AC Attendees:

  • Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH : AfriNIC
  • Vincent Ngundi, VN : AfriNIC
  • Alan Barett, AB : AfriNIC
  • Kenny Huang, KH : APNIC
  • Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF : APNIC
  • Louis Lee : ARIN (Chair)
  • Martin Hannigan, MH : ARIN
  • Jason Schiller, JS : ARIN
  • Sebastian Bellagamba, SB : LACNIC
  • Hartmut Glaser, HG : LACNIC
  • Francisco Obispo, FO : LACNIC
  • Dave Wilson, DW : RIPE
  • Wilfried Woeber, WW : RIPE

Secretariat:

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

Observers:

  • Leo Vegoda, LV : ICANN
  • Olof Nordling, ON : ICANN
  • Ernest Byaruhanga, EMB : AfriNIC
  • Kiran Cunniah, KC : AfriNIC
  • German Valdez, GV : APNIC
  • Einar Bohlin, EB : ARIN
  • Nate Davis, ND : ARIN
  • John Curran, JC : ARIN
  • Ricardo Patara, RP : LACNIC
  • Axel Pawlik, AP : RIPE NCC
  • Paul Rendek, PR : RIPE NCC
  • Filiz Yilmaz, FY : RIPE NCC

Apologies:

  • Hans Petter Holen, RIPE
  • Raimundo Beca, ICANN

Absent:

  • Naresh Ajwani, APNIC

Draft Agenda

  1. Welcome
  2. Agenda Review
  3. AC Chair Election
  4. AC Vice Chair Appointments
  5. Approval of the Minutes from the 11 Dec 2008 Meeting
  6. Review of Open Action Items
  7. ICANN Nominations
  8. Update of the ASO AC Operating Procedures
  9. ASO Website Review
  10. Global Policy Proposal for Remaining IPv4 Address Space
  11. RIR Boards’ Visions for the ASO AC
  12. 2009 ASO Work Plan
  13. 2009 AC Meetings
  14. AOB
  15. Adjournment

  1. Welcome

    The Chair welcomed participants and started the meeting at 1305 UTC.

  2. Agenda review

    The Chair reviewed the agenda and asked if anyone had any comments. There was a comment thanking AfriNIC for the work it did as Secretariat in 2008 and welcoming the RIPE NCC into the role for 2009. JS asked if the ASO AC Chair election procedure and the ASO’s participation in the panel at the upcoming ICANN Meeting would be covered in the agenda. The Chair responded that it would be rolled into the 2009 ASO Work Plan agenda item.

  3. AC Chair Election

    The Chair noted that there was 60 percent participation in the ASO AC Chair election. Nine voted for LL and he asked if there were reasons, such as difficulty registering, why the other six members did not have their votes counted. WW commented that he encountered no problem with the procedure or software but he started the process too late to be able to vote.

    [MH joined the call at 1315 UTC]

    The Chair noted that when electronic voting was first proposed it was with the intention that every eligible member should cast a vote in order for the election to count. He said that, as the sole candidate, he received the most votes. He suggested a roll call vote to make the election official. WW suggested that this would be a good idea.

    HG said that because there was a majority for LL, the election was valid even though it was not ideal that some members did not have their vote counted. He said there was no need for a roll call because this would reduce confidence in the system used and the election result should stand.

    AB said he had no recollection of any decision that required all members to cast a vote. The Chair responded that this was decided when electronic voting was first proposed almost two years ago.

    SB said that every member should have the ability to vote but a requirement that everyone must vote would allow the election result to be vetoed by one person. He agreed with HG that the result is valid and should be accepted, although it would be a good idea to analyse the reasons why everyone did not vote.

    [JRH joined the call at 1319 UTC]

    DW asked if it was certain that there was quorum for the vote. HG pointed out that nine votes constituted a majority so the result should be valid. DW said that it could not be certain that at least one vote came from each region. HG said that this is not a requirement.

    JC agreed with the position that the election is valid. He noted that in some countries there is ambiguity over electronic voting because there is a possibility that someone may not have received the announcement of the vote or that technical reasons may not have allowed them to vote. He said votes such as this are often confirmed at the next teleconference where people have a chance to confirm their vote or speak directly on the matter. He said that this was a potential work item for the ASO AC to look at and clarify its electronic voting procedure.

    The Chair agreed that this should be a work item to review and refine the voting procedure. He said that it would be good to confirm the vote to ensure protocol was followed. JS agreed with this and stressed that it was important to collect the issues encountered with this election so they can be addressed in any new procedures.

    HG proposed a motion that the ASO AC approves the election result as valid for the year 2009. WW seconded the motion and there were none opposed. There was a roll call vote and the motion was passed with 11 members in favour and four non-responses. HG gave congratulations to LL on being officially appointed ASO AC Chair for 2009.

    The Chair asked what were the difficulties, if any, that people had in casting their ballot. SB said that his confirmation mail for signing up to the election went directly to his spam box and perhaps a different distribution method should be considered. There was also a comment that there was no possibility to officially abstain and it is unclear whether this was the intention of some members who did not vote.

    HG suggested that LL or the Secretariat should email AC members to find out why they did not vote, whether it be for technical reasons or otherwise. MH said that there should be no compromising of confidentiality and if people choose to let the mailing list know their reasons that should be up to them. It was asked how it would be found out what were the problems unless people are asked.

    MH proposed that the Secretariat audit the electronic voting system to see that it worked correctly and also that the mailing list be polled to give people the option to explain how they voted, should they choose to do so. The Chair said that if people wanted they could send their response just to the Secretariat to maintain confidentiality. MH said that this might constitute a revote and he would have no desire to reveal how he voted. He concluded that, regardless, the result would not change.

  4. AC Vice Chair Appointments

    The Chair requested that SB be reappointed as Vice Chair and SB accepted. HG proposed the motion to approve the appointment of SB as Vice Chair of the ASO AC. WW seconded the motion. There was no opposition and the motion carried.

    The Chair said that he wished to reappoint HPH, who sent his apologies for not being able to attend the teleconference. The Chair asked for a motion on this issue. HG proposed the motion that the appointment of HPH should be postponed to the February meeting and it should be reopened should HPH decline the appointment. JRH seconded the motion. There was no opposition and the motion carried.

  5. Approval of the minutes from the 11 Dec 2008 meeting

    WW mentioned the link to HPH’s wiki that appears in the minutes referencing the timeline for the ASO’s appointment to Seat 9 of the ICANN Board. He said it would be best not to have external links in an official document in case they become obsolete in the future and for various other reasons. The Chair suggested that the timeline be inserted verbatim in the minutes.

    DW proposed the motion that the minutes of 11 December 2008 be approved subject to the link to the 2009 Work Plan being removed and replaced with the table giving the timeline for the ASO’s appointment to the ICANN Board. WW seconded the motion. There was no opposition and the motion carried.

    Action: #0109-01
    Secretariat to remove the URL from the 1211 TC, replace it with the verbatim timeline for making the appointment to Seat 9 of the ICANN Board and change the status from DRAFT.

  6. 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.

    The Chair mentioned that he was unable to send this list as he is still awaiting a response from the EC. He will compile the list and send it on.

    Action: #1211-02
    The Secretariat to update the list of AC members on the ASO AC website before 15 December 2008.

    The Secretariat commented that this item has been completed.

    Action: #0808-02
    The Chair to seek approval from the NRO EC for adoption of the procedure to select the AC Representative to the ICANN Nominating Committee into the AC Operating Procedure.

    The Chair sent what he had to the mailing list and the text needs to be changed into a procedure that can be incorporated into the operating procedure manual. He asked that this action item be removed and placed instead in the ASO Work Plan 2009. JS asked that the finalised text be sent to the list so all ASO AC members would have it.

    Action: #0808-03
    The secretariat to post the procedure for the selection of the AC Representative to the ICANN Nominating Committee on the website after approval received from the NRO EC.

    The Chair asked that this action item be removed because it will become a natural action item after it is approved. He asked that the Secretariat post the procedure as a draft before the approval so members will have it as a reference.

    Action: #0808-04
    The secretariat to ensure the following regarding the proposed documents page:
    * add tabs for minutes and draft documents.
    * ensure compatibility with non javascript browsers.

    The Chair noted that he had been in contact with the Secretariat and the transition of duties from AfriNIC to the RIPE NCC has been completed. The Secretariat said that it has been concentrating on updating content on the site and the bigger website issues would become part of the RIPE NCC Web Services Team’s plans to redesign the site to make it more useful for members.

    WW thanked the RIPE NCC for addressing the most pressing issues with the website and he added that there are still some areas that should be prioritised over any redesign. WW said he is happy to work with the Secretariat on a private channel to see that these issues are addressed.

    The Chair mentioned that he had talked to WW about creating a Communications Committee that would recommend changes to the website, mailing lists and teleconferences. The Committee would work with the Secretariat directly on minor changes and bring bigger issues to the mailing list. He asked that this be addressed under the ASO Work Plan 2009 agenda item.

  7. ICANN Nominations

  8. The Chair asked MH to take the lead on this.
    MH said that the announcement went out as planned. He noted that the procedure has been followed and the schedule is in hand. The Secretariat confirmed that there have been no nominations so far. MH said that the closing date for nominations is 24 February 2009. The Chair asked if there was a possibility to extend this deadline. MH replied that this date was not flexible. He said that he was confident there would be one to three nominations and it was too early to be concerned about receiving nominations yet.

    HG said that in the timeline the current candidate’s mandate runs until May but it should run until six months after the last ICANN assembly meeting of the previous year, which took place in November 2008, so that would mean that the mandate should run until April. MH said he would check this and send confirmation to the Secretariat of the timeline and post it to the mailing list.

    JRH asked if it would be a good idea to contact the current incumbent to see if they would like to be nominated again. MH said that this was not in the procedure. It is mentioned in the procedure that if a candidate vacates the seat then the ASO AC can go back to the candidates who were nominated at the same time as the person vacating the seat. HG said that Dave Wodelet is aware of the situation and he is not willing to run again due to time constraints so he would welcome a new candidate.

    WW asked what were the regional requirements for the candidates and if there was a limit stated in the MoU on the number of directors per region sitting on the ICANN Board. MH responded that there was no requirement in this regard but the candidate must be nominated based on where they reside rather then on where they conduct business. The Chair commented that there was a restriction in that the ASO AC candidate could not be from the same region as the other ASO AC appointment to the ICANN Board, i.e. the next appointment cannot be from LACNIC.

    AB agreed that the two ASO appointments could not be from the same region. He also said that on the full ICANN Board there must be representatives from all region but this requirement is currently satisfied. HG commented that the make-up of the ICANN Board is a consideration for the ICANN Nominations Committee and not for the ASO AC. MH said that the ASO AC was only bound by the MoU and attached documents. ON said that he would send the relevant bylaws from ICANN to the mailing list that would answer all these questions. AB noted that the ICANN bylaws mentioned that the term of ICANN Seat 9 would expire six months after the end of the last 2008 ICANN annual assembly.

    Action: #0109-02
    MH to confirm the timeline for the appointment process with the Secretariat and post to the mailing list, and also to give details of the restrictions on who can be nominated under the procedure. MH also to run the timeline by the NRO EC and ask it for an opinion.

  9. Update of the ASO AC Operating Procedures

  10. The Chair said that there would be a list of items, including updates to the procedure, which will be sent to the NRO EC as items they need to respond to. He also noted that a new PPFT needs to be created for this year, and he said this would be rolled into the 2009 Work Plan. JS asked if the letter being sent to the NRO EC was the template for transmission of advice to ICANN. The Chair responded that it was the template of the report that the PPFT sends to the ASO AC regarding the global policy proposal received from the NRO EC.

  11. ASO Website Review

  12. This agenda item was covered in Open Action Items, #0808-04. The Secretariat will prioritise the update of content on the website with help from WW then move on to the redesign of the ASO website to improve its usability for ASO AC members and visitors to the site.

  13. Global Policy Proposal for Remaining IPv4 Address Space

  14. The Chair noted that the Global Policy Proposal for Remaining IPv4 Address Space was received from the NRO EC six weeks previously. He noted that the ASO AC needed to decide whether to accept the policy and move it to the ICANN Board or ask for an extension of the 60 days response time.

    The Chair noted that JS sent a draft to the mailing list after the last teleconference. JS said that he received some comments from FY and DW on the policy development process in the RIPE community and those comments are accepted. JS asked if the other regions were happy with the text and if so he would finalise the RIPE community issues and move the response to ICANN.

    [SB disconnected at 1357 UTC]
    [VN disconnected at 1358 UTC]

    AB said that he checked the dates for the AfriNIC region and he believes they are correct. FO said he would confirm the RIR ratification date with LACNIC and respond to JS. He also asked JS to send the final report to the mailing list and put it in the agenda for the next teleconference. JS said that if it was held until the next teleconference the ASO AC would need an extension and the Chair confirmed this. The Chair thanked ON, JS and the PPFT for their work on the report. FO confirmed that the dates in the report are correct from LACNIC’s point of view.

    The Chair asked for a motion to authorise sending the Global Policy Proposal for Remaining IPv4 Address Space to ICANN pending the completion of the report after a short discussion concluding 14 January 2009. FO seconded the motion. A roll call vote took place and 11 approved the motion and there were four non-responses, so the motion carried.
    ON asked that when the proposal is sent to John Jeffrey as Secretary of the ICANN Board could the ASO AC mailing list be copied on the mail. The Chair confirmed that this would be sent to the mailing lists.

    [VN reconnected at 1407 UTC]

  15. RIR Boards’ Visions for the ASO AC

  16. The Chair asked if there was any input from the RIR boards since the last teleconference. HG said that he spoke to the LACNIC Board about this issue and the LACNIC Board said that the ASO AC could be more proactive and did not have to wait for input from other organisations when discussing issues such as policies relating to IPv4 depletion.

    The Chair asked if there was input from any other boards and there was no response. He said that the question was whether acting without consultation from the NRO EC was acceptable subject to the MoU and this may need to be discussed with the NRO EC. The Chair said that the ASO AC might still have to advise the NRO EC on actions the ASO AC feels it needs to take.

  17. 2009 ASO Work Plan

  18. MH suggested that members look at the 2009 Work Plan and volunteer to take ownership of work items. The Chair agreed that this was a good idea. WW asked if it would be possible to go through the Work Plan point by point.

    Main Objectives

    * Global Policy Development
    WW mentioned that this was a common responsibility and there is a well-understood structure for this. The Chair said that under procedures a PPFT needed to be created for this and volunteers would be needed. He then asked for volunteers. He asked if the current PPFT for this item would remain as the PPFT. FO, DW, JS, KH and AB volunteered to be the representatives for their regions on the PPFT. The Chair asked for a motion to confirm FO, DW, JS, KH and AB as the members of the PPFT for 2009. DW proposed the motion and KH seconded. There was no opposition and the motion carried.

    * Selection of Candidates to Other ICANN Bodies
    The Chair said that it was not necessary to choose the Nominations Committee yet but this would need to be done around the middle of 2009.

    * Developing Procedures to Conduct Business
    The Chair noted that there were several procedures that needed to be looked at:
    – The AC Chair election procedure needs to be reviewed.
    – The procedure to select a representative to the ICANN Nominations Committee needs to be written up.
    – Other letters need to be put in the procedure manual pending NRO EC approval. The report template needs to be written up by the PPFT, perhaps based on the one written by JS and sent to the mailing list.

    WW volunteered to collaborate with the group looking after this area because there may be some connection with the development of potential collaborative support tools. MH volunteered to work with WW on this. The Chair asked if other regions would like to help. JRH agreed to assist with this. The Chair noted that the Secretariat would also have to be involved in this work.

    The Chair noted that there might be some overlap with this group and the proposed Communications Group. The Chair also welcomed observers to take part if they so wished. MH said that the group should come back with some form of charter for its work with administrative directives. He said it should be as simple as possible and then a list can be created and the group can move forward. The Chair proposed that a draft should be presented by the next teleconference.

    [VN reconnected at 1436 UTC]

    * Insert Items from 2008 Plan Here
    WW gave the list of 2008 points still outstanding and said that the 2009 Work Plan covers all of them.

    2009 Plan – New Items

    * Website
    * Complete presentations and have presentations in stock in case an ASO AC member is called upon on short notice to make a presentation.

    The Chair suggested that these two areas could come under the work of the Communications Committee. WW asked that the Chair be part of the Communications Committee because he has been called on short notice to present and the Chair agreed to this.

    The Chair explained that the idea was to have the Communications Committee be made up of people from each region and the Secretariat and that it would look at the website, mailing lists and teleconferencing system. He envisioned that minor fixes could be given directly to the Secretariat to implement and bigger changes would be brought to all ASO AC members for approval.

    WW said that this group would fit well with other work items such as the possibility of using a wiki and a chat facility. He said he would like to work with the Secretariat on all of these issues in 2009 and come up with some tools to be able to test during the ASO AC’s face-to-face meeting.

    MH proposed that the group responsible for this be composed of the same people as in the group responsible for developing procedures to conduct business (WW, MH, JRH) and the Chair and the Secretariat. The Chair agreed to this and WW asked that if anyone has experience in this area they should feel free to join the group at any time.

    The Chair also wanted to get an idea of how the ASO AC should be participating in the cross-SO group at the ICANN level. WW said that this goes back to the question of whether there should be an internal structure in the Address Council. He said that it might be a good idea to have the Chair and the Vice Chairs accept the invitation to be on the proposed list and then adjust the list depending on who would be at a particular meeting, such as the upcoming Mexico ICANN meeting.

    The Chair said there was also a comment from MH that the ASO AC should consult at the RIR level on this matter. MH said that the ASO AC doesn’t represent the RIR community and it would not be right to say that it does. He added that the ASO AC Chair function is mainly ceremonial and it is more intended to keep the ASO AC on track. He suggested that NRO EC would be better suited to representing the RIRs and the ASO AC Chair and Vice Chairs should act as observers.

    JC said that if this went to the NRO EC then the ASO EC would have to accept what emerges. MH said in response that the NRO EC should discuss these issues and the ASO AC should be kept in the loop. JS commented that the ASO AC could bring more number-centric discussion to ICANN and asked if someone should represent the entire RIR community.

    The Chair asked who the Chair of the NRO in 2009 was and AP confirmed that it was Adiel Akplogan from AfriNIC. JC said it might be impossible to have someone who can speak on behalf of the entire RIR community. The Chair suggested that the ASO was the closest thing. He explained that the request was to participate in a panel that would discuss specific topics.

    JC suggested that perhaps a list of issues could be sent to the NRO EC who could then try to come up with a common stance on those issues and prepare a statement. The Chair asked that members of the ASO AC come up with a list of issues to send to the NRO EC by the end of January 2009 so a prepared statement or presentation can be arrived at that would give a common position held by the RIRs. AP agreed that this could be done.

    JS suggested that potential topics to be sent to the NRO EC could be:
    – IPv4 markets
    – IPv4 depletion and IPv6 adoption
    – IANA and the RIRs’ role in securing the routing infrastructure

    MH suggested that this be moved to the mailing list.

    * ICANN Supporting Organisation Review
    The Chair said there was nothing in this because the review of the ASO is carried out by the RIRs themselves.
    The Chair asked for a motion to accept the 2009 Work Plan as documented on HPH’s webpage as discussed and refined in this meeting. WW proposed the motion and HG seconded. There was no opposition and the motion carried.

  19. 2009 AC Meetings

  20. The Chair said there was no schedule posted online. He asked if the current day and time worked for everyone. It was agreed to keep the day as the first Thursday of each month at 1300 UTC if it does not conflict with a major event. He said if there is a conflict it can be discussed prior to the teleconference. HG noted that the first Thursday in March would conflict with the ICANN meeting in Mexico.

    The Chair also proposed that the ASO AC conduct its face-to-face meeting at the end of the LACNIC Meeting in Panama City. WW suggested that the ASO AC members should be polled to see if they could attend the LACNIC Meeting. The Chair said that this could be taken to the mailing list. He also said that provisionally the interviews with the candidates for ICANN Seat 9 could be conducted at the ARIN Meeting in Texas and if candidates were unable to attend video conferencing could be arranged.

  21. AOB

  22. There was no other business.

  23. Adjournment

  24. The chair called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. HG moved to adjourn and FO seconded. There were no objections. The meeting adjourned at 1522 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.
    The Chair mentioned that he was unable to send this list as he is still awaiting a response from the EC. He will compile the list and send it on.

    Action: #0808-04
    The Secretariat to ensure the following regarding the proposed documents page:
    * add tabs for minutes and draft documents.
    * ensure compatibility with non javascript browsers.

    Action: #0109-01
    Secretariat to remove the URL from the 1211 TC, replace it with the verbatim timeline for making the appointment to Seat 9 of the ICANN Board and change the status from DRAFT.

    Action: #0109-02
    MH to confirm the timeline for the appointment process with the Secretariat and post to the mailing list, and also to give details of the restrictions on who can be nominated under the procedure. MH also to run the timeline by the NRO EC and ask it for an opinion.