ASO AC Teleconference 12 October 2016

ASO AC Teleconference
Wednesday, 12 October 2016


Fiona Asonga, FA
Mark Elkins, ME
Douglas Onyango, DO

Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Aftab Siddiqui, AS

Louie Lee, Chair
Kevin Blumberg, KB

Jorge Villa, JV
Hartmut Glaser HG

Nurani Nimpuno, NN
Filiz Yilmaz, FY (Vice Chair)

Therese Colosi – Scribe
German Valdez, GV – NRO Executive Secretary


Maemura Akinori
Adam Gosling
Brajesh Jain, BJ – ASO AC member-elect

Nate Davis, ND
Sean Hopkins, SH

Ron da Silva
Carlos Reyes

Ajay Kumar, AK
Ricardo Patara, RP (Vice Chair) – Couldn’t join the meeting due to technical problems.
Jason Schiller, JS
Wilfried Woeber, WW

0. Welcome.
1. Agenda Review.
2. Review of Open Action Items.
3. Approval of September 2016 Minutes.
4. ICANN 57 Preparations.
5. Reports.
d. Any Other Reports
6. Any Other Business.
7. Adjournment.


Action Item 20151209-03: (Tabled) GV to work with JS on consolidating the ASO AC’s Operating Procedures into one document.
Action Item 20160630-01: Chair to request direct updates to the ASO AC from AK regarding progress of the new gTLD drafting team.
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 ASO AC.
Action Item 20160630-06: GV and Secretariat to develop a comprehensive ASO slide template for future public session use.
Action Item 20160803-05: JS and GV to work on conducting a ‘mock election’ with all of the AC in participation.
Action Item 20160803-06: GV to gather the names of the AC attendees to ICANN 57.


0. Welcome.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:10 UTC. The presence of quorum was noted. The welcomed member-elect Brajesh Jain to his first teleconference with the ASO AC.

1. Agenda Review.

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for comments. GV suggested setting a November ASO AC teleconference date. The Chair agreed to add the item to Any Other Business.

2. Review of Open Action Items.

Action Item 20151209-03: (Tabled) GV to work with JS on consolidating the ASO AC’s Operating Procedures into one document.

The Chair took the item off the table. GV stated that the document has been received from JS, and election procedures comments were received. The text is currently with the NRO EC for approval. The EC will meet next week and may have an answer.

GV then suggested closing this item. The Chair agreed. CLOSED

Action Item 20160630-01: Chair to request direct updates to the ASO AC from AK regarding progress of the new gTLD drafting team.

The Chair stated that he had not been in contact with AK and he asked if anyone has heard from AK. BJ stated he can speak with AK and provide an update. The Chair thanked him.


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.

The Chair stated that he had not yet reached out to the EC, but will be doing so at the upcoming ICANN 57 meeting. OPEN

Action Item 20160630-06: GV and Secretariat to develop a comprehensive ASO slide template for future public session use.

GV requested assistance from the communication group of the RIRs, and they are working on the slides. OPEN

Action Item 20160803-05: JS and GV to work on conducting a ‘mock election’ with all of the AC in participation.

The Chair stated that this had not yet been done, but it will be completed. OPEN

Action Item 20160803-06: GV to gather the names of the AC attendees to ICANN 57.

GV stated that he sent the list a day after the last ASO teleconference, he confirmed there were a couple of members to confirm their participation. He stated that he had sent an updated list of attendees to the people who had replied. He was awaiting the pending responses. HG stated he can be added to the list as he will be attending ICANN 57. GV acknowledged and thanked HG.


3. Approval of ASO AC September Minutes.

It was moved by TF, and seconded by KB, that:

“The ASO AC approves the Minutes of 07 September 2016, as written.”

The motion carried with no objections.

NEW: Action Item 20161012-02: GV to removed ‘draft’ from the September ASO AC Minutes. OPEN

4. ICANN 57 Preparations.

The Chair stated that the ASO AC attendees have been primarily established. He reiterated that there would not be a face-to-face ASO AC meeting held during this ICANN meeting; however, other meetings will take place that the ASO AC members will participate in, such as: ICANN Board Meeting and an ASO AC Workshop. In the workshop, there will be review team that would like to provide an update. The ASO AC needs to determine if they would like to receive the update at that time.

CR stated that ICANN will publish a schedule tomorrow online; and, they will confirm room assignments for the Council. At Saturday’s opening session, the NRO will have time to provide an update. The ASO workshop will be held after the public session, later on there will be a public forum, and the ASO AC can present at that time. Following these meetings, the meeting with the ICANN Board will be held. CR stated that the Chair has forwarded two questions and the ASO AC should feel free to suggest other topics. CR also stated that lunch would be provided at the conference, sponsored by the Indian government.

The Chair thanked CR for the update. The Chair stated that he would contact the NRO EC for their update to the community; and that e-mails would be forthcoming with further detail.

NEW ACTION ITEM: 20161012:03: Chair to contact NRO EC on their update to the Community for ICANN 57. OPEN

5. Reports.

• CCWG. JV stated they were working on various topics – one of which is the ASO AC accountability. The NRO had stated that the scope has to be exclusive to activity within ICANN and the group is drafting a questionnaire to all AC’s on the matter. HG asked if it was the ASO AC mission or NRO EC mission? It needs to be clarified. The Chair stated he would clarify that before the ICANN 57 meeting.

NEW ACTION ITEM 20161012-04: Chair to Clarify ASO AC/NRO EC Responsibility in ICANN roles. OPEN

NN asked if the CCWG members were invited to the meeting? She recalled that the ASO AC agreed to invite them.

NN concurred with HG’s question of responsibility, given discussions that took place regarding clarifiying responsibilities, and community empowerment. Related to that, was trying to clarify boundaries between the ASO AC and the NRO EC; and, a better way to working closer with the EC. NN asked if progress or action had been made in achieving this.

The Chair asked GV if the CCWG members were invited. GV stated in addition to FA and JV no other members of the CCWG stream 2 were invited. GV said that the original request was made for members of CCWG stream 1 but he would send an invitation to the current members of the stream 2 to coming ASO AC meetings.

The Chair addressed the second question from NN. He stated that he had not been able to contact the NRO EC to discuss the topic of responsibilities. He suggested that instead of asking them what they think, the ASO AC could send a write-up to the EC on what the responsibilities could be other than what was written in any minutes. A draft would be useful to send to the EC.

NN stated that she saw that there were two issues:

1) As part of the CCWG’s Work Stream II project, find out what specific issues there were that related to this discussion, and seek advice from the CCWG members on matters such as: changes in processes and procedures, and community powers. Then the ASO AC can present that to the NRO EC with regard to who’s scope of responsibility it fell into.

2) Identify gray areas and discuss ways in which to reduce them.

FA stated that there were a number of issues that would require a review of the process and procedures, but they are in proposals status at this point. The CCWG was at a point where it could highlight which procedures could be reviewed – the ‘how’ is under discussion. When the documents are completed for the subgroups, then we will get the comments from the community. Right now we need to ‘stay put’, and be very clear on what the roles of ASO AC and NRO EC are, as the gray areas currently make it unclear on who exercises community powers.

FA also stated that a lot of work has been done with regard to the AC’s accountability; however, more will come from other groups. There are subgroup proposals in existence, but nothing has been firmed up yet. We will go through each subgroup’s proposals. Clarity is key to be able to move forward more easily.

The Chair stated that he understood FA’s comments about staying put because things were not finalized. He asked if work had progressed enough to say that the ASO AC was interested or expected to be able to draw some lines for which group would need to be the one to take action?

FA replied reiterated the need to go through the work subgroup by subgroup. With regard to the SO’s and AC’s accountability, once the questions are completed, we can look at what has been proposed and the impact. The Jurisdiction group is looking at the stability of ICANN and the role with the IANA function, which needs to be paid attention to. FA continued to explain the groups and their action items. She and JS would look at new procedures and give a report for AC to review.

NEW ACTION ITEM: 20161012-05: FA and JV to provide report to ASO AC on the new procedures of Accountability Roles.

She suggested she and JV begin having that conversation, look at what is recommended, and pull out areas that affect ASO procedures and processes – if the ASO AC agreed.

JV stated that when the questionnaire is complete, it will be sent to all ACs and SOs and we will have more detail on what needs to be discussed with NRO EC, or how to modify procedures. We need to wait when the questions are completed.

The Chair stated that if it only takes a few days to a week that would be acceptable, but if it is after ICANN 57, it may be too long to wait. The Chair stated he would like consensus on some topic that can be brought to ICANN 57. He asked the AC’s thoughts.

FY stated that, although related, there were 2 other issues:

1) Clarifications of the roles and responsibilities of ASO AC and NRO EC, and coordination with each other.

2) Work Stream 2 consequences on the ASO AC’s procedures. Even if clear procedures came through, Work Stream 2 would require a procedures review. Mixing the two would not be as useful as it would be to separate them.

The Chair stated that discussing the consequences of either one during ICANN 57 would not be ideal, with half of the ASO AC not planning to attend. He agreed that an analysis was needed, and stated that he looked forward to FA and JV’s report on potential pressure points. The Chair noted that the items would not be discussed at ICANN 57, unless there was an approved document to work from.

HG asked since PTI is now a legal entity with an Interim Board, was the Board only active for a short time (i.e., one year or so), or was there some provision about the Board that the ASO AC could know about?

RdS answered that the intent was that the Board is there as an originator, then it will be dissolved and Directors will be appointed for one year to get it started. After that, a NomCom will be needed to foster candidates to replace two positions and other three positions will be made up of two from staff and one other person. RdS stated to request a status on PTI. HG thanked him.

With regard to FY’s earlier comments, the Chair asked if she would be able to lead an effort on documenting where the ASO AC believes the lines responsibility should be? Could she craft discussion points to begin the discussion?

FY replied that she could prepare a discussion document for the ASO AC. The Chair clarified that it eventually would be cleaned up with actual lines of responsibilities. As of yet there was no consensus on specific roles.

FYstated that she would like to restart the discussion again from where it left off in Helsinki at ICANN 56. The document could be the follow up that did not happen previously. She stated that she would be happy to do craft that document. The Chair thanked her.

NN stated that she agreed with FY on the items that FY previously brought up. There was no position currently on the gray areas. The purpose is to clarify them. There will be more with the Work Stream 2 progressing. There may be items we need to consult the broader community on, but we need to identify them first.

The Chair did not want FY to shoulder all of the responsibility for the task, but stated that if FY could get the ASO AC started with a list of ideas, it would be greatly appreciated.

FY stated she would be happy to draft up a list of gray areas for review by the Council. The Chair agreed.

NEW ACTION ITEM 20161012-06: FY to Prepare Discussion Points on Gray Areas of Responsiblities between the ASO AC and the NRO EC.

KB stated that he needed to leave the teleconference at this time (13:04 UTC). The Chair acknowleged and confirmed that quorum was still established.

• APNIC. TF provided a brief overview of the APNIC 42 meeting that was held in Colombo, Sri Lanka, which he attended.

• LACNIC. JV stated that RP had posted an overview of the LACNIC 26 meeting which was held in San Jose, Costa Rica to the ASO AC’s mailing list. JV provided a brief verbal overview to the Council.

6. Any Other Business.

The Chair called for any other business.

Discuss Date for ASO AC November Teleconference. The Chair stated the next teleconference need to be moved as it falls during the ICANN 57 meeting date. He noted that there was an IETF meeting the following week, but that there were no RIR meetings scheduled.

HG stated that since the ASO AC could not hold a meeting during an ICANN meeting, and they did not have key points to discuss, that the teleconference be postponed to December. The Chairr acknowledged that there may be the gray area discussion to be had, but it may be far enough in the future to not need a meeting. He suggested the second week of November.

TF stated that the Internet Governance Forum will be held December 6-9 in Mexico. He asked if anyone was attending. The Chair noted this was a good point, and suspected there were several of the ASO AC attending. HG confirmed that he would be attending.

The Chair then asked the ASO AC about postponing the November teleconference to December, due to the IGF. He noted that if they cancelled the November teleconference and held it in December, they need to determine it at this time. The Chair stated he would like to have the yearly review of the work the AC had done, and to start on the 2017 ASO AC Work Plan. He stated it should start on the ASO AC’s mailing list and outside of their meeting. He stated it should be finished with the December meeting regardless of any postponement of teleconferences.

The Chair also noted that the NomCom period needs to be opened for the 2017 ASO AC Chair when the time comes.

IANA Stewarship Transition. NN stated that she wanted to formally note the IANA Stewarship Transition which went through on 30 September 2016. She suggested this be celebrated, and next time the ASO AC met, they should toast the occasion. HG agreed.

HG stated that: We as ASO AC are very happy with IANA Transition, and with the success of the hard work that was put forth. We are in front of a new face and new transition points.

The Chair agreed that this was something to celebrate, and acknowledged all of the hard work that had been done.

ASO AC Member-Elect. Mr. Jain stated that he looked forward to woking with all of the AC. The Chair appreciated his comment.

7. Adjournment.

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 13:20 UTC. HG moved to adjourn, seconded by TF. The meeting adjourned with no objections.

Last modified on 29/01/2020