ASO AC Attendees:

AfriNIC
Alan Barrett, AB, Vice Chair

APNIC
Andy Linton AL
Naresh Ajwani, NA
Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF

ARIN
Louie Lee, LL, Chair
Jason Schiller, JS
Ron da Silva, RdS

LACNIC
Hartmut Glaser, HG (remote)

RIPE NCC
Dave Wilson, DW, Vice Chair (remote)
Wilfred Woeber, WW
Hans Petter Holen, HPH

Secretariat:
German Valdez, GV
Adam Gosling, AJG

Observers:
Einar Bolin, (ARIN)

Apologies:
Fiona Asonga (AfriNIC)
Douglas Onyango (AfriNIC)
Sebastian Bellagamba (LACNIC)
Alejandro Guzman (LACNIC)

0. Welcome

The Chair observed the presence of a quorum and welcomed attendees to the ASO AC face-to-face meeting at 09:05 (UTC+2)

1.Agenda Review

JS requested the Chair include a discussion about the procedure violation that had just occurred where an ICANN Board Selection Interview had taken place without a Quorum. The Chair agreed.

JS further asked for clarification on the Operating Procedure Section 7.4.6.4. Interview Round 3: In-Person Interview, which states that: “If the in-person interview happens to coincide with an in-person meeting of the Address Council, then the entire council may conduct the interview”.

These new Agenda points were discussed immediately. AB pointed out that although the interview with one candidate (which had just taken place) did not have a full quorum as no LACNIC member was present, the Interview could be said to “coincide” in as much as it immediately preceded the quorum meeting.

NA asked HG if he, on behalf of the LACNIC region could confirm that his region is willing to accept the deviation.

HG reminded Council members that he had forewarned he was unavailable when the date for the Vancouver meeting was initially set. He further noted he was willing to accept the outcome of the interview if LACNIC members received a report of how the interview went.

There was a discussion about the creation of a report and it was agreed that those present would deliberate on each interview and that this would form the basis of the report for the benefit of those not present.

Other items were added to the agenda.

2. Open Action Item Review

(Action Item: 0405-1) Approval of the March minutes.

It was moved by AB, and seconded by NA, that:

“The ASO AC approves the Minutes of March 8, 2012, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments. The motion carried with no objections.

(New Action Item 0426-01): Secretariat to remove ‘Draft’ from March 8, 2012 minutes on the ASO AC website.

(Action Item: 1504-01): The Secretariat to contact the three successful candidates and invite them to in-person interviews, then to send follow-up ‘Thank you’ to the unsuccessful candidates. If one candidate was unable to attend in-person, the idea of a video conference interview should be suggested and if all candidates and members of the NRO EC are agreeable, the Secretariat should proceed to organize interviews accordingly.

The Chair confirmed the Secretariat had executed the action as described and asked the Secretariat to confirm it had a record of the discussions resolving the Action Item. The Secretariat confirmed it did.

3. Selection of Individuals to the ICANN Board of Directors:

  • There was a discussion of the first candidate interview
  • It was moved by WW and seconded by AL that:

The AC appreciates the work of the Interview Committee and thanks them. At the same time we ask the interview committee to protect information gathered on the candidates and to destroy that information after the selection process is completed and the decision is made public.

AB asked for clarification of how much care should be taken to destroy information held in their personal file systems. WW would like this but feels this might be asking too much.

(New Action Item 0426-02): Interview Committee to protect information gathered during the ICANN Board selection process by destroying the information once the decision is made public.

  • The Chair moved that the meeting be adjourned for lunch: 12:30. There were none opposed and the Chair adjourned the meeting.

4. Selection of Individuals to the ICANN Board of Directors:

  • The meeting reconvened at 13:10

There were two further candidate interviews followed by review discussions with appropriate breaks between.

  • Following the last discussion period, WW moved and AB seconded that: The meeting be adjourned until tomorrow. There were none opposed and the Chair adjourned the meeting.

5. Agenda Review

  • The Chair reconvened the meeting at 09:05 (UTC+2) on Friday, 26 April 2012. There was a roll call and the Chair noted the presence of a quorum. There was a review of the Agenda items for the day.

There was a discussion about whether the IC required a meeting to prepare the report. It was suggested the report be circulated in time for a discussion during the May Teleconference. The Chair requested the Secretariat to circulate the information for that meeting.

(New Action Item: 0426-03): Secretariat to circulate interview report prior to May teleconference.

6. Discussion of the NRO reply to the ASO Review Report

GV provided an overview of the proposed response to the ASO Review Report and explained that the NRO EC requested the ASO AC’s input to the draft response.

The Chair spoke to the Council about the recommendations regarding changes to the MoU and the NRO EC’s response to those recommendations.

The Council Members worked through the Draft Review Response and provided input to the individual Recommendation responses.

JS: A motion to update the work plan to consider a review of the GPDP and develop process in accordance with recommendations from the ASO Review Report. Seconded by AB: There were none opposed and the motion was carried.

(New Action Item 0426-04): ASO AC to update 2012 work plan to include a review of the GPDP.

There was a motion to send the ASO AC edits to the NRO EC for their consideration. JS moved HPH second there was no objection.

(New Action Item 0426-05): Secretariat to forward ASO AC input to NRO reply to ASO Review Report.

7. Review of ASO AC Operating Procedures

The Chair asked for volunteers to work with the Secretariat on a review of the procedures.

The Chair called for a proposal that AB, HPH, AL, and WW be involved in the development of a new set of ‘goals’. AB made such a motion and TF seconded.

(New Action Item 0427-01): AB, HPH, AL, and WW to work with the Secretariat on a review of the ASO AC OP.

DW left the meeting at 13:01 (UTC+2)

8. Minutes and Candidate Names

The Chair introduced the agenda item regarding the publication of Seat 9 ICANN BoD candidate names in the ASO AC meeting minutes and the notification of candidates regarding the outcomes of the selection process.

AB noted that the candidate names are already public and recommended that the AC should minute its actions and decisions.

JS: We should generically document what we have done. In the past the final decision has been reflected in the minutes perhaps we don’t do that in the future.

(New Action Item 0427-02): Secretariat needs to confirm to whom the AC should be sending the successful candidate information.

9. Prague ICANN Meeting

The Chair asked which AC members planned to attend the ICANN 44 meeting in Prague.

The following members indicated they will be in Prague; WW, HPH, NA, most likely HG and SB would be there under there own capacities.

There was a discussion about whether the Procedures Committee needs to travel to Prague to enable them to work collaboratively. The group agreed this would not be necessary and JS suggested they set aside some time to work collaboratively, but remotely and that if there was a need to travel it would be in the final drafting stage if negotiations were required with the NRO EC on the GPDP stuff.

10. Secretariat Rotation

The Chair introduced the topic of Secretariat Rotation and noted this was not a criticism of the current Secretariat, but that there seems to be hiccups getting started each year as the Secretariat transitions to the next RIR. The Chair noted this has improved in more recent years with the transition starting earlier.

The Chair asked: Is there a problem statement that we can pass on to the NRO that will help iron out these, or do we allow the process to continue?

There was a discussion about how the Secretariat function could be improved until the Chair noted that: We first need to have a problem statement and then this detail can be fed into the discussion that comes out of that.

(New Action Item 0427-03): AC to draft a Problem Statement regarding Secretariat Rotation for presentation to the NRO EC.

11. Attendance at meetings

The Chair expressed his frustration that there are now frequent instances where the AC is not able to get a quorum and there are even instances where we lose quorum in the middle of a motion. This is making it very difficult to do work and results in a great deal of time wasted.

Following a discussion AB Moved a motion for the Secretariat to conduct a survey to find out what problems members of ASO AC are experiencing joining 2012 ASO AC meetings. Seconded AL. no objections motion carried.

(New Action Item 0427-04): Secretariat to conduct a survey to establish what problems Council members are experiencing that prevents them from joining ASO AC meetings in 2012.

All business having been dealt with, the Chair noted that he would entertain a motion to adjourn.

WW indicated his support for the motion. HPH seconded it. Noting that there were no objections, the Chair indicated that the motion was carried.

He adjourned the meeting at 12:43 (UTC+2).