AC Attendees:

  • Alan Barrett, AB – AfriNIC
  • Naresh Ajwani, NA – APNIC
  • Kenny Huang, KH – APNIC
  • Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF – APNIC
  • Jason Schiller, JS – ARIN
  • Sebastian Bellagamba, SB – LACNIC
  • Hartmut Glaser, HG . LACNIC
  • Francisco Obispo, FO – LACNIC
  • Hans Petter Holen, HPH – RIPE NCC
  • Wilfried Woeber, WW – RIPE NCC

Secretariat:

  • Laureana Pavon, LP – LACNIC

Observers:

  • German Valdez, GV – APNIC
  • Einar Bohlin, EB – ARIN
  • Axel Pawlik, AP – RIPE NCC
  • Fergal Cunninghan, FC – RIPE NCC
  • Nicolás Quagliata, NC – LACNIC
  • Ernesto Majo, EM – LACNIC
  • Ricardo Patara, RP – LACNIC
  • Ray Plzak, RP – ICANN
  • Olof Nordling, ON – ICANN
  • Leo Vegoda, LV – ICANN
  • Filiz Yilmaz, FY – RIPE NCC

Apologies:

  • Louie Lee, LL – ARIN
  • Dave Wilson, DW – RIPE NCC
  • Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH – AfriNIC
  • Vincent Ngundi, VN – AfriNIC

Agenda:

1. Welcome

2. Agenda review

3. Approval of the minutes from the 7 January 2010 teleconference

4. Review of open action items

5. Communications and Procedures Committee update

6. ICANN Board Election Process Committee update:

6a. Update on the process in general

6b. Update on the 2010 election in particular

7. Update on the Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries

8. Update on the IANA Policy for Allocation of ASNs to RIRs

9. ASO Meeting Schedule. Conflict with the April teleconference due to the regional holiday. Possibility of setting an extraordinary teleconference in March because of the ICANN Board Selection process.

10. AOB

11. Adjournment

1. Welcome

Alan Barret, who chaired the meeting, welcomed all participants to the teleconference. He observed that Laureana Pavon would now be the primary person for Secretariat duties, with continued support from Ernesto, Ruth, and Adriana.

2. Agenda review

AB said that several notes had been received from Louie Lee (LL) with different suggested modifications to the agenda: dividing agenda item “(ICANN Board Process Committee update” into two different items: the process in general, and the 2010 election specifically; adding a Communications and Procedures Committee update to the agenda just before the ICANN Board election discussion; and adding a discussion of the two global policy proposals after the discussion of the election process.

There being no objections, the agenda was modified accordingly.

3. Approval of the minutes from the 7 January 2010 teleconference

HG motioned that the minutes of the 7 January 2010 ASO AC teleconference be approved. SB seconded the motion. There were no objections and the motion carried.

Action item 0210-1: Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 7 January 2010 meeting from draft to approved.

4. Review of open action items

AB mentioned that only one action item was not covered elsewhere in the agenda (Action item 0110-01: The Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of 9 December 2009 from draft to approved), and that this had already been completed.

5. Communications and Procedures Committee update

AB observed that this item relates to

Action item 1209-02: The Secretariat to create a presentation template in PowerPoint and Keynote for ASO AC members based on new ASO logo/design.

He asked whether anyone wanted to provide an update on that.

FC noted that before the Secretariat changed they had created a template and sent it to LL for a quick look.

WW said that the most recent activities were that the previous secretariat, Fergal, had already provided a first proposed version for the wiki with some pages already populated and a rough structure in place. He added that he and Fergal would review it and try to fill in what can easily be added, and then get the full Communications and Procedures Committee involved.

He proposed focusing on getting the wiki reasonably populated and well-structured quite a while before the Nairobi meeting and including the wiki as one of the work items for the face-to-face meeting, adding that he would really like to have everyone present in Nairobi to provide input and review the information, as in his opinion the wiki might really help achieve all the things that need to be accomplished this year.

AB asked WW to please send a message to the list indicating how to access the wiki, to which WW replied that he would, as it would help those who are really interested to chime in at a very early stage.

WW mentioned that a few items on the ASO website needed attention, namely updating the meetings calendar, to which LP replied that this had already been completed.

6a. ICANN Board Election Process Committee update – Update on the process in general

Related action item:

Action item 1109-05: HPH to incorporate actions carried out by ASO AC in ICANN Board nominations process into report on suggested changes to operating procedures.

HPH had no progress to report on this action item.

6b. ICANN Board Election Process Committee update – Update on the 2010 election in particular

Related action item:

Action item 1109-07: The members of the Nomination Review Committee to elect a chair from among its members and inform the ac-coord list of the appointment.

AB observed that the chair had sent a note saying that it appeared that the Committee did not intend to select a chair and asked if anyone could confirm this or if there were any objections to closing this action item. NA replied that they could ask LL to chair the nom-com. AB said that it would be best to hear Louie’s opinion, and proposed leaving this action item open and carrying it over to the next meeting. There were no objections so this proposal was accepted.

AB said that Martin Hannigan (MH) had indicated that he would not be able to continue serving on the Committee and that LL had offered to replace him as a representative from the ARIN region.

SB motioned that LL take MH’s position on the Nomination Review Committee. NA seconded the motion.

There being no objections, the motion was carried.

AB read the time frame for the selection process and asked whether the committee members could provide an update about nominations, concerns or issues around the process.

NA asked the Secretariat to provide an update on the questionnaire and other documents sent to the nominees, to which LP replied that a model of the Letter of Certification had been sent to the candidates, but the questionnaire was yet to be finalized as the Secretariat is waiting for some members of the nom-com to send in their comments.

In reply to AB’s question, LP said that the deadline for candidates to return the questionnaires is 20 February. AB observed that no explicit action was needed, but that the Secretariat and the Committee should work together to ensure that the questionnaire goes out as soon as possible.

WW expressed a concern about one candidate who allegedly did not submit his acceptance within the established time frame, to which AB replied that it was important to discuss and come to a decision on that issue.

NA said that the nomination had come in time, that what was delayed was the nominee’s acceptance. He added the candidate in question had informed that the delay had been due to e-mail problems, and that as soon as he had been made aware of the nomination he had sent in his acceptance. NA added that for future elections, if a candidate does not send in his/her acceptance, he/she should be called.

WW said that his feeling was that the AC as a whole was happy with receiving all the required feedback by now and that this candidate should be officially recognized.

SB said that he didn’t agree with recognizing the candidacy, adding that the nominee had acknowledged that his acceptance had indeed been late. He added that, from a procedural point of view, nominations that are not completed within the established time frame should not be acknowledged, as that would set a bad precedent.

AB asked how late the acceptance had been received, to which SB replied that it had been 10 days late. AB was of the opinion that 10 days was too late, and SB agreed.

NA argued that during this period there had been a change of Secretariat and possibly some technical challenges. He also argued that it was difficult to find good candidates, and that if all other aspects were acceptable they might be more flexible.

SB said that the candidate himself had recognized that the problem was on his side, not the secretariat’s, and that if the committee were to adopt the position that all good candidates need to be accepted then deadlines might as well be eliminated from the procedures.

HG said that he was surprised and disappointed that as an AC member he had never received an official list with the candidates. He said that members should have known who the candidates were when the time frame concluded so that they could have asked for explanations before the meeting.

NA agreed with HG, and at his suggestion the following action was added:

Action item 0210-2: The Secretariat to forward a list of candidates, dates when nominations were received and confirmed, candidate details, and any other salient point and to send this report to the AC.

AB reminded participants of the need to sort out the issue.

HG stated his opinion that the candidacy should be rejected based on purely procedural reasons. He said that in their own interest candidates should follow or check on the process. He agreed with SB’s proposal to reject the candidacy.

NA said that when the Secretariat informed about this situation he had noticed that the candidate was from India and that no confirmation had been received from him, so he had taken it upon himself to contact the candidate who had then submitted his acceptance. In reply to a question from JS, NA replied that this particular candidate had been nominated by a third party, not by self-nomination.

WW made a technical observation noting that on the news entry dated 27 January published on the ASO website there is a list of candidates for which comments are being collected and Mr. Gulshan Rai is not included on this list.

AB asked whether a formal vote should be taken. WW replied that the news item had presumably been posted in collaboration with the appropriate committee and that therefore the only form of decision was to decide whether that list is complete and up to date.

WW submitted the following motion: “The AC confirms that the list of candidates as published in the news item on the ASO website on 27 January is the complete, final and up-to-date candidate list”. HG seconded the motion.

AB called for a roll call vote on the motion. A roll call vote was conducted with the following results: nine (9) in favor and one (1) opposed.

At JS’s suggestion, AB asked that in the future roll calls include everyone, including those not present.

HG asked whether any actions could be taken in case this candidate would decide to send a letter to ICANN’s legal advisor or request a revision.

AB observed that in his opinion it was probably unnecessary to consult the ICANN legal advisor, but asked whether anyone wished to make an argument for doing so.

HG proposed sending a letter with the results of this decision (9 to 1) to ICANN’s legal advisor. RP clarified that HG’s suggestion would imply simply sending an information letter to the ICANN General Council to inform them of this decision and explaining the circumstances and the rationale, adding that it would be provided merely for information purposes so no response would be expected other than an acknowledgment of receipt.

NA said that an issue was being missed in that this information had not come through the nom-com, that he had taken the initiative of trying to contact the candidate through his referee. NA said that to his knowledge there were no other issues with the candidate other than his late acceptance.

WW suggested that this gentleman could submit a statement of interest by way of the channels of the nom-com 2010, to which NA replied that he agreed and that now that the issue was closed they should see his profile.

AB suggested that if NA were to have contact with the candidate he should ask him to provide his name to the nom-com as he could still get a seat on the ICANN Board through the nom-com process, which does not go through the ASO.

AB proposed taking upon himself a new action item:

Action item 0210-3: AB to send a letter to the ICANN General Council informing him of the status of the issue relating to the nominee who did not submit his acceptance within the established time frame.

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

AB asked whether the PPFT members had anything to report in terms of status changes in their respective regions.

ON asked whether ARIN had adopted the policy and would soon announce it, to which EB replied that they had indeed adopted it and posted it to the mailing list.

To ON’s question as to whether the AfriNIC Board had met, AB replied that he had not received any information from the Board and that he suspected that the Board had not yet ratified it.

ON summarized the situation by saying that the policy had been adopted in APNIC, ARIN and LACNIC, that the final call had been concluded in AfriNIC, and that it was still under discussion in RIPE.

FY confirmed that the global policy was still under discussion in the RIPE region and that they were waiting for the changes that the ARIN community would agree on.

8. IANA Policy for Allocation of ASNs to RIRs

AB asked the PPFT members to please report if there had been any status changes in their respective regions.

ON offered to go through the regions alphabetically. He noted that in AfriNIC the final call had been concluded and it was up for the next board meeting, in APNIC it had been adopted for quite some time, in ARIN it had been adopted and announced, in LACNIC the final call and consensus call had been concluded it was due for ratification by the Board by the end of January, and in RIPE it had been adopted since September.

RP said that the LACNIC board had not met in January and that the next board meeting would be in February, adding that they were still waiting for board ratification

9. ASO Meeting Schedule. Conflict with the April teleconference due to the regional holiday. Possibility of setting an extraordinary teleconference in March because of the ICANN Board Selection process.

Related action item:

Action item: 0110-02: The Secretariat to update the ASO AC website with the 2010 AC meeting schedule.

AB noted that this had been completed.

AB said that LACNIC had requested postponing the April teleconference by a week, from April 1st to the 8th and asked whether there were any objections.

NA commented that he believed that after last year’s face-to-face meeting they had not had a telephone conference the following month.

WW proposed finding out whether there was agreement to move the conference from 1 to 8 April, saying that if there was such an agreement the meeting should be moved. He said that the meeting could later be cancelled if necessary, which would be easier than setting up an unscheduled conference.

WW proposed the following motion: “To move the April teleconference from 1 April 2010, 1300 UTC to 8 April 2010, 1300 UTC.” AB seconded the motion.

No objections were received and the motion carried.

Action item 0210-4: Secretariat to update the posted meeting schedule to postpone the April teleconference from 1 April to 8 April.

AB read a note from LL regarding the face-to-face meeting which said that he was still working on securing the meeting facilities and that the final schedule would be available on 15 February. He added that LL had said that he continued to push to hold the Tuesday meeting at the conference center, but that he had been told that there wasn’t a very good chance for that. AB said that LL and the Secretariat would continue to work on this matter.

AB asked whether anyone had any questions or suggestions on things to work on during the Thursday afternoon face-to-face meeting in order to determine how much time to allot. He also asked that suggestions be sent to the mailing list.

WW suggested including a review of the 2010 board of director selection activity, and also proposed adding an item regarding the wiki, as well as a brief discussion about using chat or maybe Adobe Connect which is becoming pretty popular in the environment of ICANN meetings.

AB said that as the face-to-face interviews will have been conducted just before the meeting they would likely want to discuss the outcome of the interviews.

AB said that LL had sent a note asking if it would be possible to plan a dinner for the AC and observers for Thursday night after the face-to-face meeting. There were no objections.

AB asked whether anyone had participated in the Nairobi Security Teleconference that the ICANN staff had put together last week.

WW said that he hadn’t attended but had reviewed the chat on Adobe Connect, which he found to be quite interesting but from his point of view contained nothing out of the expected. He added that he thinks that the virtual environment might still be available.

10. AOB

AB proposed discussing the email that AP had sent earlier calling for volunteers for the ICANN organizational review process.

HG said that more detailed information was needed as to how this review would work, such as how the panels would be composed.

RP said that he did not have any additional information and that the only development was that the board was looking at extending by one week the period for volunteers to be nominated, and added that nothing had been published other than the draft plan published in December. He said that one of the panels must be completed this year and that the other three would start next year, therefore the emphasis would be on the first panel.

HG expressed his concern regarding which qualifications would be required for volunteer eligibility, to which AP replied that that the request was sent to the AC because AC members were believed to be qualified to be part of the relevant panels and that qualified people were being sought for the panel.

HG said that the AC needed to know exactly what the process is, and that he would volunteer if that was important to keep the transparency of the process. He added that LL had also expressed his desire to volunteer.

AB asked AP how many volunteers the AC was looking for from the NRO EC side, to which AP replied that the panels needed overall 7 or 8 people per panel, so the AC should see how many people would be interested and then it would be taken from there.

RP said that it was recognized early on that the size of the panels was a problem in that they cannot become too large and yet enough people need to be involved so that they can do business, and at the same time care must be taken so that all sides are represented. He added that this is what the panel organizers were striving to do.

AB asked whether the phrase “review team selectors” meant volunteer representatives within ICANN, to which RP replied that that was correct.

AB asked whether if it would be reasonable for the AC to provide 3-5 volunteers, and if those volunteers would be placed in a global pool of volunteers from which somebody else would then pick 6 to 8 individuals.

RP replied that such a pool would be welcome, as the people who will be picking the panel members would rather have to sort through a larger number of qualified individuals as opposed to having just one or two persons. He added that he was not sure what the mechanism was going to be to ensure that all viewpoints are represented on the panels.

SB said that he would like to be a volunteer.

HG said that AC members could not be part of any panel but only of those where their presence would be relevant, and that therefore a schedule of the panels and more detailed information on the panels was needed.

AP said that in his opinion it was not important to know this in detail as he believed that those who volunteer will not be able to choose which panel they wish to serve on but will be placed in a pool from which somebody else will pick the members of each panel.

HG asked whether those who volunteered now would have the option of later declining to be a part of a specific panel, to which RP replied that the option would exist.

HG said that he would like to be a volunteer.

AB said that the volunteers so far were LL, HG and SB, at which point WW suggested not closing the volunteer list during this meeting because not all AC members were on the call and that additional volunteer candidacies should still be received through the mailing list.

AB said that LL had already sent a message to the mailing list asking for volunteers, so AB’s suggestion was that during the next two weeks members decide if they wish to volunteer and if so they should send a notice of interest to the mailing list and then, the day before the deadline, the chair (who is not present today) would collect the list of volunteers and send it to the NRO EC. No objections were heard.

HG said that the call for applicants mentions a download with detailed information for all interested applicants and asked what actions were necessary on the part of every volunteer.

AP replied that they should provide a CV and a motivational letter. RP recommended that AC members look at the link in the document was sent as it would answer many questions.

The process was summarized by saying that that candidates should inform themselves by reading the documents and communicate their decision to be volunteers to the ASO AC, then the chair of the ASO AC would forward a list of volunteers to the NRO EC before the deadline.

There was no other business to attend to.

11. Adjournment

HG motioned to adjourn. The motion was seconded by AP.

The teleconference adjourned at 14:30 UTC