ASO AC Teleconference 8 March 2017
ASO AC Teleconference
Wednesday, 8 March 2017
Teleconference
MINUTES
Attendees
AFRINIC
Fiona Asonga, FA
Douglas Onyango, DO
APNIC
Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Brajesh Jain, BJ
Aftab Siddiqui, AS
ARIN
Louie Lee, LL (Vice-Chair)
Kevin Blumberg, KB
Jason Schiller, JS
LACNIC
Jorge Villa, JV
Ricardo Patara, RP (Vice-Chair)
Hartmut Glaser, HG
RIPE NCC
Filiz Yilmaz, FY (Chair)
Nurani Nimpuno, NN
Apologies
Wilfried Woeber, WW
Omo Oaiya, OO
Secretariat
German Valdez, GV (Executive Secretary)
Bhadrika Magan, BM (Scribe)
Observers
ARIN
John Curran, JC
Nate Davis, ND
Sean Hopkins, SH
ICANN
Carlos Reyes, CR
Agenda
0. Welcome
1. Roll Call
Quorum was reached. FY would like to add another agenda item to the F2F meeting about timeliness to the teleconference meetings.
2. Agenda Review
No changes to this agenda.
3. Open Actions Review
Action Item 20160803-05: JS and GV to work on conducting a ‘mock election’ with all the AC in participation.
Ballot election conducted.
Next step is to analyse the election and come back to the list.
Action item IN PROGRESS.
Action Item 20160630-06: GV and Secretariat to develop a comprehensive ASO slide template for future public session use.
BM sent through a draft updated slide pack to the list for comment.
Action item CLOSED.
Action Item 20160630-04: Chair to recommend to the NRO EC that Work Stream 2’s work be completed before ATRT3 begins, and share the EC’s response with the ASO AC.
FY clarified if this action is upon her as the new Chair or former Chair LL.
FY and JC will discuss this further at ICANN 58.
Action item OPEN.
Action Item 20161012-06: FY to Prepare Discussion Points on Grey Areas of Responsibilities between the ASO AC and the NRO EC.
FY spoke with NRO’s Paul Wilson and Axel Pawlik to understand what the grey areas are. There will be more discussion to clarify, with more coordination required.
Action item OPEN.
Action Item: 20161012-05: FA and JV to provide report to ASO AC on the new procedures of Accountability Roles.
JV has shared the draft on the list; but there has been no more questions on the list after discussion from the last ASO AC call.
JV commented there are some grey areas that need to be decided.
JC noted that there are clear responsibilities for the ASO AC outlined in the MoU; but they are static and have not evolved as there are no processes to determine this. By default, anything assigned to the ASO is assigned to the NRO EC, as it is the NRO EC that is the functioning body of the ASO. But the matters related to representation and policy development are done by the community elected representatives, but this is only written down for the things that are already known and with the many new ICANN supporting organizations, they could conceivably be an NRO EC or ASO AC engagement task. The ASO AC and NRO EC need to get better at quickly determining which body owns the task to avoid grey areas.
FY asked what the process is for resolving this and whether both the NRO EC and ASO AC should be tackling these engagements on a case-by-case basis.
JC noted that the NRO EC has just begun this discussion on the grey areas, and currently there is no consensus or process as to how to resolve this. He also said that there may be expectations from ICANN on the ASO AC and NRO EC as supporting organizations that make no sense and may not be in the interests of the number community. Questions then arise as to whether certain responsibilities are appropriate for both bodies.
FA agreed and questioned the relevance of some powers discussed at the CCWG level to the numbers community and whether they make sense to participate in or be involved in. The ASO AC and NRO EC may need to develop procedures in this area and who will resolve the activity. Also, when looking at the different responsibilities that have been developed for other SOs, the ASO AC and NRO EC will have to decide if they will be relevant for the number community, especially if those activities are outside ICANN. FA suggests having a more detailed discussion on what the different procedures are that would be relevant to the numbering community; who will be responsible for them; and what the associated procedures will be.
JS suggested making sure there is enough time in the agenda item to discuss this in more detail as FA suggested.
FY will work with German to add more time to discuss this further as it already is in the agenda; GV checked the agenda to check the time. [Later on, in the call, another 30 mins were freed up; so this agenda item was increased to 75 mins].
JC commented that there is some disconnect in the community as to how the numbers community operates as opposed to how the domain name community and IETF operates. The IETF operates around 98% independently from ICANN; the DNS community, conversely, operates around 98% within the ICANN community; the numbers community operates according to the original blueprint that was laid out by ICANN. JC said it’s important to understand that this disconnect as to how the numbers community interacts with ICANN was purposely designed, which is that we would be meeting as a community with ICANN and that ICANN was to be a gathering of the names, numbers and protocol communities. Many of the responsibilities that the ASO AC is being asked to do relates to the governance of the numbers community and this should be kept in mind.
NN notes that with the changes in ICANN’s structure and processes, the ASO AC will need to be mindful of the need to engage with these. NN also commented that coordination and communication between the ASO AC and the NRO EC will be important.
Action CLOSED
Action Item 20161212-09: Chair (LL) to work with RP on the ASO 2017 Work Plan.
This is similar to Action Item 20170208-01.
Action CLOSED.
Action Item 20161212-14: KB and BJ to participate in group to create and vet document. KB will follow up on the email list for other volunteers.
KB sent through the draft to the list tonight. KB will meet with BJ on the draft at ICANN 58.
NEW ACTION ITEM 20170208-01: LL and DO ASO work plan 2017 to be sent to mailing list within one week of today.
This is similar to Action Item 20161212-09.
Action CLOSED.
NEW ACTION ITEM 20170208-02: GV to set meeting for March 8 to discuss preparations for ICANN 58.
Done, action CLOSED.
NEW ACTION ITEM 20170208-03: JC and NRO EC to review the issues of an editorial change to a global policy and whether such a change is within the scope of the global PDP.
Action item OPEN.
4. ICANN 58 preparations
a) Public Session Agenda
FY went through the draft agenda. JC agreed with doing a post IANA transition update. NN clarified that the accountability update is specifically on the RIPE region.
FY will tidy this agenda up with CR for it to be published today.
b) ASO AC F2F Meeting agenda
FY went through the agenda.
FY asked that FA and JV come prepared for the CCWG Accountability Stream 2 discussion as they have done the heavy lifting for this discussion.
CR stated CCT review update will be moved to the AOB section, freeing up a further 30 mins to discuss the CCWG accountability stream session.
FY also confirmed that the CCT review will be in AoB in answer to JS question.
CR gave a brief outline of the MSSI overview. The Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives team is the staff support for the various reviews occurring at ICANN and will be sharing updates to every SO and AC group.
GV stated that the next ICANN Board election for the seat that Ron da Silva holds end in Oct 2018; the process of election starts around September. From experience, GV feels that it would be prudent to start the preparations for this election and agree to a timeline soon. GV will discuss this further at the F2F meeting.
FY noted that the ASO AC will also have to prepare and agree to a timeline for the NomCom appointment.
In response to GV’s question about reviewing the meeting attendance, FY confirmed that it will be discussed at the very start of the meeting during the welcome.
Regarding the ASO/NRO public session, JC stated that he will miss the last 30 mins of this session due to a scheduling conflict so he can give an update on the post-transition IANA world earlier in the session. FY agreed to move this up the agenda and swapping with NN.
c) ICANN Board Session agenda
There was one suggestion made from the APRICOT 2017 meeting with BJ, AS, GV, TF, and Akinori Maemura. JC confirmed that the NRO EC will join the discussion, and are collating discussion points but there has been no specific topics decided for discussion with the ICANN Board. FY noted that the ICANN Board did ask for the input of the NRO EC on specific topics; but there has been no formal response to this. JC confirmed that there has been no reply from the NRO EC.
JC stated that not having a meeting with the ICANN Board is not necessarily a bad thing, but FY did note that this is an opportunity to have a F2F meeting; despite there being no specific questions. FY noted that there can still be exchanges of ideas in an open environment.
NN commented that this time could be used as an opportunity to explain how the numbers community works in a focused, interactive session, especially as this is also the first session with new ICANN CEO, Goran Marby.
JC replied that having more of an educational session might be ok, but it could be unnecessary as Goran Marby is very familiar about and with the numbers community. JC commented that he is flexible about what should be done about this time with the board.
FY thinks this is a good idea and requests that JC puts this forward as a suggestion. JC agreed to raise this with the NRO EC. NN is happy with this approach.
5. ICANN’s Committees Appointments
GV outlined the relevant appointments for different bodies within the ICANN structure that the NRO EC has made. GV noted that there may need to be a reconfirmation of these appointments and the MoU is clear that the ASO AC needs to be on top of this.
FY asked what was exactly expected from the ASO AC from this group?
GV noted that it will be to probably review the appointments; work with the NRO EC; with confirmation of them as permanent appointments.
JC stated that in clarifying the roles between the NRO EC and the ASO AC, one of the roles that is very clear in the MoU is that the process by which appointments to ICANN bodies are made shall be determined by the ASO AC. However, the is that in the modern, committee-full ICANN world, there are several appointments, and the whilst the NRO EC gets requests to make them frequently, it clearly states in the MoU that the request for the appointment should actually be turned into a request to the ASO AC for a process for making an appointment. The challenge, is that whilst the NRO EC shouldn’t be making appointments in the interim, with the amount of the requests they get, the most reasonable option is to make an interim appointment and then ask the ASO AC to either exercise their process for making the appointments, confirm the NRO EC appointment, or come up with a specific process for making the appointments.
JS expressed his confusion about how to proceed?
JC clarified that the MoU is clear that the ASO AC should develop the process by which appointments are made. In the meantime, to make sure these bodies have enough coverage, the NRO EC has made interim appointments, but these appointments are open for the ASO AC to consider. JC suggested these processes could include: the ASO AC deciding on a process that the NRO EC should use; or deciding on a process that the NRO EC should not make interim appointments; or deciding on a process for each committee appointment.
FY and NN agree that this is an important issue that requires further discussion and FY notes this is a manifestation of grey areas issue between the ASO AC and the NRO EC.
FY notes there are some appointments yet to be made on some committees and asked the ASO AC if there was an immediate need for a response or whether it requires further discussion. She suggested these appointments be used an example of the grey areas issue to continue the discussion at the F2F.
JC stated that arguably, when the NRO EC made these interim appointments, they could have stepped beyond their boundary; but given that these groups seek ASO involvement, and wouldn’t have these groups unless the NRO EC made the appointment, they have done so. In a perfect world, the NRO EC would comply with the MoU, which states that the “ASO defines the procedures for selection of individuals” so in theory the ASO is responsible for the procedures. But this was written when ICANN was in its infancy and when there were only a small number of ICANN committees. At this point, ICANN has so many committees, The ASO AC and NRO EC need to understand what the benefit is of participating in these ICANN functions and how we make those decisions, because the multistakeholder coordination that the numbers community does is being expanded hugely and may be of any benefit to the numbers community. JC commented that this is a very challenging situation. JC stated further that on a strict reading of the MoU, the ASO AC must come up with a process and be able to quickly make an appointment to any ICANN request. The question is, is this what the ASO AC wants. At the minimum, JC commented that the ASO AC should acknowledge and support the NRO EC’s interim appointments, as these really should have been made via an ASO AC process and there is no process as such in the time and manner required. As the MoU exists, what might be required is a process that outlines how the ASO AC can quickly can say no to a request to one of these bodies; quickly determine which bodies are important enough for the ASO AC to do the appointment, or there needs to be a change to the MoU so that this isn’t always an ASO AC function. The NRO EC doesn’t want to take away anything from the ASO AC, but what must be recognized is the amount of work this potentially represents.
FY agrees with JC on how challenging this issue is and noted that the same concerns were shared in other parts of the ICANN community. FY agrees that this discussion must focus on the mandate and scope of the ASO AC. The ASO AC has to be able to say no if a request is outside of its scope. Therefore, this requires a mechanism to make that decision, and a mechanism to define what is relevant to the ASO AC to decide or not.
LL noted that in the past when he was Chair, he has declined some requests; noting that he might have violated the ASO AC’s own procedures. He also agrees that there are too many requests coming in with too many committees and the ASO AC needs to decide on a case-by case basis on whether to participate or not.
FY reiterated that this requires further discussion at the F2F meeting at ICANN 58.
6. 2016 Work Plan
GV noted that this was discussed at the last meeting. One week was allocated for review. GV wanted it to be publicly acknowledged that this work plan was formally approved.
FA tabled a motion that the ASO AC has reviewed the work plan and approves the work plan as written. TF seconded the motion. There were no objections. Motion carried and approved.
7. 2017 Work Plan
LL sent through the draft for review; there were some actions pointed out by GV that should be in the 2018 plan, and also that the ASO AC Chair nomination needs to start in December not November. LL has corrected these two items and sent an update to the list.
NEW ACTION ITEM 20170308-01: ASO AC to review the updated work plan in more detail by the F2F meeting, where FY will put out a call to adopt the plan.
NEW ACTION ITEM 20170308-02: ASO AC to establish the policy proposal facilitators team appointment procedure.
8. AOB
FY: Suggested to review and approve previous minutes of meeting during the F2F meeting.
JS: Asked where the ASO AC updated procedures are at. GV confirmed that this is still on the NRO EC agenda to discussion at ICANN 58.
9 Adjourn
Meeting adjourned 22:46 (UTC +10).
Last modified on 29/01/2020