ASO AC Teleconference 2 September 2015
ASO AC teleconference held on Wednesday, September 2nd 2015 (12:00 UTC)
ASO AC Attendees
Fiona Asonga, FA
Mark Elkins, ME
Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Ajay Kumar, AK
Aftab Siddiqui, AS
Jason Schiller, JS
Louie Lee, LL
Ricardo Patara, RP
Dmitry Kohmanyuk, DK
Wilfried Woeber, WW
Filiz Yilmaz, FY
Gianina Penski, GP – LACNIC
Selina Harrington, SH – ICANN Staff
Carlos Reyes, CR – ICANN Staff
Adam Gosling, AG – APNIC
Ernest Byaruhanga, EBy – AFRINIC
Izumi Okutani, IO
Ron da Silva
Jorge Villa, JV
John Sweeting, JSw
German Valdez, GV – NRO Executive Secretary
Laureana Pavon, LP – LACNIC (Scribe)
Draft Agenda ASO AC September 2nd 2015 Teleconference
2.- Agenda review
3.- Review of open action items
4.- Approval of Minutes
a) June 23rd 2015 face-to-face
b) August 5th 2015
5.- ICANN CCWG report
6.- NomCom Appointment
7.- ICANN Board Election 2016
The meeting began at 12.05 UTC. Roll call was performed and quorum was established (11 ASO AC members on the call, all regions represented).
LL apologized for not being present during the August meeting and thanked FY for having chaired it.
2.- Agenda review
LL went through agenda. No items were added.
3.- 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.
Status: ONGOING. Will be taken offline.
Action Item 150805-01: The Chair to send a message to the mailing list to see if there are any volunteers to join JS, FA and IO to begin working on cross-checking procedures against the recommendations that are being made by the Accountability CCWG and highlighting where further work will be needed.
Action Item 150805-02: Chair to immediately send an e-mail pointing to the public comments and call for comments on the mailing list regarding (deadline 2 weeks). FA to consolidate these comments (until 2 September). ASO to decide on the draft during its meeting to be held on September 2nd. (Re. CCWG proposal)
FY noted there were several components to this action, adding that she’d sent the email asking for comments. She suggested asking FA whether her task had been completed, as she hadn’t seen a consolidated text. It was decided that this action would be further discussed under agenda item 4.)
Action Item 150805-03: The Chair to send an email to the ASO AC listing stating the current candidates and asking further candidates to express interest before the 12th, after which the e-vote will take place.
This action will be further discussed under agenda item 5
Action Item 150805-04: GV to send a summary of the information regarding the 2016 ICANN Board Election to the mailing list.
This action will be further discussed under agenda item 6.
4.- Approval of Minutes
- a) June 23rd 2015 face-to-face
- b) August 5th 2015
TF had sent out a comment regarding the August 5th minutes. This comment will be incorporated.
TF proposed a motion to approve the minutes of the June 23rd and August 5th meetings. FA seconded the motion. No objections or abstentions were heard and the motion carried.
Action item150902-01: Secretariat to remove draft status from both sets of minutes after incorporating TF’s suggestion regarding the august minutes
5.- ICANN CCWG report
IO said there was not much to report since the last update about public comments on the CCWG. She said Athina had highlighted some of the major issues for consideration from the number community and that these had been shared with the EC.
IO summarized as follows: Comparing highlights of the first version, there are no major changes except for the idea of a single membership model. Another thing to highlight would be the independent review process. If people were happy with the first version, there probably won’t be many issues. There has been discussion on whether this single membership model would be feasible. The CCWG have highlighted a couple of issue to be considered. Another thing to highlight is the enforceability of the review process.
Overall direction: the board has preference for single designators model, the CCWG seems to have more support towards a single membership model (part of the second version of the proposal). The ASO may want to decide what would be their position on this.
In reply to a prior question by WW, IO confirmed that any member of the AC could start suggesting the removal of the member of the board elected by NomCom.
FA said that many fundamental questions had been raised by Ricardo, Jason and Ray Plzak regarding how the ASO would have to adjust to accommodate some of the proposals that had been tabled. In her opinion, it’s important for the ASO to figure out how to get feedback from the community, adding that, personally, she doesn’t think they’d been very good in getting their feedback.
JS said he felt it was going to be difficult to proceed because they don’t have a proposal for a procedure – that it will be difficult to go back to the RIR community if they don’t have a clear proposal. He added that it was unclear whether a procedure would get through the ASO AC and then, if so, whether it would go through the EC. He suggested drafting some sort of procedure, making sure the proposal is acceptable to the EC, and then using it as a starting point to see if the community supports it or wants to tweak it.
AS agreed with JS, adding that the following week they’d be having the APNIC event where they could have an open mike session to discuss these points.
LL suggested using the global list to do some pointed questions to get some feedback, noting that it doesn’t have to be a finalized draft and that, in his opinion, they might not even need the stamp of approval from the EC. He said that having this on the list a day or two before the APNIC event might help focus that discussion.
FY said before forming an opinion she had a question. She noted that their communities are involved with ICANN within the limit of Internet number resources and the global policy development around it, that’s the ASO mandate. She said her understanding was that they had given the mandate to five individuals to participate in the discussion about ICANN accountability, and that the community had not followed that conversation. FY added that she’s all for participation, but she worries they might confuse people by opening up this conversation and asking for feedback, as so far they’ve been relying on the ASO AC and those mandated by the ASO AC.
FA said the reason why going back to the community was being brought up was that the removal of a director or the entire board had raised concern on the mailing list. FA added that it’s important that they are very clear to the community that this is going to be a part of ICANN’s procedures, and that the community needs to be aware that if this proposal sees the light of day it’s probable that the ASO AC appointee to the ICANN board can be recalled.
FY said that was her point. When electing those board members the ASO does not ask for feedback on their decision-making (although feedback is indeed encouraged on the candidates), which is why she’s trying to understand whether they aren’t over-extending the issue.
FA asked whether anyone had looked at the consequences of removal of board members, adding that she was not insisting that they need to go back to the community but simply suggesting they should agree what’s the best way to go about this.
IO noted that how a board member/the entire board will be removed was very relevant to the ASO AC/EC. As to whether this requires consultation with the community, she asked whether the ASO AC had ever made a decision regarding a member of the board based on community consensus and feedback (in which case it might be good to make this consistent) or whether the ASO AC had made all decisions as community representatives (that might also remain consistent).
LL replied that, as far as he was aware, in the past they had never asked for feedback on procedures directly, but instead informed the community they were making changes and called for support for ICANN board members during the elections. He asked whether the group was coming to rough consensus on whether to go back to the communities.
JS suggested that, if they decided to go back to the community, they should have a very clear structure and well-defined topics. He strongly encouraged keeping separate discussions about removing only seats 9/10 or the entire board.
WW and FY agreed.
WW said there was the possibility of opening a can of worms if they were to go back to the community with an open question. He added that if the ASO AC wanted to get information out to the community they could do that, and they could certainly send the message to the community that if anyone has a strong point of view or a deep problem with the proposal then they are welcome to talk to the ASO.
If they were to go through the community, LL suggested sending more of a report on this particular aspect. As JS said, they should have a good set of procedures to show what they’re working on (no more than two sets if we don’t reach consensus). He said that perhaps the ASO might not even ask for feedback – if people want to, they can provide feedback.
JS said the question that concerned him was how to get enough details about where the ASO AC stands to prepare something before the APNIC meeting.
LL suggested asking for private comments from the AC members, e.g., “have you thought about this/have you thought about that,” to get a better understanding of where they are going.
FA agreed with LL’s proposal – the idea of approaching it as a point of information.
JS said they might produce a draft of a procedure and then vote on it, but in his opinion they’re not far along enough to do that.
LL said he wasn’t sure they should be drafting this on the call, but that instead they should be trying to get an idea of the general direction and then take it to the list.
JS said in order for continuity it’s important that removal of directors has immediate replacement of those directors. In short, in terms of their concerns about the procedures in the CCWG document, their concern is that there’s no requirement for immediate reseating.
IO noted the AC should decide whether this is something to be worked out by the AC or taken back to the community.
JS asked another question: what happens if the entire board is unseated and we think that the members on seats 9 and 10 are the best for the job? In his opinion, he sees no reason why they couldn’t invoke their procedure for emergency seating of seats 9 and 10 (according to ASO procedures, they can simply chose any candidate from the last round of appointments).
LL observed that it would have to be the last TWO rounds of appointments. JS said that’s a problem with their emergency procedures as they stand. LL suggested they might say “the last round” or “the last individuals in those seats.” JS said that unfortunately they’d have to go back two rounds.
ME wondered whether they should be so concerned with the whole board being replaced or just concern themselves with seats 9 and 10 and leave the rest of the Board to others, adding that changing the whole board would be unsettling, but not their mandate.
JS refocused the discussion by asking what would be the impact on their process if the entire board was unseated and not replaced. First, they could not get ratification of global policy, but that occurs by default if it receives no objections.
LL said it might not be such a big deal.
FY noted one of the big impacts of full removal of the ICANN board was a potential impact on RIR functioning. She observed that NRO EC input on this issue was very important and that she’d heard from IO and FA that there had been some comments from the EC on this topic. She concluded by saying that the NRO EC and ASO AC need to be in sync on this matter.
IO agreed with the need for collaboration and being in sync about this response. She volunteered to make sure the ASO AC was informed about any comments the EC made on this topic and reminded everyone that the deadline for comments was 12th September.
FA observed they’d agreed to have their final document finalized by the 5th of September. She also noted that the same concerns they were raising had also been raised by the EC and other ACs and SOs. She said they needed to be clear on some of the details such as what JS just raised and what Ray Plzak raised on the list to add to their input to the CCWG.
LL reminded everyone that there were other items to discuss so they should begin wrapping up this agenda item.
JS said it was not clear to him where there was consensus.
FA replied that the proposal for getting community feedback had been tabled, as it was a challenge to get feedback from all regions and a different approach was needed. The other issue they could take back to the CCWG was the issue of votes and how those votes are to be handed in exercising the different powers.
LL said it might be useful alert the EC members of the approach the AC are taking; perhaps they could have a 24-hour look at the memorandum.
FY said she believes the process allows the NRO EC to make its own comments as necessary. If the point was to make a response to the public comments, she said they could respond as the ASO AC, adding a note in the sense that they’ll work on their procedural matters based on what they see on the report. She asked whether this solution might work for everybody.
JS noted the ASO AC should write up their concerns (some of these things must be addressed in ASO AC procedures, e.g., reseating of all directors). Then, as a separate item, they should reach out to the EC.
FY observed that, under their mandate as community representatives, their job was to adapt their procedures accordingly. She suggested a good feedback might be “we are following this and will make the necessary adjustments.”
JS said in an ideal world they should let the EC know “these are the comments we will share,” adding this might trigger discussions and raise issues they haven’t even thought of. He added that, if they agreed with each other’s comments, they could support each other. He suggested proceeding as follows: someone draft their comments, share to the list for comments and then send that to the EC.
LL asked FA whether she could you work on that. FA replied that she’d have it out within an hour, adding that if she had any questions she’d drop LL, JS and FY a line.
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.
JS observed that not a large part of the community was subscribed to the IANA-XFER mailing list. For maximum community input, he suggested the discussion should be held on the RIR lists, noting that the middle ground would be having the discussion on the IANA-XFER list and sharing a pointer on the five RIR lists.
Further discussion ensued regarding which was the best place for the community to hold this discussion. Consensus was reached that the IANA-XFER list was the best option.
At this time, IO thanked everyone for their time and feedback and said she would be leaving the meeting.
LL thanked everyone for their thorough discussion of the topic and IO for her help.
6.- NomCom Appointment
LL commented that they’d had a tie between two candidates (6 votes each, plus one abstention), adding that they’d have to do a run-off between the same two candidates (TF and HG).
LL proceeded to read the procedure for runoff elections (https://aso.icann.org/documents/operational-documents/procedures-to-appoint-members-to-various-bodies/). He noted that they needed to do an e-vote for seven days.
FY asked whether they were supposed to get all 15 votes in this second round. LL replied that if all 15 votes are cast they can end the election early, otherwise votes are counted after 7 days.
GV said he could reopen the voting system and allow the two members who didn’t vote to cast their votes.
LL asked whether that allow somebody to change their vote. GV replied that it wouldn’t. LL noted that in that case it would not be a runoff, but simply an extension of the first round.
WW said they should start over from scratch, as some people might want to change their votes and they might even get fewer votes.
FY commented that this was an interesting case and that they may have a procedural issue.
LL replied that they’d need to deal with the procedural issue separate from the issue they had at the moment – the need for a separate runoff election.
JS suggested tabling the topic at least until the end of the call, as this sounds like a new business item.
WW moved to recognize that, because they had ended up with a tie in the first round of e-vote, according to procedure they’re going to a second round with the same candidates for 7 days with the option to close the voting early if all 15 votes are cast, including potential abstentions
JS objected, saying he didn’t think such a motion was needed as, according to procedure, they can have a second round.
AS noted that GV’s email had mentioned procedure No. 9 (runoff election will be held in case of a tie) and asked whether this was this only for NomCom, for chair and co-chair of AC, etc. JS replied that his was the procedure to appoint members to various bodies. AS seconded JS’s response that they didn’t need the motion.
WW said he now agreed with JS and asked GV, as soon as the e-vote was available, to please send individual alerts to the 15 members telling them that they need to vote.
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.
GV noted that the system was already set, so they should expect something by tomorrow.
LL said when he sent the request to vote he would ask people to vote early so that if there’s an issue they have time to work it out.
7.- ICANN Board Election 2016
LL noted that GV had sent a suggested timeline to the list and made some changes based on suggestions received as feedback. He added that the only major change was that they had extended the interview period so they could include an ICANN meeting. He commented they could send out announcement around 20th May 2016 or earlier if due diligence was concluded early.
LL proceeded to read the current suggested timeline. The nomination phase would be opening on September 28th, so they should be adopting this schedule or something very similar today.
ME noted that 13th March was mentioned as Sunday and Friday (it’s actually a Sunday). He said they should make sure the 30-60 day periods are respected.
After further discussion, AS moved to accept the suggested calendar with the minor change proposed by ME (change Friday to Sunday for March 13), writing out the year as four digits instead of two.
ME seconded the motion. No abstentions or voices against were heard, so the motion carried.
Action item 150902-04: GV to send a message to the community informing that the nomination phase for the ICANN Board election will open on 28th September 2015, post the calendar on the website and a link to our procedure.
LL observed that the only AOB that had been brought up so far was about the possibility of changing the procedure for the runoff.
At JS’s suggestion, it was decided that, if anyone had suggestions, they could send them to the mailing list and include this as an agenda item for the next ASO AC meeting. FY will send an email to the list in this sense.
ME proposed the following AOB: He currently has no sponsored travel to ICANN Dublin and therefore can’t attend the 2015 Leadership Training Program. He added that perhaps someone else might use the spot.
AS mentioned he’d be heading to Dublin.
LL suggested taking the Leadership item to the mailing list to give everyone a chance to participate.
FY brought up another AOB related to Action Item 150805-03. She said she’d like some direction on the action item, adding that her part of coordinating with LL was done.
LL asked whether anybody was opposed to him sending an email to Naresh thanking him for his participation and letting them know that Ajay is the new person (just as an administrative task by the chair).
AS noted that Naresh would be coming to the APNIC meeting next week, so whoever is there could talk to him.
LL said he’d delay his message by one week.
There being no further business to discuss, DK moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by FA. No objections were heard and the meeting was adjourned at meeting was closed at 14.06 UTC.
Last modified on 29/01/2020