ASO AC Attendees:

AfriNIC

Fiona Asonga, FA
Alan Barrett, AB, Vice Chair
Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH

APNIC

Naresh Ajwani, NA, Vice Chair
Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Andy Linton, AL

ARIN

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

LACNIC

Sebastián Bellagamba, SB
Francisco Obispo, FO

RIPE NCC

Dave Wilson – DW

Secretariat:

Therese Colosi (ARIN)

Observers:

AfriNIC

Ernest Byaruhanga, EB

APNIC

German Valdez, GV

ARIN

Nate Davis, ND
Susan Hamlin, SH

RIPE

Emelio Madaio, EM

ICANN

Ray Plzak, RP
Olof Nordling, ON
Kuo-Wei Wu, KW

Absent:

Hartmut Glaser, Hans Petter Holen, Wilfried Woeber

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m. EDT.  The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda and asked for comments.  There were no comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

It was moved by SB, and seconded by DW, that:

“The ASO AC approves the Minutes of July 7, 2011, as written.”

The motion carried with no objections.

New Action Item. 0804-01: SECRETARIAT. Remove Draft from July 7, 2011 Minutes.

4. Open Action Item Review.

0622-02 (2010): WW. ASO AC Wiki. WW to work with P. Rendeck, and the RIPE NCC, on the Wiki. The Chair stated that if WW needed more help, he could turn to the Communications Committee. OPEN.

The Chair noted that WW was not on the teleconference. He stated that he had sent him an e-mail requesting updates on this and other items on which WW was the lead person. The Chair stated he had not received a response and requested that if any ASO AC members could reach out to WW, to please do so in order to connect with him. DW stated he would attempt to contact WW. The Chair thanked him.

0707-01: SECRETARIAT. Remove ‘Draft’ from June 2, 2011 ASO AC Minutes. OPEN

The Secretariat confirmed this item has been completed.

The Chair stated the item would be closed.

0707-02: CHAIR. Send Request from ASO AC to NRO EC regarding providing a copy of the draft ASO Review report to the ASO AC for review and comment. OPEN

The Chair stated he would do this, this week.

0707-03: SECRETARIAT/OLOF N. Update ASO AC website with a link back to ON’s report, and the last update for each GPP on the ASO website. ON to liaise with SH to keep her informed. OPEN

SH confirmed this has been completed. The Chair stated that the first part of this item has been completed, and the rest of it will be an on-going process.

The Chair stated the item would be closed.

5. Status of GPP-IPv4-2010: Global Policy For IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion.

PPFT: DW, AB, FO, RdS

The Chair called for any changes or updates on the status of this global policy. There were no changes/updates.

6. Status of GPP-IPv4-2011: Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA.

PPFT: JS, FO, HPH, TF, FA

The Chair called for any changes or updates on the status of this global policy. AL stated that a new proposal was posted to the mailing list at the last APNIC Public Policy Meeting (PPM) regarding the stumbling block between APNIC and ARIN on this proposal. He stated that he expected discussions of the new proposal at the upcoming APNIC meeting in Busan, but it was decided to put those discussions on hold until other regions have a chance to weigh-in on this proposal. He stated that there would be discussion at the APNIC PPM in Busan on this proposal regarding where to go to reach a compromise between APNIC and ARIN.

ON and FO joined at this time (12:15 pm EDT).  FO stated he had not seen any updates on the LACNIC mailing list and noted it was awaiting LACNIC Board ratification.

The Chair stated this proposal would be discussed in October at the next ARIN PPM in Philadelphia, PA. JHR stated the next AFRINIC PPM would be in November. It was noted that RIPE’S PPM would also be held in November. Given this, the Chair noted the earliest update on this proposal would not be until October.

7. ICANN Review Teams: Related Activities Update.

A) Security Stability Resiliency Review Team (SSR RT) Update. The Chair noted no update at this time as HG was unavailable provide an update.

B) WHOIS Review Team (WHOIS RT) Update. The Chair noted no update at this time as WW was unavailable provide an update.

8. Status of 2011 ICANN Nomination Committee.

The Chair noted no update at this time as WW was unavailable provide an update.

9. ASO AC Appointment to the 2012 ICANN Nomination Committee.

The Chair stated that on July 22, 2011, JRH and HG volunteered for the Committee, via e-mail. He noted that HG had previously stated that he had served on the committee in the past, and would like to serve again.

JHR stated that he too would be happy to serve on the committee. He stated that he would be willing to discuss this with HG, and one of them can come back to confirm their decision, if doing so was not out of normal procedure.

The Chair stated that the decision was needed by August 15th. RP suggested that the ASO AC pass a resolution to appoint the person who wins the vote in the election. It could be done via an on-line voting procedure with a deadline to get the name in time for the Nomination Committee. The one elected is the one that is appointed.

The Chair asked the Secretariat if it was possible to set up an on line voting system for this effort. ND stated it would be possible to do. The Chair reiterated the Nomination Committee deadline of August 15, 2011.

It was moved by DW and seconded by RdS that:

“The ASO AC appoints to the Nomination Committee the winner of the electronic vote to be set up as soon as possible, with a deadline of voting of no later than August 12, 2011.”

The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

10. Status of ASO Review

The Chair stated he had not heard from the reviewers, noting the action item he had to send a request for the draft of the review to the NRO EC, in order for the ASO AC to review and provide feedback.

11. Procedure for Selection of Individuals to the ICANN Board of Directors

The Chair stated that the suggested update was sent to ASO AC via their mailing list. He noted that AL and JS had provided feedback to the group, noting that some sections had confusing language.

JS stated the text was revised with clarifying suggestions, such as: should there be 1 representative from each RIR, or a minimum of 1 representative? He stated that no decision had yet been made. He noted that he had not had the opportunity to read through the whole document yet.

AL stated that the document confused the method of communication, and explained that it would be better to say that the second interview was a short-listing, and the third interview was the final interview. He stated that this would be mainly for the interviewee, so that they would know what to expect, and would be aware of the steps of the process. It was noted that the second interview could possibly be skipped if it was not necessary (depending on the outcome of the first interviews).

NA was concerned about an imbalance of representation in that if there was only 1 representative per RIR, and one of them could not be available to represent their RIR, it would create an imbalance. The Chair acknowledged NA’s point and, that to avoid imbalance, at least 1 representative from each RIR would be needed to promote a global effort.

Discussion ensued on the issue of 1 representative from each RIR, or a minimum of 1 representative from each RIR, coverage of representation, and the workload of the task. JS and DW acknowledged there was much work to be done and that having additional assistance, not necessarily ‘back up’ representatives, would be beneficial to the project, such as: people who want to support and move process along by helping to craft questions, or craft interviews, or collect information.

The Chair noted that to avoid any risk of work lagging if one person was unable to do the work, that person would seek a replacement, rather than appointing someone else just in case the work lags. He preferred exactly 5 people: 1 representative from each RIR.

JS stated his main point was that if there were more than 5 people, it might result in a better product (reports, interviews, questions). If there were only 5 people, it would take the voice out of the discussion and would result in a lesser product – if indeed there would be volunteers who want to participate. These volunteers would not be “back-up representatives” they would be additional people involved in the project. He considered that a beneficial resource that could be utilized.

The Chair stated that he wanted to avoid any regional biases, noting that it could be avoided as long as the work was open and transparent.

AB joined at this time (12:43 p.m. EDT).

DW stated that there was a lot of work to accomplish, and it needed to get done in a timely manner. He did not consider that 5 people would be a very robust team. He noted that there should only be 5 representatives for a vote or an issue, but agreed with JS that for documents, etc., the same 5 people would not have to the only ones working on them.

SB also agreed with JS that more people would be beneficial to the process. He suggested that for financial reasons, send 1 representative from each RIR, but if others had the budget to travel, they would be welcome.

The Chair summarized that the procedure would state: “1 representative from each region, but can accept work from other members.”

JS agreed and stated the text would be reworked to reflect this statement. NA also agreed.

The Chair stated that the timing of the rounds needed to be approved in order for the Secretariat to develop the schedule for the selections this time around. He noted the Secretariat was working with ON and ICANN staff to obtain the deadlines to have a name posted, noting that RP’s term will end at the end of the ICANN Meeting in Prague, in June of 2012.

JS summarized the changes to the language in the procedure’s interview status: the first interview is the written interview, the second interview is the telephonic interview (which can be skipped if there is no need for it), and the third interview is the final round.

He stated this would be carried throughout the procedure because it is inconsistent as currently written. He noted it would state that the third interview (final round) may be telephonic or in person, and that that needed to be clarified. AL agreed with JS, stating it was useful to have a clear description for the candidates.

FA joined at this time (12:51 pm EDT).

The Chair asked for confirmation that none of these changes affected the timing of the suggested procedure. NA and JS confirmed that that was correct. The Chair requested continued revisions of the text, as the current version was not ready to approve via vote. All agreed. The Chair stated the text should be sent back to the ASO AC mailing list for review.

The Chair called for approval of the timelines in the procedure, given that they were finalized.

It was moved by JS, and seconded by AL, that:

“The ASO AC approves the timelines documented in the Draft Procedure for Selection of Individuals to the ICANN Board of Directors.”

The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

DW suggested that as a courtesy, the ASO AC inform the NRO EC that this information is coming. The Chair agreed.

The Chair noted that ICANN offered General Counsel services to provide the ASO AC advice as it relates to Conflict of Interest (CoI). He welcomed the member’s thoughts, and stated that he had forwarded the draft to ICANN’s General Counsel yesterday.

RP suggested that the Chair might want to request a copy or a version of the CoI questionnaire that the ICANN Board had to fill out, and use it as evaluation criteria. The Chair thanked him for the suggestion and stated he would amend the procedure, or incorporate the questionnaire into it. He stated that candidates could be pointed to the questionnaire to review it. The Chair asked RP if he would request, from ICANN’s General Counsel, a deadline for providing a name and the CoI questionnaire. RP agreed to do so.

JS stated that he needed to leave the teleconference at this time (1:03 p.m. EDT).

12. ASO AC Workshop at ICANN 42.

At the last ASO AC Meeting, the Chair stated that the next ICANN Public Policy Meeting is scheduled for October 23-28 in Dakar, Senegal. He called for volunteers from the other regions to participate in the ASO Workshop and ICANN Board Luncheon for this meeting. Confirmed volunteers are still needed.

RP asked if there was confirmation received on holding the ICANN Board luncheon, as he understood that the luncheon in Singapore at the last ICANN meeting was a one-time event. He understood the presentation given then, would be integrated going forward into the overall ASO AC Workshop agenda – similar to what is done in the stakeholder group in GNsO. He suggested that he could speak with Diane Schroeder at ICANN and get back to the Chair with comments. The Chair agreed and thanked him.

The Chair pointed out that he needed to discuss the other ASO AC sessions to be held for other groups, by e-mailing the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Councils today.

RP suggested that when providing handouts for presentations in other sessions, the handouts should cover the general discussion, but the actual session should cover one topic, keeping the overall workshop focused. The Chair agreed.

The Chair called for volunteers for the upcoming workshop in Dakar, noting he would be representing ARIN.

  • AfriNIC: AB stated he would be willing to go, but was unsure if AfriNIC funding would allow more than one ASO AC member to attend. FA stated that she could not attend. JRH stated he is planning on attending. AB and JRH will discuss and decide which one of them, if not both, would be representative at the meeting.
  • APNIC: The Chair stated he would send an e-mail requesting a volunteer.
  • LACNIC: The Chair stated he would send an e-mail requesting a volunteer.
  • RIPE: DW stated he would speak with HPH regarding which of them would attend. The Chair thanked him.

13. Any Other Business.

The Chair called for any other business. There were no comments. The Chair asked ON if he had what he needed for the global policy proposal. ON stated he did, but if any updates arise, to please send them to him.

14. Adjournment.

The Chair called for a motion to adjourn at 1:14 p.m. EDT. DW moved to adjourn, seconded by NA. The meeting adjourned with no objections.