ASO AC FACE TO FACE MEETING
30 June 2016
ASO AC Attendees
Fiona Asonga, FA
Mark Elkins, ME
John Sweeting, JSw
Jason Schiller, Jsc
Louie Lee, Chair
Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Aftab Siddiqui, AS
Jorge Villa, JV
Ricardo Patara, RP
Hartmut Glaser, HG
Filiz Yilmaz, FY
Nurani Nimpuno, NN
Wilfried Woeber, WW
Susan Hamlin (ARIN Staff)
Sean Hopkins (ARIN Staff, Scribe)
German Valdez, GV
AFRINIC Alan Barrett, AB
ARIN Michael Abejuela, MAb
APNIC Craig Ng, CN Tony Smith, TS
RIPE NCC Athina Fragkouli (ASO liaison to CCWG) AF Axel Pawlik, AP
Izumi Okutani (JPNIC, ASO Liaison from CCWG), IO
Ron da Silva, (ICANN Board) RS
Lito Ibarra, (ICANN Board), LI Akinori Maemura (ICANN Board), AM Kuo-Wei Wu (ICANN Board), KW
Douglas Onyango, DO (AFRINIC)
Ajay Kumar, AK (APNIC)
1. Agenda Review
2. Review of Open Action Items
3. Approval of June ASO AC Minutes
4. IANA Accountability Update
5. CCWG Work Stream 2 Work
6. IANA Transition and SLA Update
7. ICANN Board Elections and Reflections on the Process
8. ICANN Board Members Update
9. NRO Update
10. NOMCOM Update
11: ICANN 57 Planning
12. Any Other Business
0. Welcome. The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:16 AM. The presence of quorum was noted.
1. Agenda Review. The Chair reviewed the agenda and called comments. WW requested a re-cap of the after-hours meeting that was held on Monday, regarding RDAP/new Whois, HG requested a discussion of the 2017 Nomination Committee, as the new representative would need to attend the ICANN 57 meeting in Hyderabad. The Chair agreed to add these items to Any Other Business. The Chair called for further comments. There were no further comments.
2. Review of Open Action Items.
Action Item 20151209-03: GV to work with JSc on consolidating the ASO AC’s Operating Procedures into one document.
GV stated that the document is undergoing updates since the last election, but work on this action item will resume thereafter. JSc asked that the action item be tabled until edits to the procedures have been completed. The Chair agreed.
Action Item 20160210-03: Chair to request NRO EC update to the ASO AC directly, with reports regarding progress of the new gTLD drafting team.
The Chair stated that Sylvia Cadena was appointed by the NRO EC, and that AK was appointed by the ASO AC in March. He stated that further updates should be coming from AK directly, and that he would reach out to AK, as an action item.
NEW: 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 20160302-03: Chair to find out the status of the Public Safety WG with regard to WHOIS accuracy.
The Chair stated that Bobby Flaim contacted on this matter, and at this stage the Public Safety Working Group would like to propose Whois accuracy policies in all regions. The Chair, JSc, TF, Craig, and AS advised the Public Safety Working Group on who to reach out to in each region, but the working group will need follow up on their overall goals.
JSc stated that these policies will be five separate policies, not one globally coordinated policy. JSc noted that these regional policies will need authors. The Chair stated that it is not the ASO AC’s duty to author regional policy but individual members could work with the Public Safety Working Group on their own. FY stated that a proposal may not be required for the RIPE NCC and that this may be able to be handled on a service level with NCC services and coordination with RIPE NCC staff. WW stated that he would also want to be involved. JSc stated that authors were directed to work with RIR staff and legal departments to gauge feasibility of enforcement.
Action Item 20160302-04: Chair to send an email to the AC’s list regarding participation record on ASO website, so that all members are aware of it.
The Chair stated that this has been sent. GV stated that the related information would be published over the next few days. CLOSED
Action Item 20160601-01: GV to post final draft of 02 March 2016 and 16 April 2016 and remove ‘Draft’ from each set of minutes.
GV stated that this has been completed. CLOSED Action Item 20160601-02: GV to compile a list of the AC attendees to the ASO AC Face-to-Face meeting in Helsinki to include any observers. GV stated that this has been completed. CLOSED
Action Item 20160601-03: AC to compile a list of items for the WG Chair to incorporate into the agenda for the ICANN Accountability session.
The Chair stated that this was not completed, as it had been overtaken by events. CLOSED
3. Approval of June ASO AC Minutes. TF asked if Minutes existed for the ASO AC’s May teleconference. GV explained that due to the discussion of active candidates for the ICANN Board, the meeting had not been minuted.
NEW: Action Item 20160630-02: GV to publish a record of the ASO AC May Teleconference explaining why had not been minuted.
It was moved by JSw, seconded by HG, that: ”The ASO AC approves the Minutes of 01 June 2016, as written.” The motion carried with no objections.
NEW: Action Item 20160630-03: GV to post the ASO AC June Minutes as final. CN joined the meeting at this time (9:30 a.m. local time)
FA joined the meeting at this time (9:33 a.m. local time)
4. IANA Accountability Update. IO stated that work has been divided into two streams to better line up with IANA stewardship transition timelines. The focus of Work Stream 2 is on long-term accountability. Work Stream 2 began on Sunday, and has been divided into two segments, one for light topics and one for heavy topics. Light topics should be finalized by the time the ICANN 58 meeting is held. Heavy topics will require an additional three months, with the goal being completion by June 2017.
Major issues were brainstormed, such as ICANN’s jurisdiction and legal arrangement, diversity, ICANN Board accountability, transparency, and coordinating work with the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3). With regard to Jurisdiction, some are in favor of ICANN Bylaws stating that its incorporation is in the United States. Work Stream 1’s proposal does not clarify that point, however other sections in the Bylaws make it clear. The ASO should review ICANN’s jurisdiction to see if it is as good as it should be. IO believed that, while it is not relevant to ASO AC directly, they should observe progress to ensure the focus remains on track.
With regard to the ASO AC’s accountability, we are looking into how to prevent rogue voting if an SO or AC representative does not vote as expected. We brainstormed possibilities for SOs and ACs reaching out to stakeholders and explaining how they represent their constituencies, and it may be a good idea to document more practices. We are only observing, at this stage, to make sure nothing affects us in an undesirable way.
With regard to diversity, we are considering gender, regional, opinion-based, and discussion language diversity. The ATRT3 will begin work in 2017, with some issues being raised that will overlap with Work Stream 2 issues. ATRT3 does not need to complete work for 5 years. IO suggested that perhaps Work Stream 2 could complete it’s work first, and allow ASO representatives on ATRT3 to coordinate what remains to avoid duplication.
5. CCWG Work Stream 2 Work. AF stated that Work Stream 2 will take on a lot of work over the next year. The jurisdiction discussion is dependent upon scope. If ICANN’s incorporation is included, the ASO AC may take interest, otherwise little involvement should be needed. Accountability discussion scope is undefined. AF suggested that the ASO AC define any accountability matters they already have in place to avoid irrelevant requirements being added. The ASO has new roles and powers that will need to be defined. With regard to diversity, how it works for the numbers community may not be clear to others, and there is a trend of requirements being added. We should describe how we design diversity.
FA stated that the CCWG Co-Chairs will reach out to individual organizations about Work Stream 2 and ATRT3, and work on Work Stream 2 should be completed first.
The Chair stated that he would advocate for Work Stream 2 to be completed before ATRT3 begins.
MAb stated that contentious items from Work Stream 1 could be reintroduced, as Work Stream 2 work may affect the review of what the NTIA deems acceptable. We should avoid any Work Stream 2 discussions bleeding back into the completed work of Work Stream 1. The Chair noted that MAb is Work Stream 2’s newest group member. JSc asked that the Chair respond to the NRO EC about Work Stream 2 and ATRT3, and to please share their response.
NEW: 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.
NN stated that more clarity and documentation is needed for the ICANN community with regard to the differences between the ASO, ASO AC, NRO EC, and other SOs, and how each are impacted by different processes. NN asked that the ASO AC document this to support the CCWG.
AF noted that the ASO AC’s scope is clear, but with new powers and undocumented procedures, coordinating to gather and present them with any issues flagged would be a good idea. NN stated that it is the role of the ASO AC to support in that regard.
FA stated that for ASO AC transparency and accountability, we should see how new powers trickle down to our communities, and see if the powers introduced in Work Stream 1 align. We have work to do in going back to our communities and documenting how these new powers are trickled down within each RIR, and see if the powers introduced in Work Stream 1 align or conflict.
JSc suggested the usefulness of developing a slide deck to explain the NRO, ASO, NRO EC, and ASO AC and their functions for a general plenary. In terms of documenting new powers, he suggested that it would be useful for someone to clearly document the SO’s new powers so that we could see which existing procedures apply and make sense, as well as find procedural gaps that we can fill. FA stated that the CCWG can document new powers. IO agreed, stating that a newly developed presentation documenting what the ASO AC does in terms of policy development would be helpful.
AB stated that the ASO AC’s focus is narrow in terms of policy development and ICANN Board selection.
JSc stated that while the NRO EC speaks for the RIRs collectively, the ASO AC is a representation of the community’s collective voice. FY stated that those differences can be difficult to explain, and that a presentation would be good once the ASO AC itself can define its role. AP stated that the ASO AC develops procedures for placing people on ICANN committees. FY stated that transparent communications about how that is done would be a good idea. RS stated that the ICANN bylaws define the ASO and NRO bodies but the community may not care for clarification, whereas a presentation at RIR meetings would be more helpful.
NN stated that a presentation at the plenary would be good for transparency, trust, and accountability. The CCWG is discussing accountability in the ASO and NRO and before answering their questions, the ASO AC must be clear internally on procedures and new powers. AF stated that the accountability matrix the ASO AC generated was helpful, so a presentation providing clarity would be helpful.
AB stated that ICANN may not know how to route questions to the ASO AC and other bodies. The Chair stated that if a request comes in and responsibilities are unclear, the ASO AC and other bodies can still route them accordingly, with the help of the Chairs, Vice Chairs, and the Secretariat mailing list.
WW stated that the ASO AC had undergone externally imposed mission creep, and new roles have been added without a proper chance to reflect upon them. The ASO AC should decide the roles it does and does not want to play. FY agreed, stating that initially the ASO AC intended to keep a loose eye on ICANN discussions; but, times have changed and a new strategy is required if the ASO AC does not want to end up marginalized. The CCWG accountability process was a good example of showing how well the ASO AC sticks to the mandate but doesn’t stay silent.
IO suggested that the ASO AC and NRO EC should have a joint update call and collaborate on MoU confusion and other internal procedures. ME agreed, and requested that the new responsibilities of the ASO AC be shared. IO stated that they would be shared on the ASO AC mailing list.
Suggested actions from the discussion include:
• A presentation on ASO and NRO bodies and their roles and responsibilities to be shared either at the ICANN general plenary or at individual RIR meetings;
• Documentation to fill any gaps in the MoU and fully explain any new roles, responsibilities, and powers the ASO AC has or will have; and,
• A joint teleconference between ASO AC and NRO EC members to share updates and collaborate on MoU clarity and other internal procedure documentation.
AP stated that the ASO AC should also clarify the procedures surrounding placement of people on ICANN committees, not to fully engage with ICANN policy development but to continue to improve ICANN from our position and be there for information.
The Chair agreed, stating that the ASO AC could provide insight and advice without influencing the outcome directly. FA stated that she had volunteered to Chair the Work Stream 2 group on diversity, and that there will be official communications resulting from that group. The Chair called for additional comments. There were no further comments.
6. IANA Transition and SLA Update. The Chair stated that an SLA team will be formed, hopefully with a charter and documentation in place before work begins, perhaps as a level set review.
NN stated that the SLA team should be filled as soon as possible, and that procedures for reelection and other things are forthcoming. The RIPE community asked that their ASO AC representatives be on the team. The CRISP team is done, the SLA is signed, and community work is being driven forward among communities. RIR legal teams will be starting their work on drafting licenses and agreements, and they have 2.5 months to complete it by 30 September. The work is RIR-based, no longer that of the community.
IO stated the importance of completing IPR work quickly and comprehensively, with politics in the US being unpredictable.
Chair called for additional comments. None were received. Break taken at 10:55 AM Resumed at: 11:22 AM TS joined at 11:22 AM The Chair noted that GV had just circulated the 11 May 2015 meeting notes including the roll call taken to the ASO AC’s list. The Chair requested the ASO AC review the notes.
It was moved by JSw, seconded by TF, that:
“The ASO AC approves the ASO AC meeting notes and roll call of 11 May 2016, as written.”
The motion carried with no objections.
7. ICANN Board Elections and Reflections on the Process. The Chair called for AM to speak to the ICANN Board Election process. HG suggested that discussion be kept at a high-level.
AM stated that there was a lack of timely communication for instance, on a notice on the extension of the nomination period in a timely manner, and for any other delays in the process.
The Chair requested further comment on other operational aspects. AM stated that the timing of interviews was made difficult because of the APRICOT meeting, but that the overall workload was reasonable.
The Chair called for any additional comments. FA stated that the election process was an interesting learning opportunity, and that the selection panel should follow a process more clearly for when candidates and interviewers are holding interviews and other discussions, in order to maintain mutual trust. FY stated that this was a serious issue, with implications on the interview committee and procedures. AS agreed, and requested that these issues be dealt with today, noting that moral checks are hard to integrate into a procedure.
JSc asked which procedures were not followed. FA stated that there were gaps in procedures where the selection panel had nothing to follow. The Chair called for any additional comments.
NN stated that it would help to have a job description with time commitments and responsibilities and expectations. She suggested offering any candidate the opportunity to meet with a seat 9 or 10 ICANN Board member to develop a better understanding of the expectations. Information flow could be improved, not just to the candidates but to others as well. It was good that the process was clarified with regard to ASO AC members who are candidates. It was unfortunate that the process was delayed at times without notice or rationale. Questions about RIR procedures were good and should be asked, but it was surprising that there were no questions about the ICANN Board’s work, the ICANN budget, or their recent decisions. The Chair agreed, stating that the Committee should be asking about ICANN activity both at the ICANN Board level and at the RIR level.
JSc stated that he believed the questionnaire had pointers to expectations and time commitments. NN stated that it would be better to have that information before being up for consideration, or even publicly posted. WW stated that posting it that early may result in conflicts if ICANN Board expectations change.
JSc asked if RS and AM would be willing to ask the Board for information that could be posted on the matter. HG stated that the ICANN NomCom page has a lot of relevant information. RS stated that he would agree to meet with any candidates. AM concurred, stating the he may be running in three years.
ME asked if it would be helpful for RS and AM to draft questions for the Interview Committee. NN believed that the ASO AC should really be driving interviews, but RS and AM could provide questions. RS agreed and stated that the Board has looked into formalizing this process before.
FY stated that improvements to procedures have been made, but more work needs to be done. In terms of communications, there is a direct relationship to the process and timeline. The timeline states to make a selection and, before it can be announced, it goes through ICANN due diligence, which can take a few days. Committee members are asked to keep information confidential, but the candidates may not have been asked to do the same.
HG stated that in the ICANN Nominations Committee’s (NomCom) case, nominees are given no information until the selection is final.
FY stated that candidates should be told to keep their candidacy confidential. People not subject to confidentiality have approached those who are. Candidates have also shifted their abstinence from discussion round to discussion round.
JSc stated that announcing the candidate would be harmful if the selection came back negative, but withholding specifics from candidates could help. The Chair stated that when candidates are communicated with prior to the actual announcement, confidentiality is left up to them.
WW suggested not disclosing any information to candidates, even unselected ones, and that the Committee should avoid micro-management of abstention during both rounds. The Chair stated that there should be clear direction before the ASO AC starts crafting language.
NN stated that she was informed of the results of the first round, but received no details on what information is public or private, nor did she receive any confidentiality requests on either round of votes. She was approached by other people who knew the results. The Chair asked if including confidentiality expectations in messaging would be helpful. WW agreed, stating that it should be at the beginning of the messaging.
HG noted that the NomCom has the freedom to discuss internal procedures, but does not have to report to the Board. They cannot have any contact with regard to election information, making it a good example of a strong procedure. JSw believed that the Selection Committee should not be too ‘out of step’ with the NomCom procedures.
JSc noted that there seemed to be three suggestions on the table: 1) withhold information until due diligence is done, 2) do a separate due diligence before ICANN does, or 3) continue to inform candidates, but clarify confidentiality expectations.
The Chair asked if candidates undergoing due diligence are made aware of that fact. HG stated that no one is made aware, and he suggested that the ASO AC have every candidate undergo ICANN due diligence.
ME asked if it would be possible to send a ranking of candidates to ICANN. The Chair stated that it may be too early in the process to do so. FY stated that awaiting the due diligence process is a hindrance. JSc asked if votes could be obfuscated after due diligence, should they impact ranking. HG stated that the NomCom only provides an alphabetical list of names. WW suggested not providing complete results in any form.
The Chair suggested reviewing election result announcement procedures. FY suggested publishing votes as part of transparency, and allow candidates to withdraw if they do not make it through due diligence. Jsc asked if this would deter people from accepting nominations. FY stated it would not. RP stated that due diligence can be applied to all candidates today, but in the future there may be too many.
WW stated that in regard to candidate reviews, it would be worth reviewing the ASO AC procedures to clarify how to approach split votes. He stated that posting results would be problematic for close votes where it seems there is no consensus. AS stated that APNIC has published Board election vote totals without issue. ME stated that due to the small number of votes, they should not be published. AM suggested that posting results would benefit the directorship of the ASO AC to publish votes.
FY asked what issues existed with reporting numbers. JSc stated that he has no concerns with publishing results, only with the possibility of candidates who do not make it through due diligence. NN stated that the ASO AC is not responsible for any issues resulting in candidates dropping off of results due to not making it through due diligence. AS stated that posting results would help members avoid pressure from their region. FY stated that pressure was internal. AS stated that the pressure came from unpublished information being communicated.
ME asked if there was information about the probability of candidates making it through due diligence. RS said there was not, and that the due diligence process was a black box. ME asked if GV could serve as a ‘black box’. The Chair stated this would not be necessary. HG stated that in NomCom history, no candidate has failed due diligence. RS stated that he will ask staff about the process and report back. FA stated that without clear confidentiality expectations, results are likely to become public anyway; and, she suggested that procedures clearly accommodate the need for transparency and clarity. FY stated that publishing vote counts could put pressure on voters and suggested digging deeper into the process. FA stated that if processes were followed, publicly posting results would make little difference, but announcing without vote counts would be helpful in preparing the ASO AC for questions. ME suggested that before voting, it should be stated that results are confidential. JSc suggested not publishing vote counts, and that the ASO AC look deeper into pressure on voters.
The Chair called for additional comments. There were no further comments.
8. ICANN Board Members Update The Chair called for comments on this matter. RS stated that prior his seat on the Board, the ASO AC was tasked with training incoming ICANN Board members, and suggested that other ICANN Board members be encouraged to attend RIR meetings and be trained on RIR functions. KW stated that RIR training has not helped in the past, and suggested that the ASO AC should ask what the Board members want to learn from RIRs before training them. ICANN Board members have asked for representatives of the numbers community to give RIR informational, or common policy issue, updates by replacing the CEO presentation.
The Chair stated that there should be ICANN community communications, and that the ASO AC is not best suited to train ICANN Board members. AS suggested that each RIR put together slides for a presentation on the ICANN agenda. RS stated that he would ask the NRO EC for their assistance on this task.
HG suggested that ICANN Board members be asked about their technical background and competence. RS offered to ask the Board to add technical competence information to the training process.
NN stated that RIR communications teams may be able to assemble a briefing for new Board members, and suggested that new Board members be invited to ASO AC meetings. JSc agreed, stating that the ASO AC should ask what the Board members want to know first. The Chair stated that new Board members should not just focus on ICANN conversations while at meetings, but also security and law enforcement groups.
KW suggested that similar briefings be given to senior ICANN staff, which may result in better meeting design around the numbers community. ME stated that the ASO AC is a good candidate for mentoring ICANN Board members and senior staff at RIR meetings. JSc stated that RIR staff may be able to provide fellowship. KW believed that it was a matter of interest, not money. JSc suggested that the fellowship portion be left out, but that mentorship be provided. KW agreed.
The Chair asked that once the idea is formalized, it be circulated to the Board. RS stated that he would take the idea to the Board, and that they may come back with a query about the ASO AC’s thoughts on the next generation of TLDs, and ways to interact and coordinate with other ACs and SOs. NN stated that there are many ways the ASO AC could respond to such a query. The Chair stated that community members involved in root zone management might be interested in this level of coordination. HG stated that some poorer countries might like to use the future projects fund from the RIRs for their own projects, and that the money should go to RIR projects specifically. RS stated that there has been discussion, and the Board is formulating processes for dealing with that fund. HG stated that the ASO AC is concerned with the potential for those requests to occur.
RS stated that while that was not a specific Board issue, the process discussion is important. The Chair stated that project requirements will need to be finalized before they are approved. RS stated that this could be a task for the ASO AC, along with providing Internet number resource information that applies to other discussions. KW stated that ICANN may use the auction process for IPv6 projects, but would first bring it up to the community and have a precise project involving how to coordinate with the ICANN Board. The RIRs should suggest projects specifically as ‘joint projects’ with ICANN and go to the community before going to the Board.
RS stated that the Board would like to address the trust issue between themselves and the community, with regard to openness and honesty, community visibility, and meeting structure that is split between public and non-public sessions. AM stated that the Board workshop was successful and that the trust issue is a major concern. RS asked for any further comments to the ICANN Board. HG states that trust is important, and that countries without money for root zone management should be included in consideration alongside more developed countries. NN stated that an ICANN Board member had been to a RIPE NCC meeting, and suggested senior staff attend and be mentored. AM stated that participation was important for those in disagreement with how ICANN is currently proceeding. RS thanked the ASO AC for their comments and stated that he would bring them to the Board for consideration.
The Chair called for recess at 1:49 p.m. local time. The Chair resumed the meeting at 2:20 p.m. local time. The Chair recognized FY for her contributions to meeting agenda and workshop, and asked that GV and the Secretariat work on a slide template for future public sessions.
NEW Action Item 20160630-05: GV and Secretariat to develop a comprehensive ASO slide template for future public session use.
9. NRO Update. AB stated that the SLA had been signed, that the IPR was being worked on with a focus on agreements and licenses, and that all RIRs have developed Review Committee election processes.
10. NOMCOM Update. The Chair moved to defer this discussion to a future meeting. The motion carried with no objections.
11. ICANN 57 Planning. FY asked if the ASO AC face to face meeting should still be occurring during the second ICANN meeting of each year. Me suggested that it be held during the shortest ICANN meeting. The Chair suggested holding it during the first ICANN meeting of the year. ME asked if this could be a practice going forward. WW stated that due to election timing the third ICANN meeting of the year was not an option. FY agreed that the first meeting would be best. ME stated that hotel accommodations were per seat, not per person, and that flights would be the only adjustment needed. The Chair stated that holding the face to face meeting during the first ICANN meeting of the year would not disrupt interview procedures, as the entire ASO AC could be involved in interviews.
The Chair stated that item 7 would be revisited at this time to work discuss the ASO AC Operating Procedures.
7. ICANN Board Elections and Reflections on the Process. The ASO AC discussed and edited the draft text of the ASO AC Operating Procedure 9.4: General Selection Procedure.
FY, KW, AM left the meeting at this time. (3:01 p.m. local time) FA left the meeting at this time. (3:06 p.m. local time) The ASO AC held an unminuted discussion and workshop, and edited the draft text regarding the following sections of the ASO AC Operating Procedures:
9.4.1: Backfill Proxy Member
9.4.4: Candidate Evaluation Phase
9.4.6: Comment Phase
9.4.7: Selection Phase
9.4.8: Voting Rules
9.4.9: Review of Candidate
9.4.10: Runoff Elections
9.5: Extraordinary Selection Procedure (ESP)
It was decided that further investigation is needed regarding the mechanism and algorithms used to conduct elections. AB suggested a subcommittee be formed to investigate voting methodologies and present suggestion to ASO AC. FY, JSc, ME, and RP volunteered to be a part of the voting subcommittee. WW suggested that the voting subcommittee work with Fergal Cunningham from RIPE NCC staff as they investigate methodologies. 12. Any Other Business. The Chair called for any other business. HG requested a representative name to send to the NomCom.
It was moved by JSw, seconded by WW that:
“The ASO AC reappoints Hartmut Glaser to the ICANN Nominations Committee.”
The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.
The motion carried with no objections
NEW Action Item 20160630-06: GV to notify appropriate party about HG’s appointment.
The Chair asked if there was a need for the monthly ASO AC teleconference scheduled for 06 July 2016.
It was moved by HG, seconded by ME, that:
“The ASO AC cancels the scheduled ASO AC 06 July 2016 teleconference.”
The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.
The motion carried with no objections.
JSc asked that the ASO AC continue to contribute to Operating Procedures document.
13. Adjournment. The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:04 p.m. local time. WW moved to adjourn, seconded by TF. The meeting adjourned with no objections.