Sebastian Bellagamba (SB), Chair
Sanford H. George (SHG)
Hartmut Glaser (HG)
Martin Hannigan (MH)
Hans Petter Holen (HPH), Co-Chair
Dr. Kenny S. Huang (KH)
Sabine Jaume (SJ)
Louis Lee (LL)
Mao Wei (MW)
Wilfried Woeber (WW)
Raymond Plzak, Secretary (ARIN)
Therese Colosi, Recording Secretary (ARIN)
Richard Jimmerson, (RJ)
German Valdez, (GV)
Raul Echeberria (RE)
Raimundo Beca (RB)
Olof Nordling (ON)
- Agenda Review
- Approval of the Minutes
- ASO AC Procedures
- SEC Actions
- Communications with NRO EC
- ASO AC Website
- Schedule of 2006 ASO AC Teleconferences
- ASO AC 2006 Roadmap
- ASO AC ACtion Item Management
- Review of Candidates for the ICANN Board
- Any Other Business
The Chair called the meeting to order at 22:05 UTC. The presence of a quorum was noted via roll call.
2) Agenda Review
The Chair called for any comments. ON requested a discussion on reviews. The Chair agreed to add this under any other business.
3) Approval of the Minutes of January 4, 2006
HG moved that:
“The ASO AC approves the Minutes of January 4, 2006 as written.”
This was seconded by LL. The motion carried unanimously.
4) ASO AC Procedures
A. Operating Procedures (Action #050710-5). The Chair confirmed that the procedures had been reviewed by the Council on their list and that the Council agreed to follow the procedures.
HPH moved that:
“The ASO AC recommends that the NRO EC approves the Operating Procedures as written.”
This was seconded by HG. The motion carried unanimously via roll call.
B. Global Policy Proposal Processing Procedure (Action#0512-03). The Chair confirmed that the procedures had been reviewed by the Council and called for any comments.
SJ stated she felt there were issues on two points:
1) In Step 3 of the procedure regarding the case of one RIR not ratifying the policy, she asked what the next step would be if the policy were blocked. All agreed that, according to the MOU, a policy proposal must be accepted by all regions in order to become a global policy.
Furthermore, discussion ensued on how a proposal gets moved from the ASO AC into the respective regions. It was agreed that if there is no other sponsor for a proposal, the ASO AC member of the particular region would be the point person to introduce it into their region.
2) SJ also stated that Step 7 c. of the procedure seemed vague in that it states “Request the NRO Executive Council for a time extension not exceeding 40 days to complete the review of the proposal (by a simple majority vote).” She felt a limit to the number of extension requests should be made clear. After discussing, the Council agreed to add the word “single” in front of ‘time extension”.
It was the sense of the ASO AC that the procedure be published back to their list, reviewed, and discussed at next meeting.
5) SEC Actions. SEC to report on:
A. Identify ICANN Staff Observers (Action 0601-01). RP stated that a message was sent to the President of ICANN, and he replied that he would get back to RP regarding ICANN observers. RP reported that there had been no response as of yet. OPEN.
B. Timeline for the Selection of an ICANN Board Member (Action 0601-03). RP stated that the timeline had been send to the Council for their review, published on January 5, 2006. CLOSED
The Chair called for any further comments. There were no comments.
6) Communications with the NRO EC
A. ASO AC New Members Welcoming Procedure (Action#0511-05). RP stated that at the next NRO EC meeting this procedure will be discussed.
B. Procedure to Select ICANN Board Member (Action 0601-02). RP stated that at the next NRO EC meeting this procedure will be discussed.
7) ASO AC Website (Action#0512-01)
LL stated that there was nothing to report yet, but was working with RP on a plan of action and how to move forward.
8) Schedule of 2006 ASO AC Teleconferences (Action 0601-04)
The Chair stated that the schedule had been to the Council. He called for any comments and reminded the Council that there were 2 decisions confirmed at the last meeting: teleconferences would be monthly; and, the agreed upon time of the call would be 22:00 UTC.
HG moved that:
“The ASO AC adopts the ‘Schedule of 2006 ASO AC Teleconferences’ as presented.”
The Chair called for any comments. All agreed to flexibility with regard to announcing a cancellation of a meeting or calling a special meeting if necessary.
This was seconded by WW. The motion carried unanimously via roll call.
9) ASO AC 2006 Roadmap
The Chair stated he had sent a draft of the roadmap to the Council’s list for review. The Chair stated this was a draft due to some meetings not yet being announced, and so needed to be amended.
After review, HG moved that:
“The ASO AC approves the roadmap as written, and agrees to amend it accordingly.”
This was seconded by FO. The motion carried unanimously via roll call.
10) ASO AC Action Item Management
The Chair explained that this is not a formal procedure and no motion was needed. RP stated it is more a method or practice of keeping on top of the action items, and briefed the Council on how the SEC will manage the said items. HPH and SJ felt this was an excellent suggestion and would improve the meetings and welcomed the practice. LL suggested reminding not only the Chair but the Co-Chairs of the action items, and the SEC noted this would be included.
11) Review of Candidates for the ICANN Board
SB stated that he had sent a message to the ASO AC on forming a committee to deal with the administrative tasks of the nomination candidates. He explained, for example, that submissions of candidates sometimes lacked information which needed to be obtained, and that candidates do not always fit the criteria of the nomination. He felt a committee would be a great way to handle the administrative burden of this aspect of the process. MH, HPH, AB and JRH had volunteered to be on the committee. Five nominations had been received, and had been sent to these volunteers.
SB called for comments. Discussion ensued regarding the importance of the whole Council viewing all the candidates as they are received, vs. a committee viewing them first; with HPH stating that it was a matter of transparency, not workload. WW stated that the Council has to know about each and every candidate submission as a whole. He suggested the committee could then review and provide a matrix to the Council with who is viable and who is not, and the reasons why. He further commented that a decision about clerical restrictions should be considered by Council as a whole, welcoming suggestions from the committee.
After much discussion, it was decided that further discussion should be done on via e-mail.
12) Any Other Business
The Chair called for any other business items.
a. HG stated he was concerned that at the last few ASO AC meetings, not all of the observers were in attendance. He felt they were an important part of the meetings and wanted to find out if lack of attendance was due to a technical issue or one of timing. RP stated that he would bring this to the attention of the NRO EC. HG thanked him for the assistance.
b. RP stated that the next ASO AC meeting would be held on March 1st, which coincides with APNIC’s meeting in Perth, Australia. He asked the Council how many of them would be in Perth at that time, so that there the ASO AC meeting could originate from there. He further mentioned it would begin at 6:00 a.m. in Perth. The Council requested the SEC send a message to them for response.
c. ON stated that recently ICANN had launched a review of the GNSO. This the second review in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws Article 4 regarding accountability and calls for review of not only the GNSO but the supporting organizations and ASO AC, if feasible, every three years. He explained it was an on-going program and would continue with the SO’s and AC. ON called for suggestions on when the review should be, and what should be reviewed. He explained he was providing this provision of the Bylaws as an informational item to the Council and requested the Council think about where they want it to be, and what issues will be important. He further explained that the review will be requested in a more formal fashion in the future.
RP requested this be communicated through the NRO EC Chair, and to please send a note to RP. ON was in agreement.
d. RB stated that the ICANN/VeriSign agreement had been published for comment, and inquired about the pool of addresses for the ARPA. He stated that the comment period closes on February 20, 2006. RP replied that the letter from the DoC to ICANN stated that the ARPA domain was jointly administered by the IAB and IANA. However, the agreement appears to have removed the IAB, and instead used VeriSign and ICANN. RB stated that new wording was needed. RP noted that the RSSAC should really be commenting on it, but that the NRO EC could look at it again.
e. HPH inquired about any news on the hiring process in ICANN, because he had seen open positions on web. ON replied that there was no new news and that ICANN was still undecided.”
The Chair called for any further comments. There were no further comments.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 23:42 UTC. HG moved to adjourn, and this was seconded by HPH. The motion carried unanimously.