ASO AC Teleconference 8 November 2017

ASO AC Teleconference
8 November 2017
Minutes

Attendees

AFRINIC
Fiona Asonga (FA)
Omo Oaiya (OO)

APNIC
Tomohiro Fujisaki (TF)
Aftab Siddiqui (AS)

ARIN
Kevin Blumberg (KB)
Louie Lee (LL)
Jason Schiller (JS)

LACNIC
Ricardo Patara (RP) – Vice-Chair
Jorge Villa (JV)

RIPE NCC
Nurani Nimpuno (NN)
Filiz Yilmaz (FY) – Chair

Observers

AFRINIC
Alan Barrett (AB)

APNIC
Adam Gosling (AG)

ARIN
Nate Davis (ND)
Sean Hopkins (SH)

RIPE NCC
Herve Clement (HC)

ICANN
Ron da Silva (RdS)
Akinori Maemura (AM)
Carlos Reyes (CR)

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

Apologies
Brajesh Jain (BJ)
Hartmut Glaser (HG)
Douglas Onyango (DO)
Wilfred Woeber (WW)

Agenda
0. Welcome
1. Roll call
2. Agenda review
3. Approval of minutes
a. October 11 2017
4. Review open actions
5. Empowered Community Sub-Group Topics
6. ASO Independent Review process
7. Meeting and Travel Policy and ASO Procedures
8. End of Year Review
9. 2018 Work Plan
10. AOB
11. Adjourn

0. Welcome

FY welcomed everyone to the call. She welcomed Hervé Clément, observer, who will be joining the ASO AC in January as the RIPE region’s representative, replacing Wilfried Woeber.

1. Roll Call

GV went through the attendee list and declared quorum.

2. Agenda Review

FY outlined the agenda and asked for any additions or changes. There were none.

3. Approval of Minutes

a. October 11 2017

Motion to approve: KB. Motion seconded: TF. There were no objections. Minutes approved.

FY asked GV to publish the minutes.

4. Review open actions

Action Item 20171011-01: ASO AC to read all the recommendations relating to ASO AC procedures and develop ideas and come prepared for next meeting. ASO AC to also keep track of conversations happening in each respective region and report back to the ASO AC to ensure a global overview.

Action: CLOSED.

Action Item 20171011-02: GV to communicate information about the NRO EC’s plans, timelines, actions and next steps for addressing the recommendations in the ASO Review. GV to also ask the NRO EC to communicate information on each specific recommendation as it has it, rather than waiting for a complete overview to be ready.

Action: CLOSED.

Action Item 20171011-03: ASO AC to share input for questions to ask the ICANN Board at ICANN 60 by 13 October.

Action: CLOSED.

Action Item 20171011-04: GV to ask the NRO EC/legal team to work with CR to get clarification on whether the diversity requirements for the ICANN board as outlined in Section 7.5 of the ICANN Bylaws apply to the ASO AC or effect the ASO AC’s procedures.

GV noted that he had raised this with the NRO EC. He needs full NRO EC approval to engage with the legal team and is waiting for this.

Action: OPEN.

Action Item 20171011-05: CR to follow up with staff regarding requests going to individual ASO AC members. Requests should go to the Chair.

CR noted that he had reminded ICANN that all communication to the ASO AC should go through the Chair rather than individual members.

Action: CLOSED.

Action Item 20170906-01: KB and ASO AC subgroup on ICANN EC. Confirm to the ASO AC if they need to take further action on the Good Faith Guidelines and/or whether it would require legal advice from the NRO EC.

Action: CLOSED.

Action item 20170412-02: GV and JS to conduct another mock up election with different scenarios, for example, where there is close competition between candidates.

GV noted that he would use colours to test close competition between candidates.

NN said as long as the mock up tests a close-run competition, it does not matter what is used as an example.

FY noted that, as this test needs to be carried out prior to the elections, it should be completed as soon as possible.

Action: OPEN.

Action item 20170503-04: Reminder for the AC to consider the status of observers for further discussion in NN’s thread. [TABLED]. “we were waiting for the ITEMS review, and because of lack of discussion. We should resolve this prior to next ASO AC face-to-face”. [TABLED]

FY suggested that this action be removed, as it now falls under the ongoing discussion on the ASO Review Recommendations.

NN agreed.

Action: CLOSED.

Action Item 20161012-06: FY to Prepare Discussion Points on Grey Areas of Responsibilities between the ASO AC and the NRO EC. [TABLED]

FY suggested that this action be removed, as it is now falls under the ongoing discussion on the ASO Review Recommendations.

KB agreed.

Action: CLOSED.

5. Empowered Community Sub-Group Topics

KB explained that there is concern among the ASO AC about the coverage offered to ASO AC representatives in case of lawsuits or legal action resulting from their ASO AC work. He noted that he was purposely not using the word indemnification anymore, which is the terminology that is used by ICANN. He outlined the Subgroup’s recommendation on how to move forward while the issue of coverage is further discussed:

1. Recommendation to ASO AC to suggest a change to the NRO EC Interim Empowered Community Procedures
i. The Subgroup believes, that based on the review from the legal team, that it will not be possible for the ASO AC to participate in the EC process until coverage concerns are addressed. This is problematic as the NRO EC interim procedures require ASO AC participation. As such, our recommendation is to modify any task in those procedures and amend “Where procedures from the ASO AC exist,”. This will fix a stalemate with the procedures, as it specifies we must be consulted, but we are unable to do so without procedures, and allow the ASO AC to move forward and adopt new procedures if it is established that there is adequate indemnification support.

KB noted that this option would give the ASO AC time to investigate the issue of coverage. It does not block the Empowered Community procedures, and enables the NRO EC follow its interim procedures. He added that, during the informal F2F meeting at ICANN 60, there seemed to be support from the ASO AC representatives and NRO EC members present.

NN agreed.

2. Draft Procedures Report

i. The draft procedures as circulated, are considered by the subgroup to be complete and functional for the intended purpose. At this time no open action items or concerns are before the subgroup save for the overarching indemnification question. The procedures allow for individual members of the ASO AC council to recuse themselves, without impacting the operation of the procedures. However the recusal option, in itself is not enough, as the intent was not for the majority of the ASO AC to use. It would not be advisable to recommend implementation of the procedures, until such time as the question of coverage is resolved. The subgroup recommends holding the procedures until the concerns raised are satisfied by the ASO AC.

KB explained that Subgroup believes that the procedures as written are workable but that they should be put on hold until the question of coverage has been addressed satisfactorily. He noted that the draft procedures could be revisited after the Subgroup’s six month Charter review occurs.

JS reiterated that the procedures should be put on hold and not implemented as part of the operating procedures until the legal questions have been adequately addressed.

FY asked about the process for this proposed solution.

KB noted that the NRO EC Interim Empowered Community Procedures would need to be changed. The ASO AC Chair, with the support of the ASO AC, should make a recommendation to the NRO EC that this change be implemented. He added that if this proposed change to the Interim Procedures is not accepted by the NRO EC, then there is deadlock.

FY noted that during the informal F2F meeting at ICANN 60, both AP and AB agreed in principle with this proposed change. The ASO AC now needs to send an official note to the NRO EC.

NEW Action Item 20171108-01: KB to draft a response from the ASO AC to the NRO EC proposing a change to the NRO EC Interim Empowered Community Procedures. The response will be circulated on the mailing list by 12 November. The ASO AC will have 2-3 days to comment or raise objections.

FY asked KB to keep the ASO AC informed of the Subgroup’s progress. She asked the Secretariat to ensure that an agenda item on this is included in subsequent ASO AC teleconferences.

NEW Action Item 20171108-02: KB to provide status report on the Subgroup’s progress during the next ASO AC Teleconference.

FY thanked KB and the Subgroup for its hard work.

6. ASO Independent Review process

FY explained that the NRO EC had sent a draft response on the ASO Review Recommendations and thanked the NRO EC for this. She noted that she had forwarded this to the ASO AC on 30 October and added this was not the NRO EC’s final response: another draft would be circulated at a later date. She said that this initial response from the NRO EC gives the ASO AC a good base to add the ASO AC’s input on the Recommendations.

FY continued that it seemed that most of the ASO AC members were comfortable with all the initial responses to the Recommendations. She put an action on herself to draft responses to Recommendations 9 and 10.

NEW Action Item 20171108-03: FY will draft responses to Recommendation # 9: The ASO AC should implement term limits for the positions of Chair and Vice-Chair and Recommendation # 10: The ASO AC should ensure that the duties of the Address Council Chair and the Address Council Vice-Chairs need to be added to the ASO

AC Operating Procedures, and send to the ASO AC mailing list.

JS said that he was very happy with how the meeting during ICANN 60 went: the NRO EC should have everything it needs to incorporate the ASO AC’s initial comments into the draft.

AB believed that the NRO EC has all that it needs to move ahead: the ASO AC should expect another draft from NRO EC in due course.

FY noted that it should be clear to the NRO EC that when it sends the next draft, the ASO AC may have further comments and want to make edits. She asked for suggestions on how to move forward with getting the ASO AC’s responses drafted.

JS suggested starting with the Recommendations that are marked for the ASO AC to consider and discuss a few during each meeting.

NN suggested starting with the simpler Recommendations so that some progress can be made quickly: some Recommendations, such as opening mailing list archives and meetings to the public, will require more discussion.

KB disagreed: he thought it might be beneficial to tackle the issue of openness first so people can see how the ASO AC is working.

FY suggested the discussion is continued in the A.O.B section if time allows
There was agreement.

7. Meeting and Travel Policy and ASO Procedures

FY explained that, in 2018, there are three ICANN meetings, each with a different format: ICANN 61 in March, ICANN 62 in June and ICANN 63 in October. She asked the ASO AC to discuss which meeting the 2018 F2F should be held at.

GV gave an overview of the Travel Policy. In general, the travel policy associated with the RIR that each member represents applies: some RIRs support all three members, some two and others only one depending on the event and location. However, for the annual ASO AC F2F meeting, all three ASO AC members will be supported to attend. The Chair’s travel is supported by the NRO.

KB said that he thought that the first ICANN meeting of each year was the default choice for ASO AC meetings. He said he did not think it was a good idea to wait until October: the F2F should take place as soon as possible. He asked about the impact on the election process if the F2F does not occur during the first meeting of the year.

NN said the F2F should not take place during the June meeting, as it’s focused on policy and there is little relevant content for the ASO. She agreed with KB that it makes sense to hold the F2F during the first meeting of the year.

FA noted that the first meeting of the year is the Community Forum. As the ASO is expected to interact and engage with the community, it could be helpful to have most of our ASO AC representatives there.

FY agreed and noted that the ASO AC seemed to be converging towards holding its F2F during ICANN 61 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, 10 – 15 March 2018.

8. End of Year Review

FY asked for a volunteer to draft the ASO AC End of Year Review.

RP volunteered.

NEW Action Item 20171108-04: RP to draft the End of Year Review in time for discussion during the next ASO AC teleconference on 6 December.

9. 2018 Work Plan

FY asked for a volunteer to draft the 2018 Work Plan.

LL volunteered.

NEW Action Item 20171108-05: LL to draft the 2018 Work Plan in time for discussion during the ASO AC teleconference in 2018 [date tbc].

10. AOB

a) Elections, nominations and the QRC

GV gave an overview of the progress on nominations: the nomination period ends on 17 December. Self-nominations are allowed. He noted that two nominations had been received so far: he will send a note to each RIR to send a reminder to their communities.

GV noted that ARIN’s representative on the QRC has changed: LL will replace KB who has stepped down.

FY asked what is expected from the QRC.

GV explained that the QRC has been receiving the nominations as they arrive. There is currently an open question regarding which region one potential candidate represents and this is being examined.

KB noted that the reason for his request to remove himself was that he had not been involved with the QRC before and thought it better to have someone familiar with processes on board so that the QRC could work more efficiently.

FY thanked KB for his work and thanked LL for stepping in.

b) ASO Recommendations

The ASO AC discussed Recommendation # 15: ASO AC meetings should be open to the public, except for discussions regarding the selection of individuals for ICANN roles and Recommendation # 16: For its internal communications, and for most matters related to the operations of the ASO, the ASO should favour the use of a publicly archived mailing list. In exceptional circumstances, for issues (e.g. Board appointments) that cannot be discussed in public, a non-publicly archived list should be used.

KB noted that there was a lot of discussion in the Subgroup on how ‘real time’ a mailing list should be. He continued that he believed that mailing lists should be open but that there should be a delay: it is not appropriate for observers to see what is going on in real time and try to intervene.

KB added that if the mailing list was to be made public, there is information that absolutely must not go out to the public so there should be a separate, private list. It should also be clear what is not being included in the public list. For meetings, he said that he was happy for people to observe on a listen-only basis.

JS said that he agreed with KB regarding real time mailing list access. However, he noted that he believed it is useful to be able to ask observers for information and clarifications during meetings: today AB was asked for his input and that was valuable. Observers usually understand that they are observers unless called upon.

NN noted that, in general, there should be transparency and openness where possible. For meetings, she believed that the F2F meetings should be kept open with a closed section to discuss confidential items. She added that the ASO AC meeting minutes are very detailed and public and perhaps people are not aware of this: most of the stuff the ASO AC does is not particularly interesting and there is no need to keep it private.

NN continued that opening the mailing list to the public would mean that the ASO AC would need to change its behaviour: the ASO AC is very open on the mailing list and has tried to push for closer collaboration with the NRO EC. With a private mailing list, the ASO AC is able share draft documents and invite the NRO

EC to share its drafts too. She added that if the mailing list were made public, there would need to be a separate mailing list that is closed for confidential conversations.

JS noted that if the mailing list is to be made public, the ASO AC should only make the content public as of the decision date: content that predates the decision should not be made public. He asked what would be a sufficient delay in publication if the mailing list were to be delayed: 30 days, one year?

KB said that even if the mailing list were made public, there would still need to be a way for the ASO AC to continue to receive draft documents and to have private discussions.

AS noted that he thought there would be no point in opening up the mailing list at all: the ASO AC discusses confidential things on the list so there is always a reason to keep it private. He added that the ASO AC minutes are made public and there is only a one-month delay in their publication. He suggested that meetings are opened to the public for 30 minutes and then closed so that private business can be discussed.

NN agreed with AS. She said that when she read the recommendations, the reviewers talked about the spirit of openness and transparency: they don’t mention the minutes. She thought perhaps the review team were not aware that detailed meeting minutes are made public and suggested that the minutes are made more accessible. She added that when people can’t find information there is a perception that there is a lack of transparency. She suggested that an agenda could perhaps be published in advance so that people could see what’s being discussed. She added that opening up the F2F meetings during the ICANN meetings would help the perception of transparency and enable the ASO AC to interact with the community.

FA agreed with AS and NN: parts of the ASO AC meetings should be open. Other SO/ACs have both closed and open sessions. She added that being transparent does not mean that everything is public. She suggested that the mailing list should remain closed. She also suggested that the ASO AC should discuss all the related mailing lists, some of which have been inactive for years, and decide which ones should be open or closed.

FY said that bringing more visibility to the ASO AC’s work would help to further increase transparency and it is also part of the Empowered Community to communicate more effectively. She noted that more discussion is needed on this but that there is agreement that things need to be more open. She asked the Secretariat to add this as an agenda item for the next meeting.

NEW Action Item 20171108-06: FY to create a list of activities/information that could be made public and those that should remain private and send it to the mailing list for discussion during the next ASO AC teleconference on 6 December.

11. Adjourn

Motion to adjourn: NN. Seconded by FA. Meeting adjourned at 13:40 (UTC).

Last modified on 29/01/2020