AC Attendees:

  • Alan Barrett, AB : AfriNIC
  • Kenny Huang, KH : APNIC
  • Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF : APNIC
  • Naresh Ajwani, NA : APNIC
  • Louis Lee : ARIN (Chair)
  • Hartmut Glaser, HG : LACNIC
  • Francisco Obispo, FO : LACNIC
  • Jason Schiller, JS : ARIN
  • Dave Wilson, DW : RIPE
  • Hans Petter Holen, HPH : RIPE
  • Wilfried Woeber, WW : RIPE

Secretariat:

  • Fergal Cunningham, FC : RIPE NCC
  • Sabine Mader, SM : RIPE NCC
  • Nick Hyrka, NH : RIPE NCC

Observers:

  • Leo Vegoda, LV : ICANN
  • Raimundo Beca, RB : ICANN
  • Olof Nordling, ON : ICANN
  • Ernest M. Byaruhanga, EB : AfriNIC
  • Einar Bohlin, EB : ARIN
  • Nate Davis, ND : ARIN
  • Ricardo Patara, RP : LACNIC
  • Axel Pawlik, AP : RIPE NCC
  • Filiz Yilmaz, FY : RIPE NCC

Apologies:

  • Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH : AfriNIC
  • Vincent Ngundi, VN : AfriNIC
  • Martin Hannigan, MH : ARIN

Absent:

  • Sebastian Bellagamba, SB : LACNIC

Draft Agenda

  1. Welcome
  2. Agenda review
  3. Approval of the minutes from the 5 March 2009 meeting
  4. Review of Open Action Items
  5. Election of Candidates to Seat 9 of the ICANN Board of Directors
    a. Discussion of proposed evoting system
  6. New Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries
  7. Communications & Procedures Committee Update
    a. Review of charter
    b. Website review
  8. AOB
  9. Adjournment

  1. Welcome

    The Chair opened the meeting 13.22. He asked if anyone wanted to reschedule the conference due to there being eight members on the call when it was opened then they should let him know. WW suggested that the meeting continue. There were no requests to reschedule.

  2. Agenda review

    The Chair said that he would like to try for this meeting in the Open Action Items section of the agenda only to cover those items not covered elsewhere in the agenda. He noted that the other items would be covered in the relevant areas. The Chair then went through the agenda and asked if there were comments. There were none.

  3. Approval of the minutes from the 5 March 2009 meeting

    AB moved to approve the minutes from the 5 March 2009 teleconference and HG seconded the motion. There were none opposed and the motion carried.

    New Action Item: 0409-01 – Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 5 March meeting from Draft.

    Action: 0309-02
    Secretariat to update the previous minutes to reflect the correct dates of 25-27 March 2009 for Nomination Committee members to be in attendance during the IETF Meeting.

    This action item is now closed.

  4. Review of Open Action Items

    Action: 1211-01
    The Chair to send a message to the NRO EC Chair with a list of items pending a response from the EC.

    There is no update on this action item.

    Action: 0309-01
    Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 5 February meeting from Draft.

    This action item has been completed.

    [DW joined at 13:27 UTC]

    Action: 0309-06
    The Secretariat to forward the minutes of posted NRO EC Meetings to the ac-coord list when they become available.

    This action is now closed and will instead become standing procedure.

  5. Election of Candidates to Seat 9 of the ICANN Board of Directors

    Action: 0209-02
    Secretariat to liaise with IETF Secretariat to arrange time and facilities for in-person interviews to take place from 25-27 March 2009 at the IETF Meeting in San Francisco and liaise with MH and ASO AC Nominations Committee regarding their requirements.

    The Chair noted that this action item was carried out successfully and he thanked NH and FC for their assistance and support in San Francisco.

    This action item is now closed.

    The Chair noted that the interviews were open to ASO AC members and observers and he noted that he attended because it was convenient for him to do so. The Chair then asked WW to give the update for this agenda item and WW agreed.

    WW noted that the Nominations Committee and the Chair met the day before the interviews to review formal requirements. He confirmed that the group was acting accordingly and the required procedures were completed. The major part of the meeting was devoted to reviewing the candidate answers to the questionnaire and then they set out to collect questions to be asked individually. These questions were discussed and agreed upon and FC supported by providing a printout of these questions.

    WW said that on the second day they went through interviews and all candidates showed up on time and the environment and climate was comfortable for all. He said the end result is that AB was asked to come up with a status report with support from WW and the ASO AC should receive that within days. WW then handed back to the Chair.

    JS added that everyone would get rough transcripts of interviews from Secretariat.

    WW added that MH and the Secretariat is currently working on the telephone interview that is pending with the candidate from the APNIC region.

    The Chair asked if we were still on schedule with what we need to do.

    NA had a query on the procedure of submitting the completed questionnaire within 60 days of announcement of the process beginning. He said one candidate left out an important section if the questionnaire. He asked had that been taken into consideration and was the interview allowed or stopped, as the questionnaire was incomplete.

    AB noted that the questions were asked of the candidate before the interview.

    NA reiterated that from 60 days of the announcement the questionnaire should be submitted in full, so one candidate did not comply with the process.

    WW noted that this touches on a broader issue that had been mentioned before. He said the basic question was whether we need to stick very precisely to timelines and procedures, even to the detriment of a good candidate. He said it was discussed previously and it was thought that it was in the interest of the process and the community not to be overly formal relating to timelines as long as relevant information became available before the next step.

    NA asked if there was flexibility for every candidate or just for good candidates, and why have a process if there is flexibility.

    WW said the people involved made the decision. He advised that if there was a formal decision to be made then any ASO AC member could make a formal proposal to the ASO AC and have it seconded.

    NA said this was an observation and an attempt to understand. He said if there was a set procedure and process then why deviate and this breach of procedure should be minuted. He said there was no challenge but it should be noted.

    WW said it was important to note that there was also slight deviation in that one of the candidates deviated slightly and the same flexibility was applied in that the candidate’s nomination arrived a short time after the deadline. He added that this was already discussed on the mailing list.

    NA said that also more than three candidates were interviewed face to face, one candidate sent an incomplete questionnaire one two occasions and this should be noted in the minutes.

    The Chair asked if the procedure called for completion of the questionnaire in 60 days.

    NA said the 60 days began with the original announcement on 22 December 2009 so 22 March was the last day of 60 days.

    JS said, looking at the website for procedures, it says in section 7.4.4.1 that written interviews will have 10 calendar days to be completed and be returned to the Secretariat. The procedures are available at:
    http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/bod-selection.html

    The Chair said there were not clear requirements sent to the candidates.

    The Chair asked for NA’s comments to be noted. He said if NA wanted to make a motion he could do so now or at the next teleconference.

    NA said procedures should be either followed completely or not at all. He said a casual approach to procedures is not appreciated. He added that he had no motion to make but it was a remark to take into consideration. The Chair noted this.

    JS said it was worth noting that we have been lenient in the past.

    The Chair said where it’s an internal procedure the ASO AC has been lenient but where it affects groups outside the ASO AC procedures have been strictly followed, such as when sending a letter on a global policy to ICANN or announcing a selection for the ICANN Board.

    AB disagreed that there is no middle ground following procedures strictly and having none at all. He said there is a middle ground and it is possible to be flexible but this should be applied to all candidate.

    WW agreed with this and noted the case of small flexibility with a different candidate.

    JS agreed and pointed out that if there were very strict procedures then it would be problematic to change them.

    NA said that flexibility after flexibility is also a wrong approach.

    The Chair said it was possible a page in a questionnaire was cut off.

    WW agreed it was not clear if it was an oversight. He reiterated that the answers were received before the start of interview.

    [HPH joined the call at 13:44 UTC]

    The Chair said the candidate believed they were sent prior to the interview and he suggested moving to the next agenda item.

    a. Discussion of proposed e-voting system

    The Chair noted that FC sent the results of the previous test election and he would like to do another test run because it did not go smoothly for two members.

    WW said there were two test runs with WW and FC participating to review the system, exchanging experience and ideas from both the administrator’s and the voter’s point of view. He said there were some minor things to sort out. He added that the most interesting thing for him is for the AC members to try test drive manual abstention capability. He said it turns out that it does not allow formal abstention and an idea is to include a regular option to abstain. He will try that option in next test run. He noted that all ASO AC members should participate in the next test election.

    The Chair noted that unless there were major problems the ASO AC would use the proposed system for this election.

    JS asked about the logistics of the next test and FC explained that individual codes would be sent to all ASO AC members by the Secretariat as this would eliminate a third party having to send important emails to members.

  6. New Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries

  7. Action: 0309-05
    Members of the PPFT to check to see if the Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries has been submitted in their region and if not then request that it be so submitted.

    The Chair noted that it had been submitted in four of five regions but VN submitted it in the AfriNIC region so this action item is now closed. The Chair asked the PPFT to confirm this. AB confirmed that the proposal was submitted in AfriNIC about a week after the last teleconference.

    This action item is now closed.

    The Chair said the next RIR meeting was the ARIN Meeting in late April and there should be a better update at the next teleconference in May.

    JS asked if he should give an update on the current discussions on the proposal in the ARIN region and the Chair said this would be a good idea.

    JS said there is an interesting discussion ongoing due to new ARIN PDP, which means the ARIN Advisory Council can rewrite proposals based on community interest and they have chosen to do so with this policy, so it will not be the same text as in other regions.

    The Chair asked JS to track that closely to see if the PPFT needs to work with authors to submit a new version in their regions.

    JS said there is some possibility that there will be a petition and discussion at ARIN meeting but this is not clear yet.

    The Chair said it would be a good idea to let regions know about this as soon as possible so they don’t work on an old version of the proposal that won’t be passed as a global policy.

    JS asked if the next meeting was LACNIC and when is deadline for policy proposals?

    WW asked if there was a formal deadline. RP said the formal deadline was four weeks before public forum.

    The Chair said this would occur around the beginning of ARIN meeting. WW noted that the RIPE Meeting would also begin on 4 May.

    The Chair said the PPFT should let authors know of the concern that they should not spend too much time on a version that won’t be passed as a global policy because of a text change in one region.

    WW said the modified text should go through the policy development processes of all regions in time.

    The Chair asked if there were any further comments and there were none.

  8. Communications & Procedures Committee Update

  9. a. Review of charter

    Action: 0209-04
    WW to work on draft charter for the Communications and Procedures Committee and present it to the ASO AC.

    This action item is ongoing.

    The Chair noted that WW has sent the draft charter to the list and received some comments.

    WW said the next step is to put the updated charter on HPH’s wiki. He also noted that looking at this year’s election process procedures should be reviewed and the most up-to-date version should be in place. He said some may need review but otherwise things were on track. He asked for ASO AC members to formally approve the charter and mandate at the next teleconference.

    WW also said the group was working with the Secretariat to clean up the mailing lists, particularly regarding accessibility of archives. He said a mailing list will shortly be proposed for the Communications and Procedures Committee and the set up of the mailing list can be used as a blueprint for the set-up of all mailing lists.

    [EB Joined the call at 13:57 UTC]

    The Chair said he would like for the group to operate under the current charter until it is formally approved. There were no comments on this. The Chair asked that members please look at it again and update if necessary.

    b. Website update

    The Chair noted that on the website the comments in support of candidates provided the full email address and they should be redacted but kept for the ASO AC’s own records but not posted. He asked if there were any comments on this and there were none.

    FC said the Secretariat was currently working on making the aforementioned required change to the website, and following comments from the Nominations Committee links to the ICANN Board election would be provided on other pages of the website, including the home page.

    NA said on 5 March he sent a request to allow a bottom-up approach to allow a link to the ASO website to be posted on the websites of ISPs. He said people from developing countries don’t have an understating of the ASO function so if they are provided with a link they will be able to contribute more in terms of policies. He said he was thanked for the suggestion but nothing happened and he sent his suggestion again on 13 March.

    WW said the proposal was received and acknowledged but there is no consensus from the ASO AC to do this but there needs to be a discussion on this to do it before changing the website.

    NA clarified that the idea was to give the link to the ASO site to people so they can contribute. And see what is happening.

    WW said he was not in favour of this proposal unless it can be implemented properly covering all regions. He said consensus in the ASO AC was needed before this can be done and there should be discussion before implementation. He asked the Chair to have a formal vote.

    The Chair asked NA if the idea was to provide a link or some way for outside sites to reference the ASO website and NA confirmed that this was correct.

    The Chair said they were still trying to get the ASO website to a point where it is properly useful for the rest of the community by making sure it is fully up to date. He said the group does send notices through the RIR channels about ASO AC activities and when input from the community is required. He said perhaps there is a place to provide a link to the other organisations. He said it might be more appropriate to do announcement through RIR mailing lists so they can choose if they want to post announcements through the other organisations’ mailing lists rather than have a standing link. He said this is all open to discussion. He asked the ASO AC members if they were open to the idea of outreach in any manner.

    WW asked for clarification on the proposal but he does not see how this is ASO AC business in first place because the ASO/NRO existence is well known and it is not required formally notify external parties of its existence. He said it is the business of the external parties whether they want to have a link to the ASO site or any related site.

    HPH said several websites and associations such as Microsoft provide a tool that allows a logo to be created gives HTML that can be pasted on the webpage and that could be something the ASO could do to attract more attention and make its workings more visible He said is was a marketing issue of making the ASO more visible externally and providing such a tool might be useful.

    WW said if this was the proposal then he was supportive but this was not clear.

    The Chair agreed and said he thought it was other way around initially. He said this would be a good item for the Communications and Procedures Committee to take on. WW noted this. The Chair asked if there were opposing viewpoints and there were none.

    New Action Item: 0409-02 – The Communications and Procedures Committee to investigate providing a way for external organisations to easily link to the ASO website.

    The Chair suggested to Naresh that if the organisation he is taking about would like to post a link to the ASO webpages then they can do that.

    NA noted that India was a one billion plus country but no one there knows about the NRO or ASO and this was due to stakeholders not being engaged. He added that his objective was to bring more people into the process and have more than a small number of people using the website. He said that this would help to secure the future of the Internet. He added that he would be clearer in his communication to the group in future.

    The Chair noted that electronic communication was always a challenge and he appreciated the clarification. He concluded that it was good that nobody took a defensive stance before understanding completely what was being considered.

  10. AOB

  11. a.Face-to face meeting – development of an agenda

    Action: 0309-03
    The Secretariat to work with the ASO AC Chair and the LACNIC Meeting organisers to arrange facilities for the face-to-face meeting in Panama City on 25 May 2009.

    FC noted that the Secretariat had contacted the LACNIC organisers to open communication and that this action item is ongoing.

    Action: 0309-04
    The Secretariat to update the meeting schedule on the ASO website to include the face-to-face meeting on 25 May in Panama City.

    This action item has been completed and is now closed.

    The Chair asked for the LACNIC Meeting organisers to be ready to send invitation letters to those people requiring visas to attend the meeting. He asked the Secretariat to work with the LACNIC organisers to start this process.

    RP noted that when people subscribe for the LACNIC Meeting the website gives people the option to request an invitation letter.

    The Chair if ASO AC members needed to register for the LACNIC event.

    RP said this was the option at the moment but they could discuss other option with the Secretariat.

    New Action Item: 0409-03 – The Secretariat and ASO AC Chair to liaise with the LACNIC Meeting organisers to determine the best way to see that those requiring visas for the ASO AC face-to-face meeting in Panama City receive them.

    The Chair said he would like to discuss the agenda for the face-to-face meeting over the mailing list unless members wanted to discuss it here.

    TF asked if IPv4 legacy space could be discussed at the face-to-face meeting.

    The Chair said this was fine and he asked TF to please send a message on this to the AC list so everyone can have their input.

    The Chair asked if there was any other business and there was none.

  12. Adjournment

  13. The Chair reminded everyone the next meeting has been postponed by a week to 14 May because of the RIPE Meeting.

    The Chair asked people to consider postponing the June teleconference because of the proximity of three meetings. He also asked that people also consider the movement of the open action items to the relevant agenda points and any other possible improvements to the way the teleconference is carried out.

    HPH proposed adjourning the meeting and AB seconded. There were none opposed and the meeting adjourned at 14.26 UTC.

    Open Action items

    Action: 1211-01
    The Chair to send a message to the NRO EC Chair with a list of items pending a response from the EC.

    Action: 0209-04
    WW to work on draft charter for the Communications and Procedures Committee and present it to the ASO AC.

    Action: 0309-03
    The Secretariat to work with the ASO AC Chair and the LACNIC Meeting organisers to arrange facilities for the face-to-face meeting in Panama City on 25 May 2009.

    Action: 0409-01
    Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 5 March meeting from Draft.

    Action: 0409-02
    The Communications and Procedures Committee to investigate providing a way for external organisations to easily link to the ASO website.

    Action: 0409-03
    The Secretariat and ASO AC Chair to liaise with the LACNIC Meeting organisers to determine the best way to see that those requiring visas for the ASO AC face-to-face meeting in Panama City receive them.