high-level that was a good idea. He pointed out that the ASO AC consists of three members from each RIR and each region is geographically and culturally diverse. Beyond this, it is driven by the individual Nomcoms and RIR communities. He believed there was not much that could be done with regard to the community aspect, but with regard to the NomComs, the AC could leverage staff members and see if there are procedures with regard to how diversity is considered by the NomCom. He also suggested seeing if there are procedures with regard to finding candidates for appointments, and if there are too many candidates, how diversity is considered when reducing the candidate pool. The Chair agreed.

FY asked what NomCom was being referred to in the RIRs. The Chair explained that, for example, in the ARIN region as elections come about, there is a NomCom established to perform the process of getting candidates on the ballot. JS added that the ARIN NomCom is responsible for collecting candidates for the ARIN Advisory Council, the ARIN Board, and the ARIN-region ASO AC open seats. If there are not enough candidates they call upon the community to provide more candidates.

FY asked if this process was not in AFRINIC or LACNIC’s region. But, if the purpose of question is in regard to the diversity of people within organizations and people from RIR communities, the RIRs have newcomer programs and hold road shows and regional meetings. These are relevant to provide as examples across the RIRs, not just from one RIR, such as ARIN. She agreed with the procedure of having Chairs from different regions on the ASO AC, etc., as this too was relevant to answer the question on diversity.

NN stated that APNIC has a fellowship program – APRICOT – to help people from developing countries attend their meeting. What do the RIRs do to be inclusive and diverse? ARIN is one example and we need to look at all the regions.

DO: AFRINIC has regional element embedded in its Board. We do have a Nomcom. The region is divided into 4 equal parts and the NomCom’s job is make sure the Board is made up of people from all 4 parts. It is necessary to show diversity of the RIRs all the way up the chain. We need to describe the lower levels and how we achieved that, and how it affects the other levels such the ASO AC. The Chair asked DO if he was attending ICANN 55. DO stated that he was not attending, but that FA and ME would be.

NEW ACTION ITEM: 20160302-02: DO to work with GV to gather information from staff and other RIRs to start a discussion on the question “How is your SO/AC doing in enhancing diversity in all dimensions?” on the list, and summarize examples and how diversity is being done at the membership level and leadership groups within the RIRs (Advisory Councils, Boards, Chairs of the SIG or leadership of policy working groups).

The Chair stated that the second part of the first question on diversity was “What can ICANN do to support the effort?” He stated that once we have ideas gathered, we could use information from what ICANN does, compare notes with them on diversity, and learn from each other.

The Chair discussed the second question, “What is the feedback on the final CCWG Report on Accountability?” He stated he was unsure if it was useful to have a full separate report of opinion on this item, beyond what was already being done.

NN suggested the AC respond through its CCWG representative. The Chair agreed stating to be explicit to the NRO EC about the ASO AC’s thoughts regarding response to the question.

The Chair asked the AC what questions the Council may have for the ICANN Board. He noted that he had sent an email to the AC last week on this item. Does the AC want an opinion from the ICANN Board on how other parts of ICANN are working? Any questions regarding new gTLD activities or Board improvement type of items? The Chair asked the AC to think about these items and to discuss on their list.

Other ICANN 55 preparations.

• Leadership Meetings. The Chair stated that ME will be representing the AC on leadership meetings. He asked CR to please make sure that David Olive knows this so that ME is invited. CR replied that David Olive was made aware, but that CR would re-confirm with David. The Chair thanked CR for his assistance.

• ASO AC and NRO Update during ICANN 55. The Chair noted this is a 5 minutes segment and it is shared time between the ASO AC and NRO. He noted that, as far as ASO AC policy activity, EB would be sending out summary policy activities later today or tomorrow. NN and JSw will give the update.

GV stated that Oscar is working on NRO-related content, and we need to coordinate with him on it. The Chair stated that ICANN would appreciate merging the slides. NN stated she would be happy to work with Oscar and EB to coordinate the materials.

• Speaking with Fellows. The Chair stated that near the end of the ICANN 55 week, the Chair is asked to speak with the fellows to tell them about the ASO and to pick a topic such as what an IP address is, or why it’s important; or the difference between IPv4 and IPv6; or how transfers work, etc. As he could not attend ICANN 55, the Chair stated that an AC member might be asked to provide this service. He indicated it was about a 20-minute timeframe.

• Public Forum Panel. The Chair noted there would be a public forum with specific topics, and an AC member may be asked to represent the AC on the panel to give you a way to provide input. If the ASO AC did not have a viewpoint on a topic, it was still useful for the community to see solidarity of participation.

• ASO AC Workroom at ICANN 55. The Chair stated that there would be a work room for the AC and NRO EC to share for meetings, etc. CR confirmed there would be a workroom available from Sunday through Thursday.

The Chair noted that it would not be the same room each day, but CR will let GV know what room would be used so that GV could add it to the AC’s calendar.

The Chair asked if, outside of a couple of meetings of the ICANN Board, there were any others being planned. GV stated he did not know of any other meetings.

GV provided an update stating that he could not reach FA on the number she had provided to be called into this meeting, after numerous attempts to reach her. The Chair thanked him.

CR stated that with regard to discussions with the fellows, they are fairly informal and that whatever is presented during the public forum can be re-presented to them as a broad overview. The Chair agreed.

6. Reports.

• APNIC 41. The Chair noted that TF had sent a report via email. He asked for any comments. TF stated that there were proposals on whois database accuracy and that APNIC asked the NRO EC about this matter. AS stated that they had a long discussion regarding whois database accuracy. There was a suggestion to have the database split into a public and private database with the RIRs maintaining the public one and the LIRs updating the private one. AS noted this was only a discussion and that the RIRs suggested this was a global issue it was best for the NRO NC to have further discussion and come up with something acceptable to all communities.

To be clear, JS asked if the problem statement was that the RIR’s whois database is not accurate and they want them to be? Or is the problem statement related to exchanges of IP addresses between parties not documented because it is not within established procedures? AS replied that the problem statement was the whois database is not accurate, and the reason behind it is that the LIRs do not update it. The proposal came from APNIC. If we split whois, keeping the public whois maintained by the RIRs, it will be accurate because the RIRs allocate space to the LIRs. The problem statement is that the whois database is not accurate at all.

JS stated that in the case of ARIN, all the space is only within ARIN, and they issue it to ISPs and end-users. JS believed then that the problem statement with regard to the piece referring to splitting and maintaining privacy and separate records for LIRs does not apply to the ARIN region. He stated he would urge the ARIN community to be silent on that matter, and pass whatever proposed solution the other regions agree to, as the RIR piece of maintain database accuracy would apply to the ARIN region. He speculated there would be much discussion on the subject of transfers in the ARIN region and with regard to recording transfers in the database. We may want to decide if it is in or out of scope, and deal with it accordingly.

AS reiterated that there is no actual policy matter to discuss at the moment. This was only a discussion. The next step after the database issue would be how to tackle transfers. Once we accomplish whois accuracy, then we would discuss the next step further. What we came to know from ARIN, RIPE AND AFRINIC, is that the situation is similar in all RIRs.

JS clarified that ARIN does not have the complexity of LIRs and country-specific hierarchies. The portion of the discussion regarding splitting the database maintenance between RIRs and LIRS is not an issue for ARIN. If you ignore transfers outside of ARIN policy, and ignore legacy holders, as there are some that have apprehension to updating the database, then generally speaking accuracy of the ARIN whois is fairly good ARIN is pretty good about updating whois when issuing to a legal entity and when transfers occur, and when a legal entity is dissolved, or merges into another.

The Chair asked that when an entity is an LIR or NIR, is there a set of terms that says they need to keep their part of whois updated accurately or is that assumed without any repercussions if they do not? DO stated that AFRINIC has registrars agreements. If the information changes, the holder ceases to be the rightful owner and the resources can be revoked. It needs to be kept up to date. However, that does not happen. We’ve seen violations and we have not acted on revoking space. This is why APNIC is trying to find other ways to keep the database accurate. For LIRs, it is complex. End-users sometimes do not have the information or the motivation to update the information, or they have motivation to not declare it properly.

The Chair noted that the GAC, on the ICANN side, has a public safety WG and met when formed around ICANN 54 last June. The working group is working with the RIRs as there is concern about whois accuracy. They are working for a global policy but, by definition, it cannot be global, as it does not require action outside RIR organizations. The Chair stated he would reach out to find out where this stands.

NEW ACTION ITEM 20160302-03: Chair to find out the status of the Public Safety WG with regard to whois accuracy.

JS stated that a proposal could be written to make it a global policy that says all delegates of IP addresses must be accurate to reflect in whois: IANA to RIRs, and RIRs to end-users, ISP and customers; and, customers to downstream customers, and so on. Force it on IANA and that forces it to be a global policy. JS stated he was unsure if that was the best way to proceed, but you could do it as a global policy, or as a globally coordinated policy, or as five RIR policies – but each would have it’s own parameters. JS stated he could solicit authors to draft a policy – global or globally coordinated, and would be happy to volunteer for ARIN region.

NN stated that she did not believe the ASO could take it upon itself to write a global policy. She was unclear of what was being proposed and the role of ASO AC in drafting such a policy. The Chair stated that others might have similar thoughts. The reason he did not ask for a motion at this point is because this is not something yet we should be directly involved in as the AC. As members of the community, however, we are exploring what the problem is and the extent of the problem could be different across regions. At the point that it becomes a candidate for global policy, we would need to be involved. Until then, we can act as interested members of the community who are in a unique position to share activities and experiences, and help each other learn what is going on.

NN agreed and urged the AC to make sure we are clear in our roles, and not drafting a proposal as the ASO AC. She acknowledged that any member can do so within their region.

The Chair thanked the AC for the discussion.

• Update on IANA Transition. NN provided update stating that comments are being provided on CCWG report and SLA on the appropriate mailing lists. The CRISP team proposal is completed and being approved. It has already been approved by some of the SO’s. We are on an extremely tight timeline between now and the 10th of March when the ICANN Board approval is due. Then there is the NTIA’s review period and the U.S. Congress reviews it until mid-July.

• Other ICANN Group’s Reports. The Chair stated that in the interest of time, this item would be discussed on the AC’s mailing list.

7. Update on the ICANN Board Election.

The Chair called for Interview Committee (IC) member to provide an update. JSw stated that GV did much of the work, and that the interviews are all scheduled. JSw stated that there is a candidate that has not met deadline for submitting information and what the procedure was for this matter?

JS stated that in the past if there were no extenuating circumstances (missed the deadline by only a few hours, or timezone issues, or telecommunication issue) then they would be disqualified. The IC will always take additional measures to make sure they receive all the responses. JSw stated that GV went above and beyond with this particular candidate to try to get a response. He asked what the procedure was to disqualify someone.

WW explained there were two options: 1) Formally request permission from the ASO AC to disqualify the candidate. He believed this to be a blunt approach but an appropriate one. It is a formal opportunity. 2) Conduct interviews and in the assessment of quality, note that this is an indication of missing determination to do the job. He believed that the ASO AC should decide which option to chose.

The Chair stated that since the IC is closest to the situation, they should document their decision and send a quick explanation to the AC. Otherwise, the AC can provide their input and the IC can ask for that. The IC understands better how much effort has been put forth. The Chair stated that GV had noted that there is a mailing list that is just for AC members and he provided it to them. GV can confirm that that has no candidates on it. JSw believed the decision should be made within the next 24 hours, and then notify the candidate.

WW pointed out that since there are only a couple of days until the interviews, have the candidates been informed? The Chair replied that they had. WW stated that in that event he believed it would be very awkward to inform the individual only a couple of days before the interview that they would be disqualified.

JSw agreed, but voiced concern that if the procedures aren’t followed then deadlines are not met and it would be a bad precedent to set. If that is not a concern, he suggested holding the interview and take into consideration that the candidate did not submit the questionnaire.

The Chair pointed out that the IC was on track with the timeline. He asked for this discussion to be further addressed on the AC’s list. He thanked JS for the discussion.

8. Any Other Business.

The Chair called for any other business items.

• GV stated that in the last NRO EC meeting, the EC requested he create a table with the AC’s attendance of last ASO AC teleconference held, and published on the ASO website as a participation record. The Chair thanked him and suggested that for any members that were not on the call, GV categorizes why they were not, or state if an apology had been sent. The Chair noted that in some cases it was a telecommunication issue, no fault of the Council member. He stated he would like to see attendance documented separately as well.

ACTION ITEM 20160302-04 Chair to send an email to the AC’s list regarding participation record on ASO website, so that all members are aware of it.

• Updating ASO AC Website.

ACTION ITEM 20160302-05. GV to include in the ASO AC website 2016 work plan

• Assistance on the Consolidated ASO AC Operating Procedures. JS stated he has done as much as he can do on the document. He asked for assistance on the three references made to policy ‘annex ()’, which has existed since October 2011. Prior to that, he did not see any changes to the section since he has been on ASO AC. He stated that the AC needs to resolve this if they cannot figure out to what it refers. He asked for an older version, pre-September 2011, if anyone had it, as it would be helpful.

9. Adjournment.

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 14:01 UTC. WW moved to adjourn, seconded by TF. The meeting adjourned with no objections.