ASO AC Teleconference 4 March 2015

ASO AC teleconference held on Wednesday, March 4th 2015 (12:00 UTC)


ASO AC Attendees

Fiona Asonga, FA
Douglas Onyango, DO
Alan Barrett, AB

Ajay Kumar, AK
Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Aftab Siddiqui, AS

Ron da Silva, RS
Jason Schiller, JS

Ricardo Patara, RP
Hartmut Glaser, HG
Jorge Villa, JV

Filiz Yilmaz, FY
Wilfried Woeber, WW

Ernest Byaruhanga– AFRINIC
Sergio Rojas – LACNIC
Axel Pawlik, AP – RIPE NCC
Marco Hogewoning – RIPE NCC
Barbara Roseman – ICANN Staff
Selina Harrington – ICANN Staff
Carlos Reyes – ICANN Staff

Louie Lee, LL (Chair)
Dmitry Kohmanyuk, DK

German Valdez, GV – NRO
Laureana Pavon – LACNIC (Scribe)

Draft Agenda

0. Welcome
1. Agenda review
2. Review of open action items
3. Approval of Minutes
a) February 4th 2015
4. ICANN Board Seat 9 Election status and next steps
5. ICANN 52 Review
6.- CCWG new gTLD auction proceeds
7. Reports
a) ICANN CCWG (Fiona Asonga)
b) ICANN CCWG-IG (Filiz Yilmaz)
c) CRISP / ICG (Alan Barrett)
8. AOB
9. Adjournment


0. Welcome

GV performed the roll call and quorum was established at 12:05 UTC. (13 members on the call, five regions represented).

Because LL was unable to attend the meeting, AB chaired the teleconference and welcomed participants.

1. Agenda review

AB reviewed the agenda and called for comments. No further items were added to the agenda.

2. Review Open Actions

Action item 150204-01: GV to remove draft status from the January 7th 2014 teleconference minutes published on the ASO website.


3. Approval of Minutes

a) February 4th 2015

TF put forth a motion to approve February 4th 2015 ASO minutes. AS seconded the motion.

There were no oppositions or abstentions and the motion passed.

Action Item 150304-01: GV to remove draft status on the February 4th 2015 minutes.

4. ICANN Board Seat 9 Election status and next steps

AB asked someone from the Interviewing Committee (IC) to report on this.

WW summarized as follows: The IC had a very useful and efficient session during the recent ICANN meeting, then quite a few input regarding the questions for the candidates’ written interview. He said that FA had suggested that he take the lead to get the list of questions finalized and move the process forward, adding that if the Address Council (AC) and the IC would like him to take on this process he would be happy to do so. Suggested next steps: ask GV to help the IC set up a teleconference this week or early next week to get the questions finalized and report back to the AC and distribute the questions.

AB noted that one of the candidates was on the call and suggested moving this agenda item to the end so that RS can drop off before further details are discussed.

All agreed.

5. ICANN 52 Review

AB asked GV if he would mind listing all the meetings the AC was present in so they could go through them one by one.

GV said that the fist activity would be AB to report about the ICANN board and the representatives of the supporting organizations meeting held on Sunday.

AB said that was a closed meeting between chairs/co-chairs of many supporting organizations and advisory committees who met with Fadi and several of the ICANN heads of department and discussed things that ICANN should be doing better, with a focus on how ICANN ‘s performance is perceived and whether they are trusted.

GV said on Monday they’d participated in the welcome ceremony (10 min presentation about the ASO).

AB reported that a few of the organizations that don’t have much visibility during ICANN meetings (IETF, ASO, etc.) were invited to speak for 10 minutes. He said that Paul Wilson had spoken for 5 minutes about the NRO as a whole and that he’d spoken 5 minutes, mostly on the regional policy development (policies approved and proposed of the past year). The idea was to have people understand that the number communities have many meetings and activities and invite everyone to participate.

GV asked whether they’d have time to do the whole community report and suggested preparing a report well before the meetings.

AB said that perhaps they’d be invited once a year.

FY agreed they could do a bit better as regards preparations for ICANN meetings. She suggested having an extra call (limited duration) among those who will be attending prior to the meeting could be a good practice.

AB agreed and asked GV to arrange a teleconference to be held two weeks before the next ICANN meeting so that let the people who will be present can discuss what they’re going to do.

GV noted that the next ICANN meeting would include the AC face-to-face meeting, adding that the AC has a teleconference on June 3rd and the next ICANN meeting is three weeks later.

AB said that it would be good to have a short, additional meeting about a week before the next ICANN meeting to discuss activities they are planning.

Action Item 20150307-02: GV to schedule an additional teleconference for ASO AC members who will be attending the meeting about a week before ICANN 53.

GV mentioned the next meeting at ICANN 52: On Tuesday, there was a joint session between the members of the ASO AC present in Singapore and the members appointed to the CCWG.

AB said they could have that report later, as they didn’t need it right then.

GV said on Wednesday, they’d had the meeting with the ICANN board.

AB said at that meeting they’d discussed the IANA transition and participation by the ICANN Board in RIR meetings, but that most of the time was taken up by the IANA transition (e.g., one of the points that were discussed was that the CRISP proposal recommended that the IANA trademark and domain name should be transferred to a neutral body in case the IANA function is ever removed from ICANN).

GV said that the next activity in Singapore had been the public session on Wednesday afternoon.

AB noted that the public session we divided into three 10-minute sub-slots: a report from the Board election team (status and how people could comment on each candidate); a report on CRISP team’s work and where to read about it; and a report on ipv4 status in all regions.

AB thanked GV for keeping the calendar and keeping the AC up to date.

HG asked if someone could comment on the new ICANN meeting format that is under discussion. He said that the argument he’d heard was that a shorter ICANN meeting in the middle of the year would allow smaller countries to invite, but that he does not agree with this (if they are international conferences, people will still come to a shorter meeting).

DO noted that this proposal is part of the Meeting Strategy Working Group of which he is part and that, basically, the proposal is to maintain three meetings a year –two of which would maintain the current format while the third would be a 4-day meeting. He added that there was a public consultation and that the proposal was being ratified and going into implementation for next year.

6.- CCWG new gTLD auction proceeds

GV noted that this agenda item had been suggested by AK.

AK thanked GV and the chair for including the item in the agenda. He said that there is a huge fund that is being created ant that the question is whether the AC should participate in how it is managed. AK said that the MoU that ASO has with ICANN states the responsibility of the AC would include undertaking a role in the global PDP and providing advice on resource allocation policy, etc. – it’s not only about number resource allocation but also for the development of procedures for business management other things. He added that, given the importance of this issue, he believes the ASO AC should be participating, as a community in this WG as, if the AC is not seen to be participating and representing the number resource community, there might be the feeling that we’re not performing our duty.

AB said it was his understanding is that they’re not formally calling for members but asking whether they think it would be useful to set up a WG to work on this.

AP agreed with AB. He added that he’d confirmed with the other RIR CEOs and their understanding is that this would be out of scope for the AC as it does not have much to do with the allocation of resources and that he personally agreed with LL’s suggested response (respectfully decline the offer).

AK said that LL’s email had asked anyone who felt the AC should participate to let him know. He added that there are two questions: 1) whether it is within the scope of the AC; 2) whether it is advisable for the AC to enter this process. He noted that his understanding of the MoU is that it is very much part of the scope that they have with ICANN. As regards involvement, he said that the GNSO has invited the AC to be part of the group; that they have an interest in it as the new domain names that are coming will also impact allocation; and that he thinks that if it is constituted they should participate and represent the interests of the resource allocation process.

AP respectfully disagreed with AK’s interpretation of the MoU –the intention of the MoU is to focus closely on the numbers resources part of ICANN.

AB said his personal opinion was in line with AP’s. He suggested sending a response saying, “we have no objection to creating this WG, but we will not be involved.”

AK differed, noting that in his opinion they needed to take a broader interpretation of global policies. He added the process of new gTLDs will have an impact on resource allocation (dealing with 500+ new gTLD registries as opposed to a limited number of registries).

AB asked AK to point at the particular clause of the MoU that says the AC should be involved in this.

JS noted that when they talk about global policy development process they have a very clear definition – it’s very clear that when we talk about global development process, we’re talking about number policies.

AK said that the basic point of reference seemed to be the understanding of the impact of the new gTLDs on the allocation of number resources. He volunteered to circulate a paper on this impact.

WW thanked AK for this offer and added that it would have been his first suggestion (seeing the reasoning behind each position). He observed that, in his opinion, individuals on the AC might be involved in whatever working group ICANN is setting up in a personal capacity.

After further discussion, AB summarized as follows: the decision on whether to participate or not on this working group will be differed for two reasons – 1) we don’t know whether the working group will be formed, 2) we need to look at the paper AK will send. Nevertheless, the AC can respond to the message along the lines of “We’re not sure whether we will participate or not in the CCWG new gTLD auction proceeds. We’ll decide that later. However, we want make sure that the group will be open to individual contributors.”

AK agreed.

JS said he understood that such a draft had already been circulated and that the amendment to LL’s response would be the suggestion to have the group open to individual participants. He suggested drafting some text per LL’s recommendation with the advice that individuals also be permitted to participate

Action Item 20150307-03: Chair and Vice Chairs to draft a response to the proposal to participate in the CCWG new gTLD auction proceeds, circulate it on the AC-COORD mailing list for comments and then send the response to the GNSO. Message would be along the lines of : “We’re not sure whether the AC will participate in the CCWG new gTLD auction proceeds. We’ll decide that later. However, we want make sure that the group will be open to individual contributors.”

7. Reports

a) ICANN CCWG (Fiona Asonga)

FA presented a brief update on the status of the ICANN CCWG:
– The CCWG has continued to meet every Tuesdays and is now looking more critically at the areas needed before the transition (moving items from WS1 to WS2).
– Following our meeting in Singapore, the group identified key components for accountability.
– Something that keeps coming up: the need for clear stress testing of the different proposals. Areas that have come up for stress tests: financial, failure of IANA to meet stakeholders’ expectations, legal and jurisdiction considerations, failure of accountability to internal / external stakeholders.
– The group has a proposed face-to-face meeting at the end of the month, the outcome of which would be a first draft of a proposal that would go to the ICG on how the accountability mechanisms should be handled as far as the IANA transition.
– The CCWG is currently working in three parties: 1) Community empowerment; 2) Mechanisms of review, redress and independent review mechanisms; 3) Stress testing,

FA said the group was identifying whether there are gaps and also looking at new things that are coming up e.g., whether the community should have the power to remove one/all members of the board, a topic that is still under discussion and on which no final decision has been made. She said the team is coming to an agreement on some principles; that they are looking at the Affirmation of Commitments; that there’s a lot of discussion on the need to separate the operator from the IANA functions. She said that they had not sent out a document per se.

FA said that, as numbers representatives, they are aware that any proposal should respect the principles as they were presented in the CRISP proposal and that the CRISP document is actually the basis on which they are checking the view of the numbering community. She concluded her summary by saying that, should anything come up during the discussion that really needs response from the numbering community that is not already covered by the CRISP proposal, they will request input via email or perhaps a special teleconference.

AB asked a question: “FA, you said something about reporting to the ICG, but my understanding was that the CCWG’s input should be going to the names CWG, which would then report to the ICG.”

FA replied that, the timeline isn’t that specific, but, because the CCWG is dealing with issues on accountability issues across the board, she’s not so sure if the input should go to the names.

AB mentioned that he thinks there’s some confusion in the ICG as to how they should handle the work of the CCWG.

FA said that, at the end of the day, someone somewhere will need to consolidate the proposals. She added that the CCWG is hoping to have a first draft of their proposal ready by the end of the month.

AB said that the CCWG and the ICG could work together to figure out that part of the process.

JS asked the following: “I know that the CRISP document made a recommendation and talked to AP whether the EC was going to ask the AC to look at accountability issues.”

AB replied that there hadn’t been any movement in that sense.
AP added that the EC is still considering how to do this but that a formal request hasn’t been made yet.

b) ICANN CCWG-IG (Filiz Yilmaz)

FY mentioned that she had not attended the Singapore meeting, but that she’d been following the CCWG-IG’s conversations. She noted the working group meets regularly and there is a ton of information going through their mailing list.

FY mentioned the following highlights:

1) The latest discussion of the CCWG-IG is regarding the status of participants vs. observers. This is linked to a more general discussion going on at ICANN fora (whether working groups should allow individuals as observers too). The CCWG-IG likes the idea of being open to observers, who are now listed as such. The difference would be that participants officially represent an AC or SO, while other participants are called observers. Any observer may raise points and be heard but cannot vote or officially object an idea. This is still being discussed. The co-chairs of CCWG-IG are working on the specifics on participants vs. observers. There is a need for input from LL and FY said she’d follow up on that soon.

2) ICANN staff are often asked to send updates on their activities on IG (if ICANN staff is collaborating, e.g., with ISOC staff, if they are speaking on behalf of ICANN) – this has been an ongoing conversation in this group since its establishment. Nigel has sent a full on report on the IG scene, which is quite a good read (FY said she would send the link to the ml). FY said that the report was made public just before the Singapore meeting and that, if these reports are to be regular, she would like to see the link in the wiki.

3) ICANN staff’s role vs. ICANN community’s role in regards to IG issues, which is also an ongoing, long term discussion – everybody wants better engagement and participation, but sometimes how it is done doesn’t fit every party’s expectations. FY said she expects that these conversations will continue and offered to send the link to a public recording meetings.

AK agreed with FY that this working group has assumed great importance, adding that a lot of discussions on IG are happening outside of ICANN fora and thanking FY for her efforts, as projecting ICANN’s position in these fora is extremely relevant.

c) CRISP / ICG (Alan Barrett)

AB said he was appointed to the CRISP team by the AFRINIC board and later also appointed to the ICG when Adiel resigned for reasons unrelated to his position on the ASO AC. He presented a brief update on this as he thought it would be useful:

– A month ago, the CRISP team sent its report to the ICG, which doesn’t require any at all from the AC (the crisp team proposal can be found at
– The ICG is to receive proposals from the three communities (numbers, names, protocol parameters) and coordinate them into a single proposal that will go to the ICANN board for information and ratification. The ICANN board has said they won’t modify but might comment on this proposal, which then goes to the NTIA to see if it meets the NTIA criteria for the transition
– So far, the ICG has received two proposals (CRISP team and IETF), they’re assessing the proposals but this assessment is not finalized yet. They’ve asked for clarification in a few cases and identified what they thought might be an incompatibility between the CRISP and the IETF proposals regarding the IANA trademark and the domain name (the IETF was silent on this topic; the CRISP proposal said property should be held by a neutral party in case the function be removed from ICANN in the future). The ICG asked the two communities whether they would be willing to modify their proposal to resolve the incompatibility – CRISP replied that they don’t see any inconsistency and the IETF said that they would support CRISP team’s proposal. The ICG has also asked the CRISP team for other minor clarifications and that’s being discussed right now.

8. AOB

AK asked a question: “Now that the AC has suggested a name for the CCWG-IG, I’m keen to participate on this subject. When is the next process and how soon can I participate?”

FY interpreted AK’s question as how he can start participating practically, noting that the appointment of the AC’s member has already been done and that the next step is to send an email to WG chair. FY volunteered to trigger that, CCing AK

AB said he thought they’d voted a month ago to put AJ’s name forward. GV said there was a motion which was seconded and there were not oppositions or comments.

Action Item 20150307-04: The Chair to send a message to the CCWG-IG Chair informing them of AK’s appointment. FY to coordinate with LL to get this done.

FY had the following question: “The ASO AC among ourselves are happy to put the name forward, but does the EC need to approve this?”

AB noted that there is a process for appointments to other groups – if the appointment is from the NRO NC, the EC must approve it, but if the appointment is from the ASO AC there is no need for EC approval.

No further items were added under AOB.

4. ICANN Board Seat 9 Election status and next steps

AB asked RS to drop off the call to continue discussing this item.

[RS left the call at 13.44 UTC]

WW noted that the other members of the IC were FA, RP, JS, WW and AS. He repeated his proposal: asking GV to help the IC set up a dedicated teleconference to agree on the final text and timeline for the written interview. Before that, he suggested the IC review the draft documents that have already been distributed by FA and double check if all the suggestions regarding additional question have been taken care of.

AB said a dedicated teleconference would make sense.

AS mentioned that a couple of hours ago FA had started a thread on the IC list regarding the dates. He suggested discussing further and then reporting back to the AC mailing list the dates they’ve decided.

AB asked the IC suggested sending sensitive information to members individually (minus RS) and said that GV could help with that.

WW said he’d get back to GV shortly with their decision on how to move forward.

GV noted that if the IC provided a range of dates he can prepare a doodle poll.

JS said this was a great way to proceed and suggested the following: 1) having notes but no formal minutes; 2) having the teleconference next week at the same time.

Several members agreed with JS’s suggestion.

Action Item 20150307-05: GV to set up a dedicated teleconference for the Interview Committee.

AB thanked WW for coordinating.

9. Adjournment

There being no further business to discuss, JS proposed adjourning the meeting. The motion was seconded by TF. No objections were heard and the meeting was adjourned at 13.52 UT.

Last modified on 29/01/2020