ASO AC Teleconference 2 May 2018

ASO AC Teleconference
2 May 2018



Fiona Asonga (FA)
Noah Maina (NM)

Aftab Siddiqui (AS) – Chair
Brajesh Jain (BJ)

Louie Lee (LL)
Jason Schiller (JS)

Hartmut Glaser (HG)
Ricardo Patara (RO) – Vice Chair
Jorge Villa (JV)

Hervé Clément (HC)
Nurani Nimpuno (NN)
Filiz Yilmaz (FY)

German Valdez (GV) – Executive Secretary
Susannah Gray (SG) – Scribe

Henri Kasyfi (HK)
Kevin Blumberg (KB) – Vice Chair
Omo Oaiya (OO)


0. Welcome
1. Agenda Review
2. Review of Open Action Items
3. Approval of Minutes
4. CCWG S2 Final Report
5. 2019 ICANN Seat Election
6. ICANN 62 ASO Participation
7. Reports
8. Any Other Business
9. Adjournment

0. Welcome

AS welcomed the attendees. GV performed the roll call and declared quorum.

1. Agenda Review

No agenda items were added or removed.

2. Review of Open Action Items

• Action Item 20180313-1: FA and JV to provide an update on the CCWG Accountability WS2 activities during the April ASO AC Teleconference.


• Action Item 20180313-2: GV to ask the NRO EC whether the ASO AC or the ASO (i.e. the NRO EC) should formally comment on the CCWG Accountability WS2 Report, due to be opened for comment on 12 April.

GV noted that this was discussed in the recent NRO EC teleconference. The NRO would like to see the ASO AC’s report on the CCWG Accountability WS2 recommendations before making any response.


• Action Item 20180313-3: CR to extract the timelines that apply to the ASO AC as noted in the ICANN Bylaws Election Procedures.

CR noted that AS and KB did most of the work on this action item. He noted that the ICANN Legal team has the information and so the action item is complete.

AS noted that a new document has been published by ICANN for public comment: Proposed Uniform Board Member Integrity Screening Process. The due diligence process outlined in this document would increase the due diligence timeline to 2-4 months, which would mean the ASO AC would need to start its process a year and a half in advance to comply with this proposed timeline.

CR noted that the document is still in comment phase and the Board would consider the next steps once the comment period is over.

New Action Item 20180502-1: CR to contact the ICANN Legal team regarding the due diligence process outlined in the Proposed Uniform Board Member Integrity Screening Process to see how it might impact the ASO/ASO AC.

• Action Item 20180313-4: AS to add Annual Review of Appointments to ICANN to the ASO AC Work Plan.

AS proposed that the following draft text be discussed with a view to adding it to #14 of the ASO AC Procedures:

“14. Review all the appointments ASO-AC made to different ICANN committees and working groups:
1. ASO-AC reviews that there are sufficient grounds for an appointment to continue and also check with the appointee if he/she wants to continue as well otherwise appoint a new candidate.
2. Define term for each appointment and review the terms.”

New Action Item 20180502-2: AS to circulate draft text on Annual Review of Appointments to ICANN to the mailing list for comment.

• Action Item 20180313-5: JV to inform the LAC-2018-1 proposer that the ASO AC discussed the proposal and seeks further information about it. The ASO AC is also seeking clarification on if and how he wishes to proceed with the proposal through the global PDP.

RP explained that the author of the LAC-2018-1 proposal had presented it during the LACNIC 29 policy forum. Mixed feelings were heard from the community: there were some comments in favour and some very strong comments against, noting that there is no problem to solve and that the proposal is too vague.

RP continued that the Public Policy Forum Chair decided not to request a show of hands to gauge support but gave the author the mic so he could ask for opinions. RP noted that he and JV approached the author after the session for more information. The author then noted that he had not abandoned the proposal but wanted to get more feedback on it before continuing and did not consider it a global policy proposal at this time.

RP also noted that the author had mentioned that he thought the proposal should be raised within ICANN because of the ICP-2: Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries. RP added that, as it is still not clear whether there is support for the proposal in the LACNIC region, there would not be much progress in the near future. The ASO AC does not have to consider this as a global policy proposal at this time as the author doesn’t have a clear view how to formalise his idea yet.

JV noted that the author had also asked if there was any other forum that could be used for such a proposal, aside from the GPDP.

AS noted that the ASO AC should not offer any comment on this.

NN was concerned that the author had mentioned raising the proposal at ICANN: is the author unclear on how to proceed because he doesn’t know how the GPDP works and what the role of ASO AC is?

RP noted that the author had mentioned raising the issue at ICANN outside of the Policy Forum during informal conversation. The author mentioned the possibility of starting an ICANN consultation to update the ICP2, as it’s currently a barrier to setting up a new RIR in regions where an RIR already exists. RP noted that he had informally advised the author that it might not be appropriate to raise this issue in an ICANN forum until it had been further discussed in the RIR forums.

AS noted concern that the author had stated, on the mic, that the ASO AC is helping him with this proposal. He asked the LACNIC representatives to confirm that this had been corrected publicly.

RP confirmed that JV had corrected this and outlined the GPDP process on the mic.

JS asked if the proposal is not being considered as a global policy proposal because it does not meet the criteria or because the proposer says so.

RP noted that the author does not want it labeled as a global policy at this time as he would like to gather more feedback.

AS asked if an author was able to decide whether something was a global policy or not.

JS noted that he had no objection but this is not what is written in the procedures. While the proposal is not far enough along in the process to be considered a proposal in the LACNIC region, if it does move forward for consideration, it should be considered a global policy as it meets the criteria by asking the IANA to take action.

RP suggested that the ASO AC Chair sends a mail to the author summarising the ASO AC’s discussion, noting that the ASO AC does not see LAC-2018-1 as a global policy proposal at this moment.

New Action Item 20180502-3: JV to draft a proposed note to the author of LAC-2018-1 and circulate to the Policy Proposal Facilitator Team (PPFT) for comment, then to the ASO AC for the ASO AC Chair to send.


• Action Item 20180313-6: AS to send a mail to clarify who will be present at ICANN 62 and ask for volunteers to work on comparing and aligning the GPDP processes as outlined in the MoU Attachment A and the ASO AC operating procedures (Recommendations #6 and #7).

FA, KB and BJ will attend ICANN 62. BJ noted that he would be focused on NomCom work during the meeting.

New Action Item 20180502-4: GV to finalise list of ASO AC members attending the ICANN 62 meeting.


• Action Item 20180313-7: All to review the proposed text for the duties for ASO AC Chair and Vice Chair and suggest improvements before the next ASO AC meeting.

AS explained that he had made some edits to the text relating to the roles of the ASO AC Chair and Vice Chair as discussed during the F2F meeting in Puerto Rico. There was concern about the use of the words ambassador, focal point and point of contact. He noted he had edited the text and asked the ASO AC for feedback.

New Action Item 20180502-5: All to review the proposed draft text for the roles of the ASO AC Chair and Vice Chair and provide feedback.

3. Approval of Minutes

RP proposed the motion to approve the minutes from the 4 April 2018 ASO AC Teleconference. HC seconded the motion. There were no objections. AS asked the Secretariat to publish the minutes on the ASO AC website.

4. CCWG Accountability S2 Final Report

JV noted that he had sent the report on relevant recommendations from the CCWG Accountability WS2 Final Report. There are nine topics in the report but only the following four are relevant to the ASO: Diversity, Guidelines for standards of conduct presumed to be in good faith associated with exercising removal of individual ICANN Board Directors (Guidelines for Good Faith), SO/AC Accountability, and Transparency.

He added that the recommendations highlighted in the Final Report are guidelines and the ASO does not have to fulfill all of the requirements as some may be out of scope as decisions are made at the RIR level. He noted that the guidelines outlined in the SO/AC accountability and Transparency might have already been addressed in the recent ASO Review.

AS noted that for the Diversity guidelines, the ASO AC cannot act, as this is a matter for each RIR. Regarding Good Faith, the ASO AC can only provide feedback to NRO EC as the NRO EC Secretary is the ASO’s Empowered Community Representative. He added that he is not sure that the guidelines are related to the ASO AC. Comments should be made on the Report but they should be made by the NRO EC.

FA agreed. The ASO AC does not have the mandate to exercise the implementation of the Diversity requirements. As the ASO AC appointees come through the communities, it is up to the NRO EC to respond to these recommendations/guidelines.

JS also agreed: if Diversity, for example, needs to be addressed, it needs to be done so at a regional level. He believed that in the Final Report, ICANN is referring to the policy-making community and the requirements need to be addressed by those communities. The ASO/NRO are not ICANN policy-making bodies so the requirements do not apply.

AS noted that the ASO AC should wait for the NRO EC to respond to the ASO AC Report on the WS2 Final Report.

FA noted that after the comment period has ended, WS2 will continue meeting regularly to consolidate public comments and issue its last report: there is still some work to be done.

AS thanked FA and JV for their work and asked them to keep the ASO AC updated on progress.

5. 2019 ICANN Seat Election

AS noted that he would circulate the proposed timeline for the 2019 election for comment.

6. ICANN 62 ASO Participation

This item was already discussed under Action Item 20180313-6.

7. Reports


AS noted that JC had sent a note regarding the ASO Consultations in the ARIN region, which was a good indication of how the discussion is progressing in that region.

HC said that he had attended the recent ARIN 41 meeting and noted that the community had seemed interested by the issue and had asked questions about the role of the ASO AC and had discussed its importance.

AS asked if there was any discussion on the Consultations planned for the upcoming RIPE Meeting.

NN noted that there would be a session on the ASO Consultations at RIPE 76 and that RIPE NCC staff rather than the ASO AC were driving it at this point.

8. Any Other Business

• ICANN NomCom Update

BJ noted that the application process closed on 26 March and an intercessional meeting was held from 6-8 April in Washington D.C. A shortlist of candidates was created and the interview phase was underway. By mid May, a final short list would be ready and those candidates would attend face-to-face meetings during ICANN 62.

• Board Seat 9 Elections

RdS thanked the ASO AC for its decision to re-elect him to Seat 9. He noted that he was exited to be representing the numbers community on behalf of the ASO AC again and was looking forward to strengthening the link between the Numbers and the Names communities.
AS thanked RdS for his excellent work during his previous term and for his willingness to continue in the role.

• Quorum issues.

NN noted that, as there were issues gaining quorum at the beginning of the call, she’d like to propose a way forward to try to avoid quorum issues in future. She proposed: “If all three ASO AC representatives from a particular region are unable to attend an ASO AC meeting, they can specifically request that the meeting be rescheduled, 24hrs before the start of the meeting. Unless such a rescheduling request has been received, a quorum of 4 regions will be accepted for the ASO AC meeting to proceed.”

New Action Item 20180502-6: NN to circulate proposed text for adjusting quorum guidelines and meeting rescheduling procedures.

AS agreed that the ASO AC should discuss the issue of lack of quorum blocking the ASO AC’s work, and noted that FY had raised this issue a couple of times as Chair last year. He thought it necessary that a solution was found so that the ASO AC could continue its activities in the event of lack of quorum. He also asked that all ASO AC members are respectful to the commitment that each representative makes to attend the calls: for some representatives it’s a very early start or a very late evening.

JS wondered if there needed to be more flexibility in rescheduling cancelled meetings: the current procedures note that if a meeting is cancelled then the procedures for a Special Meeting come into effect.

FA noted that the AFRINIC Meeting is in progress and that NM is giving training courses, which may have delayed his connection to the call. She apologized for delaying the meeting at the start and noted that, in future, a reschedule request would be submitted if there were issues getting an AFRINIC representative on the call in a timely manner.

NM noted that he had RSVP-ed and had joined the call: however he was late as he had trouble connecting.

9. Adjournment

Motion to adjourn: BJ. Seconded by HC. Meeting adjourned at 13:06 UTC.

Last modified on 29/01/2020