ASO AC Teleconference 7 October 2015

Minutes
ASO AC teleconference held on Wednesday, October 7th 2015 (12:00 UTC)

ASO AC Attendees

AFRINIC

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

APNIC

Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Aftab Siddiqui, AS

ARIN

Jason Schiller, JS
Louie Lee, LL

LACNIC

Ricardo Patara, RP

RIPE NCC

Dmitry Kohmanyuk, DK
Wilfried Woeber, WW
Filiz Yilmaz, FY

Apologies

Ajay Kumar, AK
John Sweeting, JSw
Hartmut Glaser, HG
Jorge Villa, JV

Observers

Carlos Reyes, CR – ICANN Staff
Ron da Silva, ICANN Board
Adam Gosling, AG – APNIC
Ernest Byaruhanga, EBy – AFRINIC
Allan Barrett, AB, AFRINIC
Einar Bohlin, EB, ARIN
Izumi Okutani, IO
Athina Fragkouli, AF

Secretariat

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

Draft Agenda ASO AC October 7th 2015 Teleconference

0. Welcome
1. Agenda review
2. Review of open action items
3. Approval of Minutes
a) September 2nd 2015
4. ICANN CCWG report
a) ASO Voting Rights
5.-ICANN 54 Dublin Preparations
6. RIR Reports
a) APNIC 40 Jakarta
b) LACNIC 24 Bogota
7. AOB
8. Adjourn

0. Welcome

The meeting began at 12.16 UTC. Roll call was performed and quorum was established (8 ASO AC members on the call, all regions represented). Three other ASO AC members joined the call a few minutes later.

1. Agenda review

LL welcomed everyone and apologized for the late start. LL then went through agenda. No items were added.

2. Review of open action items

Action Item 150307-04: 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.

LL noted this was not done yet, and recalled that last time they had agreed to just go ahead and thank Naresh, recognizing that they don’t have a procedure in place for removing a member.

Action item150902-01: Secretariat to remove draft status from both sets of minutes after incorporating TF’s suggestion regarding the August minutes.

Status: DONE

Action item150902-02: FA to send a list of suggested concerns to the AC list within an hour (re: CCWG 2nd draft report, numbers related issues), then allow 48 hours for comments by the ASO AC. Include Izumi and Athina in the loop.

FA noted that it had not been done because they had felt they needed to come back to the ASO to clear some points. Will discuss this later.

Action item150902-03: GV to set up a runoff election as soon as feasible (NomCom election). Twenty-four hours after the invitation to cast the e-vote is sent, GV to send individual alerts to the 15 members telling them that they need to vote.

Status: COMPLETED. Hartmut Glaser is now the ASO AC appointee to the NomCom.

3. Approval of Minutes

a) September 2nd 2015

TF proposed a motion to approve the minutes of the September 2nd meeting after incorporating the comments sent by JS. RP seconded the motion. No objections or abstentions were heard and the motion carried.

Action item151007-01: Secretariat to remove draft status from the September 2nd minutes after incorporating the suggestions sent by JS via the mailing list.

4. ICANN CCWG report

a) ASO Voting Rights

LL: AF and IO would like to let us know what they want feedback on.

IO said there were two things she’d like to highlight to the ASO AC: 1) the timelines of the CCWG work, which would affect the IANA stewardship transition; 2) a couple of different community empowerment models which have been placed on the table since CRISP last updated the ASO AC.

IO said there were two timelines: a general timeline for the transition itself, another timeline more focused on the CCWG. On the general timeline, IO noted some backwards calculations had been done on the timing of the submission to the NTIA to determine whether the implementation of the proposal could be completed before the expiry of the NTIA contract (September 2016). ICANN Secretariat did a simulation on different submission dates. The first plan was based on the initial goal (submission to the NTIA in November), which would give ICANN a buffer of one month. If the submission is delayed until December, there is zero buffer and there is the risk that implementation won’t be able to make it on time. Anything beyond this means that implementation of the proposal will most likely not be completed before expiry of the contract. IO concluded by saying the situation in CCWG is not very optimistic.

On the second issue, IO noted the ICANN Board has expressed concern on the accountability model proposed by the CCWG (sole member model), mainly because it actually changes the power structure within ICANN. She added that another concern was that this new structure might take time to implement before the transition. She added that if the CCWG needs to come up with an alternative, there might be some drastic changes from the second proposal and they might need another round of public comments. She concluded by noting that they needed to see how they would address the Board’s concern while meeting the timeline for implementation before the contract expires.

IO then mentioned and explained the following four possible options:
1) The sole member model (the one being proposed in the second CCWG proposal and on which the ICANN Board has expressed concerns)
2) The single designator model, an idea initially shared by ARIN
3) The MEM (Multistakeholder Enhancement Mechanism), an idea being suggested by the Board
4) A hybrid option which is gaining traction, i.e., go ahead with either the MEM model or the single designator model before the transition, but post-transition work on further possible models

IO noted that, from the numbers community point of view, they’d be OK with any of the models, but that they have less motivation to have the legal enforceability required by other members of the CCWG, adding that they’d just need to make sure that the model will not affect the current ICANN MoU arrangement and that any changes will not affect numbers related issues.

IO mentioned another point: In terms of the authority to remove individual board members, in the CCWG proposal, the ASO has authority to make the final decision about removing the ASO representative to the board, but under the new model being proposed by the ICANN Board it’s going to be the ICANN Community (all SO/ACs) which will make this decision.

AF noted that IO had covered the core issues and arguments. She added that, until now, they had been trying to make sure that removal of a particular executive board member placed by the ASO, for example, could be removed only if the ASO decided so. However, the argument now is that if he group allows this, then there is always the danger of a particular member to act on behalf of their stakeholder only, lobbying for a particular group instead of acting in favor of the organization as a whole. She said she’d like to know how the ASO AC felt about this and whether they still want to exercise their right to remove their own members with no restrictions and, if so, what will be their counter argument.

AF then informed that the board had brought up their position not to support any proposal that required restructuring ICANN at a very late stage of the procedure, and that this had raised some doubts on their reasoning for doing so. Also, the board had also doubted SOs’ and ACs’ representation of the entire community and basically said they cannot empower a community of SOs and ACs that does not represent the global community. AF noted that if the ICANN Board doubts this, it might have an impact on the US Government’s review of any proposal.

IO highlighted that the CCWG chairs would like to have a dialogue with the ASO (NRO EC and ASO AC) about the way forward, as the ICANN meeting in Dublin will be key for establishing whether the CCWG would be able to meet the deadline. She added that it would also be good to coordinate the numbers position.

FY observed that the ASO AC had felt that the four members they appointed would also be removed by them, but now in the CCWG there was a counter argument to that as noted above. She then asked what the CCWG’s suggestion was (who can remove board members elected by a specific group?).

FY replied that the elements were not set in stone and mentioned certain elements that were under discussion. The procedure may include an online petition, which can be initiated by anyone. Also, a particular SO or AC will be in charge of this discussion (the SO or AC whose named in the petition). If they decide it should proceed, they must take it to the community forum and everyone will have a say (the SO’s or AC’s decision alone is not enough).

FY asked how they would remove someone, anyone, from the Board.

IO replied that one of the ideas was to have each of the SOs and ACs reach a certain threshold to support removal of a member, while another was to have discussions and reach consensus on removal of the Board member. She noted that multiple ideas were still on the table and that this issue had been discussed in the LA meeting, with no further developments after that.

FY noted that the people who are elected by SOs and ACs are elected because of their expertise, which is in turn evaluated through the expertise of the other group members. She added that she didn’t see how someone else could, based on their own judgment, say that a particular member was not doing a good job and should be removed. She also noted that everyone would be fine hearing their counter proposal, but that at the moment it was note well defined so it was impossible to evaluate.

JS expressed some concerns about the MEM approach, saying that if the removal of Board members was a community-wide thing, the importance of concerns for numbers issues would be overrun and that he didn’t know what the balance was for making sure that the issues that concern the numbers community continued to be addressed by the ICANN Board. As the numbers community, specifically for numbers issues, the ASO AC needs a pocket veto or it’s going to be overrun by the names community and the numbers concerns are not going to be addressed.

IO thanked JS and FY for their valid points. To bring an argument back to the group, IO said they might need to be able to explain that this decision by the ASO to remove the board member would be accountable enough. One of the suggestions being put on the table for which ASO representatives have expressed support is that, when making a decision to remove a board member, reasoning should be provided. IO noted she was seeing support for this within the CCWG and then wondered how much further they should take it from there (establish criteria, etc.). She noted that the general sentiment was that the decision about the reasoning should be up to each SO or AC, but was not actually being defined yet.

IO concluded by saying that when they had the meeting with the CCWG the points raised by FY and JS would be very valid and observed it was consistent with some of the things EC members have expressed on the mailing list as well.

LL invited FA to add any comments she might have.

FA added that the biggest challenge the numbers community is now faced with is that they have already been overrun by the names community. She commented that the numbers have all these mechanisms on accountability in terms of budget, strategy, even board removal without clear direction on how exactly it’s going to be done. She noted that perhaps it’s time to take a step back, adding that at this time the numbers community should be able to give some guidance or direction on how to best get this proposal completed s that it meets NTIA requirements and it still serves the ICANN community.

FA then commented that during the LA meeting they had had a meeting with Larry Strickling, during which he’d said one of the things he would have difficulty accepting was a proposal of which he was not sure of global participation and representation. She said that the numbers community was very clear on how those things were accomplished, but that in the names community it was a whole different story. FA concluded by saying that the Board’s concerns about participation and representation were actually very valid.

FA mentioned another thing they hadn’t started to put the reins on: what can we do to build on our existing accountability mechanisms to move to the next level (good mechanism but not appropriately presented so they seem to be extremely complicated).

LL asked whether JV had any additional input. JV replied that AF and IO had provided a great summary of the main points.

JS summed up his concern as follows: it comes down to the view of the wider community vs. the view of the wider names community (there’s the risk that the concerns of the wider community will overrun the concerns of the names community).

IO thanked JS for his input.

As a way forward, IO suggested trying to coordinate with the NRO EC about the principles they consider important. Then, if they have a chance to meet with the CCWG chairs in Dublin, they are able to share the core points the number community considers important and should be taken into consideration when coming up with any alternative plans or when choosing among currently available options.

LL suggested taking it back to the list so all AC members could provide their input. LL asked IO and AF to share what they understand the AC’s feelings are, sending that to the list, and issue a last call for comments. The EC can then also share their opinions, because, in the end, any ASO action is not necessarily an ASO AC action unless it’s a power specified directly in a document such as the MoU, so that’s something the NRO EC necessarily has to have input on. If the EC wants to delegate something to the ASO AC, then it should be done openly and documented.

Since there were some principles they’d described throughout the process, IO suggested that perhaps she and other ASO liaison colleagues could see whether there were any additional points that should be added and share them with the NRO EC, cc’ing the ASO AC. Then, if the ASO AC observed any points missing from their perspective, they should feel free to share their input.

Everyone thanked IO and AF and observed they were free to drop off the call.

5. ICANN 54 Dublin Preparations

LL asked CR to provide a report on what is set so far and what needs action.

CR confirmed the days for which he’d requested a work room for the AC, and that the room would be available. In terms of sessions, he mentioned the meeting with the Board of Directors had been moved to Tuesday and noted that any agenda items should be sent to him and he’d work with GV to make sure they get ICANN staff support. He added that the other session which had been scheduled was the NRO workshop (Wednesday morning, main room). He also provided some details on the IPv4 panel (Wednesday at 5:00 p.m.).

LL mentioned that the CEOs had asked Adiel to rename that as Part 2 of the ASO Workshop, so it could be done under the topics of the ASO. LL asked CR to coordinate with Adiel so he’d have the latest details on that. CR said he would.

LL and GV discussed in further detail the plans for sessions and meetings at ICANN 54 in Dublin and the way forward to finalize the agendas.

Regarding the Leadership Workshop FA mentioned earlier, LL noted that ME was unable to attend so there was the opportunity to send someone else.

FA noted that the slot was transferable, but it had to be decided right now to let Sandra know by Tuesday.

ME said he’d posted a message on the list opening up his seat. LL asked ME to follow up with the person who had expressed interest on the mailing list.

LL gave a quick reminder that the ASO AC travel policy to ICANN meetings was changing, meaning that automatically only the chair will be supported through the NRO budget, but that did not override regional travel policies which may say that the RIR is willing to fund AC members’ travel. He suggested that everyone should follow up with their RIR to see how that affects them individually.

LL asked CR or someone else on the ICANN staff to see what the latest ICANN budget and see what the ASO AC travel funding looks like. He said he knew they had included an item for this in the budget, but it had never been used in the past. LL noted that he’d like to know this information just to see what they were working with, even if they don’t take advantage of it.

6. RIR Reports

a) APNIC 40 Jakarta
b) LACNIC 24 Bogota

LL noted he’d seen reports from TF and JV on the list.

LL congratulated TF for being re-elected to the ASO AC during APNIC Jakarta meeting.

TF mentioned that AS had also been appointed.

RP observed that one of the policies approved at the last LACNIC meeting and which might be of interest to the ASO AC is a policy which allows intra-RIR transfers (now in a 45-day last-call-for comments period).

LL commented that in the ARIN region they were about to start their meeting the next day. LL congratulated JSw for being appointed for a new term on the NRO NC for the remainder of Ron’s term.

7. AOB

No further business was brought up for discussion.

8. Adjourn

There being no further business to discuss, WW moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by TF. No objections were heard and the meeting was adjourned at 13:55 UTC.

Last modified on 29/01/2020