ASO AC face-to-face Meeting 12 March 2017

ASO AC Face-to-Face meeting
12 March 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark


Fiona Asonga, FA
Omo Oaiya, OO
Douglas Onyango, DO (remotely)

Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Brajesh Jain, BJ
Aftab Siddiqui, AS

Louie Lee, LL (Vice-Chair)
Kevin Blumberg, KB
Jason Schiller, JS

Jorge Villa, JV
Ricardo Patara, RP (Vice-Chair)

Filiz Yilmaz, FY (Chair)
Nurani Nimpuno, NN
Wilfried Woeber WW

Alan Barrett, AB , AFRINIC
Paul Wilson, PW, APNIC
Axel Pawlik, AP, RIPE NCC
Paul Rendek, PR, RIPE NCC
John Curran, JC, ARIN
Carlos Reyes,CR, ICANN
Tom Mackenzie, TomM, ITEMS International
Tim McGuinness TimM, ITEMS International

Hartmut Glaser, HG

German Valdez, GV (Executive Secretary)
Bhadrika Magan, BM (Scribe)

0.- Welcome
a) ASO AC Teleconference Attendance
1.- Roll call
2.- Agenda review
3.- Approval of minutes – February 2017
4.- Update open actions
5.- ITEMS report on the ASO review (45 minutes)
6.- Reminder ICANN 58 schedule (15 min)
7.- ICANN Update
a) CCWG Accountability Stream 2 (75 mins)
b) MSSI team overview of ICANN reviews (30 mins)
8.- Preparations for Election ICANN seat 9 (45 mins)
9.- Nom Com appointment (30 mins)
10.- NRO EC update (15 mins)
11.- ICANN Board update (15 mins)
12.- AOB
a) Update on Consumer Choice and Trust Review CCT (30 mins)
b) Any Pending Items for ICANN week
13.- Adjourn

0.- Welcome

FY welcomed the in-room and remote participants to the face-to-face meeting
a) ASO AC Teleconference Attendance
FY brought to the attention of the members the attendance at the teleconferences; noting that not reaching quorum is very inconvenient for the other members.
She also noted the importance of responding to the RSVP, which is sent 7 days earlier.
FY asked about time convenience, and if that is the issue, then it must be brought up.
FA noted that the new fixed time has affected her attendance; she suggested a calendar invite to the group. OO and FA will ensure they will attend, and ask GV ring her in case the network is down.
LL reiterated that regional participation is required.
BJ also asked that a calendar invite would assist.
NN thanked GV for the effort he put in; you can subscribe to the calendar as it is updated; agreed that the regional coordination is required; regarding the quorum, NN suggested that if there is no improvement to the attendance, we might need to adjust the quorum rules.
KB commented that working with others in the region is the minimum requirement. If the member cannot attend for whatever reason, they should let the group know. If the member cannot consistently attend, that should be examined.

1.- Roll call

After the roll call quorum was reached (13 ASO AC members present, 1 remotely, 1 apology)

2.- Agenda review

FY went through the agenda. FY noted the 75 mins for the CCWG Accountability Stream 2 session.
There were no changes to the agenda.

3.- Approval of minutes – February 2017

February Minutes to be reviewed in the next teleconference.

4.- Update open actions

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.
2017 work plan action was adopted following LL’s latest additions.
Action Item 20170308-02: ASO AC to establish the policy proposal facilitators team appointment procedure.
The ASO AC established the Policy proposal facilitators team: TF; FA, JV, KB, and NN have volunteered (one from each region).
Action Item 20160803-05: JS and GV to work on conducting a ‘mock election’ with all the AC in participation.
GV reported that all ASO AC have casted their ballots; GV said that some time may be needed to examine the results to understand how the calculations are made (new methodology with preferential system)
GV suggested setting some time up during the day to examine the calculations.
NN agreed; and what the effect of each vote would have
KB commented that you need to understand who you voted for; but in this type of voting, complete random voting would probably not happen; he suggested having a topic that was not randomly voted, for example.
FY asked if there was a story that what happened; JS said he could walk you through the story; but used famous names instead of real ones to add some objectivity to it.
FY suggested to discuss this in the AOB or after the ICANN Board elections.
NN noted that the point is not who you vote for; but how the voting occurred.
FY suggested discussing this further.
ACTION CLOSED. Topic to be added to the agenda in AOB
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 noted that the Chair at this time was LL.
JC noted that the NRO EC will discuss it further on Thurs.
Action OPEN.
Action Item 20161012-06: FY to Prepare Discussion Points on Grey Areas of Responsibilities between the ASO AC and the NRO EC.
Topic to be discussed in today in agenda item.
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.
JC said he would discuss the topic on Thursday NRO EC meeting.

5.- ITEMS report on the ASO review (45 minutes)

FY outlined what this is for new members; Independent review to look at ASO procedures, ASO relevance in ICANN structure and how things work in general.
JS noted that in the wider ICANN discussion, the ASO AC is a SO; and all of the SOs go through this review, it is a typical standards task.
TomM introduced what the review entails. It is a review that is called for within the ICANN By-laws. ITEMS were selected to do the last review for the ASO AC. They will look at how the AC has evolved; recommendations that were suggested to implement; how the organization has evolved.
The objective of these reviews is to determine whether the SO/AC has a continuing purpose within the structure; whether the ASO remain accountable to the Internet numbers community.
TomM explained the review methodology: attending one RIR meeting in each of the five regions; carrying out extensive F2F interviews. Created a survey questionnaire – broken down into questions on purpose and rationale of ASO; effectiveness of ASO; operational effectiveness of the ASO; elections – whether they are working; accountability and transparency; past review process and recommendations uptake.
TomM said that ITEMS will be submitting a final draft report at the end of June during ICANN 59 in Johannesburg. Final report publication is due by of end July.
TimMc reported that he attended APRICOT 2017, he would attend the 5 RIR meeting to conduct interviews; asking very specific questions on the inner workings of the ASO. Noted that the sample size will be focused on the ASO. So far has had around 15 conversations.
GV said that he was going to set up a doodle poll for these interviews during ICANN 58.
PW: asked if the survey was publicly available? TomC said that it is online at TomM confirmed that there has been no public announcement, given that this is focused on the specific audience of the ASO. TimM confirmed that ITEMS is not looking to reform the ASO and noted that it is not helpful to publicise this and get data that is not particularly useful.
JC noted that the ASO is a different SO than other SOs. But this is an independent review; so that is important.
TimM noted that they have used their judgement here and adjust accordingly where relevant.
KB noted that a little bit of procedure will help him.
JS confirmed that for new members, a walk through the entire process would help.
TimM stated that GV will send out the doodle poll b/c they will interview everyone on the AC. After the doodle poll, they will meet up with the person, outline the questions they will have; he has found it useful to review the more difficult questions (use Chatham house rules); there might be a need for a follow up.
TomM noted that they will produce a document to highlight the process and share it online. They will reach out in a semi-informal way.
NN said that this group and the RIR community have a commitment to transparency. NN suggested linking to the previous reviews to get an idea of the process.
TomM suggested adding the survey link to the ASO website.
TimM is happy to be as transparent as possible, but these reviews are meant to be a “black box”.
FY agrees about the independency of the review, but purpose, goal and methodology cannot be a black box. There needs to have some accountability to the process so that the results can be trusted as well.
TimM requested to attend some of the ASO sessions;
FY opened this request up to the room.
KB would like to keep this a closed meeting.
FY suggested that they stay and stay within the scope of the meeting minutes.
JS also agrees that this should be a closed meeting; and as long as ITEMS understand that; then he is okay with them observing.
FA warns of perception and misconstruing certain frank discussions.
TimM would like the minutes to record the grey areas and ambiguities and making these more black and white – that is the substance they are interested in – and they don’t need to be in the room.
NN is okay with having them in the room, but as long as proper protocol is followed.
BJ agrees with FA and for those who are new, those perspectives and perceptions are noted.
FY asked if there was a confidentially agreement in place.
TomM confirmed that there is a NDA relevant; there is a commitment that no names will be revealed. ITEMS aims to be balanced, impartial, and anonymous.
AS noted that this confidentiality is stated in the interview. He is comfortable of ITEMS attending.
PW agrees with FY that the scope of information should be limited to what is expressed in the minutes.
KB called for a motion on whether ITEMS should be allowed as observers.
TimM suggested that there is no rush with the decision and do not want to pressure the ASO AC into making a decision. [they left the room]
JC agrees with PW.
JS tabled the motion and suggested that frank discussion occurs before the motion is called.
KB believes that frank discussion is critical with one F2F and would rather have them on the next teleconference, and he doesn’t want this to be disrupted with their attendance.
JS is comfortable with them being in the room, but will support those who do not want them in the room.
FY commented that ITEMS are here to illustrate the ASO’s transparency. But added that the last-minute request is not acceptable. She notes they have agreed to keep within the scope of the minutes; this F2F is less open anyway of the personal interviews; she suggested a motion to allow them in as observers and repeat that they stay within the scope of the minutes.
AB suggested reserving the right to ask them to leave if there are any sensitive parts of the meeting.
WW agrees with AB; but strongly agrees to let them observe; no reason to believe that they won’t be impartial.
NN believes that it is in our interest to have a proper review; agrees to let them in as observers; NN agreed with FY about the last-minute request.
FA will agree with the group decision; but with the caveat that they step out where the discussion is sensitive.
Motion called for two representatives from ITEMS to observe the rest of the meeting with the caveat that they leave should they be asked. WW supported the motion. There were no objections.
[ITEMS reps came back into the room].

6.- Reminder ICANN 58 schedule

GV went through the suggested meetings – these are contained in a shared Google calendar.
LL asked if the fellowship session is open for the AC to attend – currently AS is doing the presentation.
AS confirmed that the rest of the ASO can attend.

7.- ICANN Update
a) CCWG Accountability Stream 2

JV (slides) outlined the creation and purpose of the CCWG Accountability Stream, creating two tracks to develop a set of proposed enhancements to ICANN’s accountability to the global Internet community to address the absence of the US government. The ASO is part of the chartering organizations that need to approve efforts to improve ICANN’s accountability. The four building blocks that would form the mechanisms are:
• Bylaws
• Independent appeals and review mechanisms
• ICANN Board of Directors
• Empowered ICANN community
The Empowered ICANN community is the term used for the designator structure and how the community will come together to use these powers. The ASO, along with ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO, and GAC are “decisional participants”.
The empowered ICANN community can exercise powers on the following seven high-level matters:
• Reject budget or strategy/operating plan
• Reject changes to ICANN standard bylaws
• Approve changes to fundamental bylaws
• Remove individual ICANN Board Directors
• Recall entire ICANN Board
• Launch community independent review process
• Reject ICANN Board decisions relating to IANA functions review
The process has three key elements: engagement; escalation; and enforcement. Briefly this entails:
• An individual begins an online petition in any AC or SO
• The SO or AC asks other decisional participants to support the petition (the SO or AC can accept or deny the petition)
• There can be a request for a community forum
• The empowered community establishes if wishes to use the power
• Advise the ICANN Board of the decision.
In order to exercise community powers, the SOs/ACs should develop (if not yet existing), internal processes:
• Raising petitions
• Joining petitions
• Organize participating in a community forum (if coordination is desired)
• Reach a decision on the exercise of power
JV noted that the SOs/ACs must prepare to exercise community powers. Having clarity on how to proceed and how the process works is important to note for the ASO AC.
There are independent appeals, Independent Review Process (IRP), and review mechanisms for any exercise of a community power.
JV asked whether the IRP should be applicable to the AC and SO activities? Their recommendation is as follows (slide 15):
• The IRP would not be applicable to SO and AC activities, as it is now described in the bylaws
• The IRP could be made applicable by amending the bylaws significantly
• The IRP should not be made applicable to SO and AC activities because it is complex and expensive and there are easier alternative ways to challenge an SO or AC action or inaction
Regarding the ICANN Board, the suggestion is to include the review of SO and AC accountability mechanisms in the independent structural review performed on a regular basis.
FA outlined the second part of the slides: WS 2 committed to further accountability work, with the CCWG proposing more enhancements to be made to several designated mechanisms and processes and to refine the operations details associated with some of its recommendations for WS 1 (slide 17). These include:
• Diversity
• SO/AC accountability
• Staff accountability
• Transparency
• Human rights
• Jurisdiction
• ICANN Ombudsman
• Interim bylaws
Selected recommendation for these further accountability measures include:
• Publishing an annual report
• Public observation where relevant, and if a meeting is closed, specific reasons given for that decision
• Process of appeal when application for membership to any group is applied for but rejected
• Internal reviews of policies and procedures within a year
Regarding the issue of Mutual Accountability Roundtable, the CCWG WS 2 recommends that:
• Each AC/SO is accountable to its designated community not the other ACs or SOs
• Sharing of best practices among the ACs and SOs is beneficial and can be done informally
• There is no need to implement processes for a Mutual Accountability Roundtable
FA said that as an empowered community, which the ASO is, we have the option of exercising seven powers as an Empowered Community. If a petition is begun with the ASO AC, we have to ask other SOs or ACs to support the petition. It is up to us to decide where proposals come to us, what we decide to take on. In answer to JS question, depending on the nature of the petition, the individual doesn’t necessarily have to get the support of the ASO; but could get the support of another SO or AC. It depends entirely on the issue and what it relates to (it might not be within the scope of the ASO AC).
Regarding Diversity, the CCWG have identified seven elements of diversity as potentially relevant to ICANN SO/AC groups:
• Geographic/regional representation
• Language
• Gender
• Age
• Physical disability
• Diversity of skills
• Stakeholder group or consistency
AS asked if any RIR or community member raise concerns and raise this to the board without the support of the ASO?
FA depends on how the RIR representative presents their case – it might need the support of the ASO. If it is an end user, it could be ALAC. It depends on how the individual presents their case because the trigger is an individual.
PW remarked that the Mutual Accountability roundtable is strange in that the SOs and ACs are accountable to their communities and stating that they are also to each other is a contradiction in terms.
JV said it is important to only refers to the aspect included in the community powers.
NN stated that the ASO AC needs to pay attention on:
• Empowered communities – how do we want to use our community powers. What is the role of ASO and the role of the ASO AC. This is a discussion we need to have – when we talk about the community power – is it the ASO AC or the NRO EC? We need to get the answer.
• Community accountability and diversity – does this apply to the ASO AC or the NRO EC?
• Operating procedures of the SO – do we want the ICANN community to tell us how we should operate? We need to sit in the structure and integrate with that.
• Empowered community – the other stakeholder ICANN groups, but they tend to share related problems, but it doesn’t affect us. So having names groups deciding on how the numbers communities works, make no sense. Conflict – how can we be accountable to our own communities and other communities? But we have different issues to these other communities.
These four areas are not explainable from the MoU.
JC said that the ASO relations are fundamentally the global policy relationship. In this context, our accountability issues with ICANN are very different with other SO communities.
JC asked which process does the ASO AC get involved in as opposed to the NRO EC.
JS said that with the new community powers; this aligns to the grey areas discussion – we should bring up these new powers into the discussion.
WW regarding the diversity of skills he asked FA to elaborate.
FA said that in this context – a demo of skills from different backgrounds eg, academia, research, business etc.
WW questioned the relevance of this to the numbering community.
FA did note that this is an ongoing discussion within the CCWG and it is far from being concluded.
BJ asked about a case a community member has an issue and they decide not to take it up, what happens?
FA answered that It has to be relevant to those seven issues – if it is not relevant, it will probably go nowhere. If the ASO AC has to get involved – we need a procedure on how to do this.
FY regarding CCWG S2 we must decide as to whether we want to make ourselves relevant to this or not.
JS Regarding the diversity question, it makes sense that this is relevant where there is a related SO.
JV said that diversity provides opportunities to anyone that has an interest in it.
JV regarding mutual accountability, he agrees it is confusing. It might be a good opportunity to share ideas and experience.
KB said that as a new participant, the thing that stands out, is what is relevant to the ASO AC and what is the feedback that we need to provide? Are we taking or being part of the CCWG 2 on topics that are not relevant to us?
NN said that this is a process that started around three years ago. We have to mindful that we are an SO and are in the ICANN By-laws. ICANN are changing these membership by-laws and they affect the SOs.
JC said that it was up to the ASO AC to decide what to participate in. The SO’s functions are literally 17 years old, and it’s up to the ASO AC to participate in what they want. He added about being mindful from taking on too much.
[after lunch, the discussion continued]
Paul Rendek joined us from the RIPE NCC after lunch and TimM.
FY suggested an agenda change with the NomCom appointment discussion postponed to the next teleconference. There were no objections to these changes to the agenda.
FA summarized the seven elements that the empowered community powers apply to but asked that the slides that JC provided, in particular, slide 12, was displayed as there was more detail provided on these seven powers (at a high level, there are 7, but with more detail, is 12).
FA stated that the question is which of these powers should the ASO AC be involved in and which the NRO EC should be involved in.
At the request of JS, slide 12 was displayed on the screen.

On this slide, there is more detail that JC clarified, for example – IANA functions request (IFR) or Separation Working Group (SSWG), if there is a restructure of the PTI. He noted that there are timelines that apply to each petition that the AC needs to be aware of.
KB asked what an individual meant?
FA confirmed that the trigger is an individual in a community – but that person must be attached to an AC or an SO.
JC said there is a paragraph in the new by-laws regarding the empowered community. “Each decisional participant shall adopt procedures for exercising the rights of each decisional participant…including:
• Who can support the petition to the decisional participant
• The process for individuals to submit petitions to the decisional participant, including whether the petition must be accompanied by a rationale
We are obligated for each power to identify who can submit a petition to us and what has to be in it and whether we can accept it or not, but we can easily say we don’t accept petitions, but we only accept it from ASO AC members. There’s nothing in the bylaws that requires us to accept a petition from anyone. We just need to have a process for whether to accept them or not.
BJ stated that the key here is to have a process.
NN clarified how we are discussing these; is the group going to discuss these individually or group them?
JC confirmed that the ASO AC will need a process for each of these seven (or 12). Looking at the matrix – there are potentially 36 petition types that require processes. For example, initiating a petition, a process for if the AC accept the petition etc. All these petition types have to be defined as to how the ASO will exercise these empowered community rights. What would be helpful is a list of what the ASO AC feels it will need to be involved in?
FY commented that there needs to be structure in the discussion. What needs to be discussed is what applies to the NRO EC and what applies to the ASO AC. This will help rectify some of the questions relating to the grey areas issues. FY suggests taking a holistic review of these empowered rights.
FA suggested that because there is already the challenge of the grey areas and who is responsible for what, a decision be made on each power as to who will be responsible; anything new that is not clear, requires further discussion on where it will go.
KB suggested having a third “Too-hard bucket” for those powers where the decision is too hard, for later discussion (the first two being the ASO AC bucket and the NRO EC bucket).
JS mentioned there should be a bucket for “not applicable to the ASO AC at all”.
NN suggested tackling the seven Empowered communities by discussing each topic and deciding on each as to whether they are relevant to ASO AC or NRO EC.
(Note, slide 12 of JC’s slides add more detail of the image below)
FA asked whether the AC should instead be working with slide 12 as it has more detail.
FY suggested directing the discussion on the slide below as it provides a high-level view of the powers as all we want to finalise in this session is what power belongs to whom.

Reject budget or strategy/operating plan
FA suggested that this be an NRO EC responsibility and the ASO AC has never directly engaged on this topic.
FY asked if there was any objections to this being an NRO EC responsibility?
JV agrees that this should be an NRO EC responsibility and has no objection.
WW suggested that the strategic planning of the budget might include ASO AC input, rather than direct input on the budget.
JC commented that these powers are an additional layer in the budget process. This is not the budget development process – which in any case is a public process. What this is, when this process is complete and the ICANN Board want to adopt the budget, an SO and AC can initiate a rejection if they desire it. If there is a desire in another SO/AC to reject operating standards, how do we go about deciding whether to support that decision?
FY agreed with JC – it’s all about triggering the objection/rejection and who will be using this power.
KB said that this is not the purview of the ASO AC, but the NRO EC. The EC can pass it back to us if they think we need to be involved.
FY confirmed, this is an NRO EC responsibility.
Reject changes ICANN Standards by-laws
FA proposed that the NRO EC takes the lead on this.
NN said that this is a difficult one – points out that the ASO AC might need to explore more before a quick decision is made; as it could affect the ASO as a body. She suggested to go through the low-hanging fruit. [This was discussed later on in the meeting]
Removal of individual ICANN Board Director
FA thinks this should fall with the ASO AC?
JV asked if this applies to a Board Member appointed by the NomCom?
KB this is an example, of the grey areas and where we need a procedure. He thinks this should go into the “too hard bucket”.
JS clarified if this applied to the removal of an ASO AC appointee only?
FY pointed out that this applies to all board directors (both the NomCom and seats 8, 9, 10).
NN suggested that the ASO AC only have a process related to seats 8, 9,10 and the NomCom goes to the NRO EC.
FY expressed some confusion about what this applied to. In response, FA clarified that the removal of board members is three-fold:
• Those that we appoint as the ASO AC (have procedures)
• Removal of a board member the ASO AC has not appointed, for example, the NomCom (no procedures)
• If there is a call to remove the entire board, whether or not the ASO AC decides if this applies to the ASO AC appointed board members is a different issue, but it goes through the process and at the end of the process, the majority decision takes effect.
JC commented that regarding SO/AC board director removal – we need to be very careful and make sure we follow the bylaws – which have changed. These changed bylaws effectively enable the empowered community effectively is appointing all Board Members. So the existing process to remove a board member is not valid – we need to go through the empowered community to remove our own director from the ICANN Board. Only the relevant SO/AC can initiate the process to remove a Board Member. So there are two things with respect to SO/AC director removal:
• The process for removing our own SO/AC director
• If another petition is launched in another SO/AC to remove one of their directors, how do decide whether we support; do not support; or abstain.
FY asked that if a board member has been petitioned to be removed and are not as ASO AC appointee, we are supposed to respond with our ICANN community power? How do we organise ourselves because we currently don’t have a process for that?
FA asked if our own board members aren’t being petitioned to be removed, how do we deal with it? the mechanisms we put in place for who decides (EC or AC), do we use this for all other requests for removal of the board – it will lessen the complicated procedures? How will the notice be received? Will it be the NRO EC or the ASO AC?
NN stated that if we are bucket sorting; for these items, if they land on the ASO AC, we must check that our procedures are sufficient. Regarding the removal of the ICANN Board directors – this falls on the ASO AC and we should deal with the removal of them. If there are petitions to remove any other directors we should have the role to support or respond to that. Personally, she would advise not interfering or even abstaining from the appointments or removals of other directors. If we are sorting buckets, this falls on the ASO AC.
KB agrees with NN. The volume of procedures we need to have to cover our appointments would probably cover other situations. Our litmus test in the procedures would predominantly be specific to numbers related issues.
AP agrees with NN.
AS confirmed that removing the board member would be the ASO AC’s purview? He therefore supports NN’s view.
JV noted that the ASO AC are the appointing body for two members – has the AC received any feedback from the board with respect to the members they have appointed? He suggests that perhaps having background information or feedback regarding board members might assist with developing a procedure.
FA noted there is in WS 2, a WG that is looking at good conduct standards for removing board members. Some of the recommendation are best practices should be applied. So, when a Board Member is to be removed, there is supporting documentation of sorts. This should give some guidance on the criteria we can consider.
BJ believed that the removal of all board members comes to the ASO AC.
FY, In response to JV’s point, we need to define a procedure, where part of the process is that someone can ask us for support for their petition – and we need to have a procedure for that as well. FY believes that this is an ASO AC procedure.
JS – expressed some confusion – looking at some of the slides that JC sent through, what is the required threshold to support exercising the community power to remove seat 9?
JC responded it is in the bylaws – you need half and no more than one rejection. The process is in annex D of ICANN’s bylaws.
AS reiterated that we need to focus on getting back to the holistic points of what is with the ASO AC and NRO EC.
FA does this apply to the removal of the entire board power? Because if so, it saves time and we can move onto the next power.
KB said that the ASO AC procedures need to be smart enough to be able to have gates that allow the NRO EC to provide the correct feedback and this would apply to the removal of individual board members. Removal of the entire board is a much more significant gate but can be combined.
[Kuo Wei Wu entered the meeting at 15:23 (UTC +1) but left as this was a closed meeting]
JC clarified that multiple procedures would apply in these cases; and it might require studying the details to see what applies.
NN reiterated AS point to “sort boxes”.
FY confirmed that this item is to be dealt with by the ASO AC.
Removing ICANN board
AS suggests merging this with individual board member removal – ASO AC.
KB and AP agrees this should be dealt by the – ASO AC.
Launch of community independent review process
FA proposed putting this in the bucket “has nothing to do with us” because within our own community we have mechanisms to deal with issues when they arise.
KB noted that the ASO AC still needs a procedure to say it has nothing to do with us. He suggests that if this is a procedure that “has nothing to do with us”, it should be dealt with by the NRO EC.
NN agreed with KB. But think the ASO should frame it as “The ASO will not participate”.
JV believed that the NRO EC should state that the ASO AC will not participate.
FY thinks this applies to both the ASO AC and NRO EC, with internal coordination required. So the ASO AC makes a recommendation and the NRO EC fills in the gap.
ASO AC + NRO EC (with NRO EC taking the lead)
Reject ICANN Board decisions relating to IANA functions review
Given it is the NRO that signed the MoU on the post transition IANA, FA proposes it fall squarely on the NRO EC.
KB believed that there should be an ASO AC light touch, so it is dealt with at the NRO EC level, with some input from the ASO AC, if at any time it does involve us. If it’s going to be moved up to the NRO EC – the ASO makes a recommendation to send it to the NRO EC. So, the ASO AC recommends that we don’t handle it and the NRO EC fills in the gap.
FA agreed that the NRO EC takes charge.
JS asked what relating to IANA functions review means? Is this specifically scoped as PTI governance actions as defined in s 16.2.d in the bylaws? If it is related to that bylaw, then he is happy for this to be dealt with by the NRO EC, but if it is IANA performance, then that is another story.
FY wanted clarity as to whether this is referring to PTI.
JV noted this definition was done before the transition – so it all the document referred to IANA. After the bylaws were signed and the transition ended, they are referring to PTI.
FY asked JS what his exact concern is.
JS stated that if it is specifically regarding to s16.2.d, for example, structural reorganization of the IANA functions, he is happy for the NRO EC to deal with these legal questions, but it is not clear to him that the term “relating to IANA functions reviews” means.
FA noted that this section was covered in s16.2.d and others in the bylaws. It refers to actions that relate to making changes to IANA functions either as a result of a review process or as result of a request from the entities recognized as using the IANA functions, eg, tld, numbers and protocol parameters.
NN stated that this might need clarification on exactly what the scope of this – but believes that it is the NRO EC to decide.
CR found the definition of IFR – s18.1 in ICANN by-laws:
The Board, or an appropriate committee thereof, shall cause periodic and/or special reviews (each such review, an “IFR”) of PTI’s performance of the IANA naming function against the contractual requirements set forth in the IANA Naming Function Contract and the IANA Naming Function SOW to be carried out by an IANA Function Review Team (“IFRT”) established in accordance with Article 18, as follows:
It clearly applies to naming – so the NRO EC will reply to the petition.
NN said that to her this falls on the shoulders of the NRO EC to say “thank you, we will not participate”.
JS agreed that the NRO EC should reply that we don’t participate in the IFR part, but there is the question of the legal restructuring of the IANA?
JC noted these buckets are very big. You might end up with different answers on closer inspection.
FY stated that on first contact, let’s assign it to the NRO EC and if they think it applies to the ASO AC, they can come back to us.
In answer to JS, CR noted that the amendments to the PTI bylaws are separated from the IANA functions review; IFR is a specially triggered event, and amendments to the bylaws can happen separately from the IFRs.
FY confirmed that IFRs are specific to names; but PTI governance is a separate issue.
KB said that the NRO EC could send this back to us if they feel they are not the right body to handle this issue.
This falls under the NRO EC.
Reject changes to ICANN standard bylaws
Approve changes to fundamental by-laws
JS commented that bylaws don’t apply to the ASO AC, because the ASO AC is defined under the ASO MoU.
FY commented that the MoU is part of the bylaws?
FA replied that insofar as the MoU mentioned in the bylaws doesn’t get thrown out when a bylaw review is happening.
JS asked how a bylaw review could change the MoU?
FA stated in the bylaws are important to the ASO AC to maintain the status quo for as long as it is relevant to the ASO AC.
FY asked if this was ASO AC or NRO NC?
KB stated that if a bylaw change is going to affect the ASO, then the ASO AC should make that determination and pass it up to the NRO EC with the ASO AC’s comments, but the bulk of the decision making will fall on the NRO EC; or the NRO EC will deal with it, but ask the ASO AC for comments.
JS warned that the ASO AC has the legal expertise to examine this properly but the NRO EC does, and he would like the EC to examine all the changes; consult with their legal experts; boil it down and then consult the ASO AC to see if the ASO AC has any concerns.
FY agreed that it should be filtered through the NRO EC and then we can then add our recommendations. Therefore, the NRO EC should start the process.
NN agreed.
In summary:
• Reject budget or strategy/operating plan – NRO EC
• Reject changes to ICANN standard bylaws – NRO EC
• Approve changes to fundamental bylaws – NRO EC
• Remove individual ICANN Board Directors – ASO AC
• Recall entire ICANN Board – ASO AC
• Launch community independent review process – NRO EC
• Reject ICANN Board decisions relating to IANA functions review – NRO EC
JC asked that the ASO AC prepare a short summary of this discussion.
PW – said that it might have been easier to have this discussion after the review. It could potentially be revisited as a result of the ASO review.
FY said that this is a manifestation of the grey areas; FA and JV need feedback from us for WS 2; we can get this portion of the minutes to the NRO EC.
AP said that some of these things might need a procedure soon.
JC said that it’s not just the EC and AC here – there are member elected boards here as well; but there are bodies that may need to be included in these procedures.

7 b) MSSI team overview of ICANN reviews.

Larisa Gurnick (LG) and Sherwood Moore (SM) came in to outline the different review activities – organizational and by-laws review. [Slides]
Review topics – ASO; Security Stability and Resilience Review (SSR); Accountability and transparency (ATRT), Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (CCT), Whois (RDAP).
The operating standards outline how the reviews will be conducted – they align with the ICANN Bylaws. There are several areas that are new so there are still processes being developed. So the operating standards will fill in the gaps.
LG noted there are various ways to participate.
[ICANN board members AM and RdS joined the meeting. LG and SM left]

8.- Nom Com appointment

Postponed to the next teleconference

9.- Preparations for Election ICANN seat 9.

FY proposed to move points 8 and 9 to the next teleconference. There were no objections.

10.- NRO EC update

JC reported that the changes of ASO AC operation procedures are under NRO EC review some made edits have been made and will get back to the AC soon.
FY said that EC and AC can coordinate better and streamline a bit on what panels, working groups, and review teams that ICANN invites us to participate in (relevance). In time, it will help us to manage workloads eventually.
KB agreed that there needs to be simplification of processes and procedures in this context. He suggested splitting into three teams and dispersing the work as an example.
JC clarified the work of the GAC public safety working group in response to a question of AS – they have had an update in the ARIN region – their concern are the contacts on address block might be incorrect, and the problem is that there needs to be a responsive contact to mitigate/address the abuse. It can cause them any days of delay and they are trying to get a more accurate whois on the edge.
PR said that it is important to note that the LEA community need to engage to the communities on the issues they have.

11.- ICANN Board update.

RdS said that comments are open on budget considerations; auction proceeds.
AM noted that he will be attending many of the RIR meetings and would love to do a joint session or meeting with the ASO AC and NRO EC.
RdS recognised CR work on his summaries on what’s happening with the ASO AC.

12.- AOB

a) Update on Consumer Choice and Trust Review CCT.

Jordyn Buchanan (JB) and Lauren Capin (LC) shared an update on the CCT review.
High-level conclusions, positive indictors; improvement in competition, consumer choice and adoption of safeguards. Data collection needed to identify any significant negative consequences. It’s an open comment period.
JC said there is an increase in competition; a lot of things are hovering around the middle; more data would be helpful.
The CCT have made 50 recommendations; with prerequisites and in high; medium; and low priority
KB asked how this relates to the numbers community?
There is enough of a play between domain and numbers that it will be beneficial to review.
JB said this is focused on consumer issues.
FY noted that we can always spare this time to hear from updates on these topics to give us more informed information to provide comment.

b) Any Pending Items for ICANN week

KB PPFT appointment – called a motion to affirm; seconded by LL. Motion carried; no objections.
TF; FA, JV, KB, and NN have volunteered (one from each region).
AB asked about clarification on the observers, RIR board members? Can they join in the teleconferences? Should we open this further?
FY said she would like to discuss this further in later meetings.
AM said that the perception exists that as the meeting is “closed”, it is questioned in the ICANN community.
FY said that for transparency reasons, we can have observers, as long as it is clear that it is an observer status.
KB said that perhaps there is a portion that we can keep closed and the rest open?
WW suggested starting a conversation on the list.

13.- Adjourn

LL – motioned to adjourn; KB seconded. Meeting ended 5:09pm.

Last modified on 12/04/2021