ICANN 61, Puerto Rico
13 March 2018
Minutes

 

Attendees

Observers

Apologies

AFRINIC
Fiona Asonga (FA)APNIC
Aftab Siddiqui (AS) – Chair
Brajesh Jain (BJ)

ARIN
Kevin Blumberg (KB) – Vice Chair
Louie Lee (LL)
Jason Schiller (JS) (remote)

LACNIC
Hartmut Glaser
Ricardo Patara (RP) – Vice Chair
Jorge Villa (JV) (remote)

RIPE NCC

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

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

AFRINIC
Ashok Radhakisoon
Alan Barrett 

APNIC
Paul Wilson
Craig Ng (CN) 

ARIN
Michael Abejuela
John Curran (remote)
Cathy Handley
Sean Hopkins (remote)
Anne-Rachel Inne
Leslie Nobile 

LACNIC
Oscar Robles 

RIPE NCC
Axel Pawlik ICANN
Carlos Reyes (CR)
Ron da Silva (RdS)
Akinori Maemura (AM) 

AFRINIC
Noah Maina
Omo Oaiya 

APNIC
Henri Kasyfi 

New Action Items from this Meeting

  • New Action Item 20180313-1: FA and JV to provide an update on the CCWG Accountability WS2 activities during the April ASO AC Teleconference.
  • New 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.
  • New Action Item 20180313-3: CR to extract the timelines that apply to the ASO AC as noted in the ICANN Bylaws Election Procedures.
  • New Action Item 20180313-4: AS to add Annual Review of Appointments to ICANN to the ASO AC Work Plan.
  • New 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.
  • New 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).
  • New 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.

Agenda Section 1: Open Session

  1. Welcome
  2. Roll Call
    1. Observer Participation Explanation
  3. Agenda Review
  4. ASO-AC Member’s Introduction
  5. Approval of minutes – February 2018
  6. Update Open Actions
  7. ICANN Activities
    1. ICANN Board Elections
    2. CCWG Accountability Stream 2
    3. NomCom Update
    4. Ethos Award
    5. Review of Past Appointments
  8. RIR Reports
    1. APNIC 45 Report
  9. Global Policy Development Process
    1. Global Policy Proposal from LACNIC Region: Global Internet Registry Proposal
  10. NomCom Visit
  11. Implementation of ASO review
    1. Review Implementation of Recommendations 9, 10, 15, 16

      Agenda Section 2: Closed Session (ASO AC Members only: no minutes)

  12. ICANN Board seat 9 election
    1. Preliminary Interview Phase Report by IC
    2. Review of Rest of the Election Timeline.
  13. AOB
  14. Adjourn

 

Section 1: Open Session


1. Welcome

AS welcomed the attendees and noted that this was the first time that the ASO AC had opened its meeting to observers.

2. Roll Call

GV performed the role call and declared quorum.

a. Observer Participation Explanation

AS welcomed the observers and explained that they were not permitted to participate in the meeting other than to observe the proceedings unless invited to speak by the ASO AC.

3. Agenda Review

FY asked why 13. ASO Review Recommendations 9, 10, 15, 16, had been added to the closed session’s agenda.

AS noted that an overview of all the ASO Review Recommendations would be given during the open session but in the interest of time, discussion about the text used to describe the implementation of Recommendations 9,10, 15 and 16, which would eventually become part of the ASO AC’s operating procedures, would take place during the closed session. He noted that the closed session would be minuted and shared with the public.

FY noted that the purpose of holding an open session is to increase openness and transparency. She believed that everything that can be discussed in front of observers in the open session should be.

After discussion, the ASO AC agreed that all agenda points except for the discussion on the ICANN Board candidates would take place in the open session.

4. ASO-AC Member’s Introduction 

The ASO AC members introduced themselves.

5. Approval of minutes – February 2018

HC proposed the motion to accept the minutes of the ASO AC February Teleconference. BJ seconded the motion. There were no objections. The minutes were approved. AS asked the Secretariat to publish the minutes on the ASO website.

6. Update Open Action Items

  • ACTION ITEM 180207-01: GV to reschedule March teleconference in the shared ASO Calendar.
    CLOSED.
  • ACTION ITEM 180207-02: AS to provide a template for the regional ASO updates to ensure consistency in format.
    CLOSED.
  • ACTION ITEM 180207-03: AS, FA, NN, KB, RP to provide updates from their regions for the ASO update during the ASO Public Session at ICANN 61.
    CLOSED
  • ACTION ITEM 180207-04: AS to consolidate past discussion on Recommendation #16 and improving transparency into a document to facilitate decision-making.
    CLOSED
  • ACTION ITEM 180110-02: GV to follow up with the NRO EC regarding the Subgroup on ICANN Empowered Community’s request for legal advice.
    OPEN: GV noted that he had forwarded this request to the NRO EC. The NRO EC would discuss this in their upcoming F2F meeting later in the week.
  • ACTION ITEM 171108-03: AS 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
    CLOSED.


7. ICANN Activities

a .ICANN Board Elections

AS noted that one of the ASO’s key responsibilities was to select a candidate to elect to the ICANN Board. He gave an overview of the ICANN Seat 9 Board Election process and timeline:

  • Nomination Phase: 2 October 2017 – 17 December 2017
  • Comment Phase: 18 December 2017 – 18 March 2018
  • Interview Phase: 17 January 2018 – 18 March 2018
  • Selection Phase: 19 March 2018 – 18 April 2018 – hand over name to ICANN
  • 
Due Diligence Review: 19 April 2018 – 17 May 2018
  • 
Announcement: Around 19 May 2018

BJ noted that ICANN must be informed of the selected candidate six months before the actual appointment to the Board, which is 18 April. Due diligence must be completed before this date.

AS believed that once ICANN received the candidate’s name, then it is up to ICANN to ensure that due diligence is completed in a timely manner. ICANN controls this part of the process. It would not be possible for the ASO AC to meet the deadline if it has to take due diligence into account.

AM explained that once the selected candidate’s name is passed to ICANN’s General Counsel, ICANN starts due diligence processes.

HG noted that ICANN wants newly elected Board members to participate in a Board retreat so it tends to perform due diligence fairly quickly, within 3-4 weeks.

KB noted that the ASO AC signed off on these dates last year. He added that the next ASO AC meeting takes place on 4 April 2018: if the ASO AC does not make its selection by this meeting, an extraordinary meeting would need to be scheduled to meet the deadline.

AS confirmed that the process is on track to meet the deadline. He noted that part of the closed session in today’s meeting would be for the ASO AC Members to deliberate on the candidates. This session is restricted to ASO AC members only due to confidentiality reasons.

b. CCWG Accountability Work Stream 2

AS explained that the ASO AC had appointed JV and FA to the CCWG Accountability WS2.

FA gave an overview of the group’s work: the reports from each of the sub groups have been finalized. The group is now analyzing the recommendations from each of the subgroups in order to form a consolidated set of recommendations, which will be published for public comment.

She noted that it would be important for the ASO AC to carefully consider the recommendations in the report. As a chartering organization, the ASO would be expected to give input.

She added that the recommendations suggest that extra responsibilities would be put on the chartering organizations regarding how they engage in ICANN’s Empowered Community. The ASO will therefore also need to review its operating procedures and duties.

FA noted that the draft report would be open for comments from 12 April – 24 May.

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

AS asked if the ASO AC or the ASO (i.e. the NRO EC) should comment on the report.

  • New 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.

AS thanked FA and JV for their work with WS2.

c. NomCom Update

BJ gave an overview of the work of the NomCom. He noted that holding this update during an open session is important as the NomCom is now in its outreach phase.

He asked the ASO AC to reach out to their communities to let them know that nominations to the ICANN Board are open.

There was more discussion on the election timelines.

BJ reiterated that the NomCom makes its three appointments after all the SO/ACs have made their appointments in order to ensure that the Board meets its diversity requirements.

KB asked if ICANN could extract the election timelines from the ICANN Bylaws.

JS added that these should then be compared to the ASO AC’s election timelines to see where there may be conflict.

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

d. Ethos Award

KB noted that he is on the evaluation panel for the ICANN Multistakeholder Ethos Award. He explained that each year, the Award is given to a community member for their contribution to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance and noted that nominations are open until 19 March.

NN asked if there were any nominations from the Numbers community.

KB responded that he had no information on this as yet as he had only recently been added to the evaluation committee.

AS asked FY to share information on the Ethos Award processes and her experiences: she was appointed to the committee in 2017.

FY explained that in 2017, the NRO chair and ASO AC chair were appointed to the evaluation panel. She noted that each year’s panel has the right to define how it makes its selection. Each panel member is expected to give reasons why they would be for or against a certain nominee. She added KB should be prepared for weekly meetings and substantial workload.

AS noted that he had been unaware of the workload the evaluation panel generated and, as an ASO AC member, thanked FY for her work on this last year.

AS encouraged the ASO AC to nominate eligible representatives from the Numbers community.

e. Review of Past Appointments

AS explained that the ASO AC had four current appointments to various ICANN bodies:

  • FA and JV to the CCWG Accountability WS2
  • BJ to the NomCom
  • KB to the Ethos Award Evaluation Panel.

He noted that occasionally, an individual appointed to a group by the ASO AC might then subsequently leave the ASO AC. If this occurs, and the ICANN group is still active, the ASO AC should be able to appoint an alternative ASO AC member to the group.

He suggested that, each year, the appointments to ICANN bodies are reviewed as part of the ASO AC Work Plan. He added that appointees should give an overview of the time they are investing in the body and the timelines for how long the body will remain active so that the ASO AC is aware of its level of engagement in ICANN.

NN agreed that it was a good idea to keep track of these appointments. However, she noted that the ASO AC does not make all of these appointments: sometimes the NRO EC appoints someone on behalf of the ASO. Before adding this task to the ASO AC work plan, the ASO AC should be clear about where the responsibility lies.

AS suggested that the ASO AC should do its due diligence and inform the NRO EC that representatives that may have been appointed by them are no longer part of the ASO AC and they should be replaced. It would then be up to them to act.

KB agreed and added that an ASO AC member serving on a committee should also be asked at the beginning of each year if they are willing to continue serving, especially if it’s a multi-year commitment.

AS proposed the motion that an annual review of appointments to ICANN be added to the ASO AC Work Plan. KB seconded the motion. There were no objections.

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

8. RIR Reports

BJ gave an overview of the recent APNIC 45 meeting.

9. Global policy Development Process Overview

LL gave an overview of how the Global Policy Development Process (GPDP) works.

LL noted that the Policy Proposal Facilitator Team (PPFT) representative is responsible for informing the ASO AC if a potential global policy has been submitted in their region. The ASO AC observes the process and does not play an active part until after the proposal is ratified.

BJ asked what the minimum period is to pass a global policy.

LL noted that it takes around two cycles for a policy to get consensus in each RIR. It can take around 1.5-2 years for very minor changes: it could also be abandoned if no consensus could be reached.

KB noted that, post-IANA transition, there have been no global polices. He wondered if any investigation was done into whether the IANA transition would have any impact to the global PDP in terms of impact or timeline.

LL noted that there was no specific investigation. He noted that although IANA is now known as PTI, the processes still refer to the IANA functions.

NN noted that the proposal put forward by the CRISP team during the IANA transition didn’t touch the MoU, as it was clear that the MoU was out of scope. The only thing that has changed is the contractual relationship between the RIRs and the IANA (now PTI).

KB wondered if there had been any impact on the role of the ICANN Board in the GPDP or changes to its processes post-transition that might affect the GPDP timelines.

NN didn’t believe anything changed. Both RdS and CN (APNIC Legal Counsel) confirmed that the processes the ICANN board uses to assess global policy had not changed as a result of the IANA transition.

a. Global Policy Proposal from LACNIC Region

AS noted that a potential global policy proposal, LAC-2018-1: Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR), was under discussion in the LACNIC region. He noted that the role of the ASO AC is not to discuss the text in the proposal: it is just to decide whether the proposal satisfies the requirement of a global policy.

The ASO AC discussed the proposal.

JS noted that, to determine whether the proposal qualifies as global or not, it has to instruct the IANA/PTI to do something new. It does that and, in his opinion, this means it qualifies as a global proposal.

NN cautioned that the ASO AC needed to be clear about the procedure here: it was not the ASO AC’s role to discuss the content or whether it supported the proposal or not. This part is done in the regional forums. She believed the discussion on this proposal to be premature. The procedures state that it should be brought up at the next ASO AC meeting as an informational item simply to make everyone in the ASO AC aware that there has been a global proposal.

AP added that he appreciated the attempt to bring the potential global proposal to the group’s attention but he believed that there was no global proposal: it is one proposal, from one region, that has simply been marked as potentially global. For it to become global it would need to go through all five regional PDPs and identical proposals would need to emerge.

AS believed that it does not meet the criteria of a global policy as it has been proposed in one RIR only.

KB stated that section 6.4.1 of the ASO AC operating procedures state: “Within ten (10) days of the introduction of a global policy proposal in a particular region, the PPFT member of that region will notify the Chair of the Address Council of the introduction of the proposal. The Chair of the Address Council will notify the council of the proposal and will place the policy proposal on the agenda of the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Address Council as an information item. At this meeting the Address Council will examine the proposal to determine if it meets the definition of a global policy.” He believed all these steps had been taken as per procedure. At this meeting then, the ASO AC should be discussing whether the proposal meets the definition of a global policy.

JS agreed with KB: 6.4.1 says that in the event a proposal is submitted to one region, it should be placed on the agenda at the next ASO AC meeting and, if it is clear that it is a potential global policy per definition, the ASO AC should ensure that it is discussed in all five RIRs. He did not believe that the proposal needed to be raised in all regions before it could be labeled as a global proposal.

RP noted that the LACNIC PPF, JV, talked to the author of the proposal who explained that the proposal is very immature and would be discussed further at the LANCIC meeting on 1 May.

There was further discussion on how to proceed and how to interpret the process. AS suggested parking the discussion until after the proposal had been further discussed in the LACNIC region.

KB commented that the ASO AC should provide feedback to the author about what the ASO AC’s expectations are

JS noted that 6.4.1 states that a proposal can be submitted to an RIR policy forum. He believed that if the proposal claims to be a global policy proposal, if it tells IANA to do something and it been properly submitted through an RIR forum’s PDP, then it meets the definition of a global policy proposal. He, however, had no objections to parking the discussion.

LL noted that this assessment is in line with the MoU Attachment A, which says that a global policy proposal can be submitted to one of the RIRs or to the AC directly. He added that parking it is the best option as the text has a lot of potential to change.

AS agreed with JS’s assessment: discussion on the proposal would be parked and reinstated after the proposal had been further discussed in the proposer’s region.

KB expressed concern about parking the discussion: waiting for more discussion on the proposal isn’t a reason to park it.

FY noted that the MoU and the text in the operating procedures are not ideal: this is something that was pointed out in the ASO review and something that the ASO AC needed to resolve. On top of JS’s take, which she agreed with, one of the options is for the proposer to pass the proposal directly to the ASO AC. The proposer should be asked whether he wants to take this route or whether he wants to go thorough the RIRs himself: more information is needed and the ASO AC should not make this decision for the proposer.

NN noted that, just because a proposal has been tagged as global doesn’t mean it has been put forward as a policy proposal. She believed that it was too early to handle the proposal. Feedback should be sought in the region before the ASO AC can decide.

AS commented that the proposal had been brought to the attention of the ASO AC by the PPF as per procedure, so procedure needed to be followed and the proposer should be informed of the ASO AC’s decision.

NN noted that an ASO AC member, the LACNIC PPF, flagged the proposal to the ASO AC Chair: the proposer himself did not do so. This doesn’t mean that the GPDP is kicked into action.

AS agreed. However, it was on the ASO AC’s agenda, the ASO AC discussed it, and feedback must be given.

KB noted that, as discussed, there is ambiguity in the operating procedures that have been identified as needing to be addressed. He suggested that the proposer is told that the ASO AC is not assessing this as a global policy yet as it does not yet have all the information it needs to make a decision.

NN commented that her interpretation is that the proposal has simply not yet been put forward as a global policy proposal. The best solution is for the LACNIC PPF to now liaise with the proposer and get more information about if and how he wants to proceed through the GPDP.

BJ, HC, FY, HG, RP and AS agreed with this.

JV noted that it is not possible to conclude anything about the proposal yet. However, he had spoken to the proposer, who understood that the proposal would need more discussion in the LACNIC region but had told him to go ahead and initiate the discussion on whether it is a global policy anyway, which is why he had brought the proposal to the attention of the ASO AC Chair.

After further discussion, KB proposed the motion that the proposer should be informed that the ASO AC does not believe it has enough information to take action and is seeking further clarification about LAC-2018-1. BJ seconded the motion. There were no objections.

  • New 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.

10. NomCom Visit

The ICANN NomCom gave an overview of its work and encouraged the ASO AC to propose potential candidates for the NomCom selected ICANN Board seats. Chair of the 2018 NomCom, Zahid Jamil, noted that the ASO AC’s delegate to the NomCom, BJ, had played an exceptionally pivotal and constructive role in the NomCom and thanked him for his commitment.

11. Implementation of ASO review

a. Review implementation of recommendations

The ASO AC reviewed the recommendations and responses to the Recommendations as outlined in the Joint NRO EC and ASO AC responses to the ASO Review Recommendations.

Further discussion took place on the following recommendations:

  • Recommendation # 6: The ASO AC should ensure that procedures are developed for Steps 12, 15 and 16 of the GPDP as described in Attachment A of the ASO MoU.
  • Recommendation # 7: The ASO should consider the adoption of a single, authoritative description of the GPDP for global numbering policies. The same description of the GPDP should appear in Attachment A of the ASO MoU and the relevant section of the Operating Procedures of the ASO AC (Currently Section 6).

AS suggested a complete overhaul of the GPDP: there is too much ambiguity and not enough clarity in the current process. The ASO AC should figure out where the problems lie and fix them.

NN commented that some of the discussions the ASO AC had previously had on the global PDP show that there are some conflicts between the ASO MoU and the operating procedures, which were written at different times and are differently prescriptive. They should be looked at together and the text aligned, but an overhaul or redefinition of the GPDP was not necessary.

KB agreed. He pointed out that these are not procedures that are meant to be used daily. The ASO AC should also define how to deal with an edge case scenario.

NN stressed that it is important to note that the review is editorial in nature: the ASO AC would be seeking clarification and was not seeking to change or rework the procedures.

AS noted that the process outlined in MoU Attachment A is set in stone: the ASO AC operating procedures need to be aligned with it rather than creating something new. He asked if there were any objections to reviewing the GPDP? There were none.

KB suggested that those ASO AC members attending the ICANN 62 meeting volunteer to work on this face-to-face while in Panama.

  • New 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).
  • Recommendation # 9: The ASO AC should implement term limits for the positions of Chair and Vice-Chair.
    • Chair

The ASO AC discussed the proposed draft text regarding term limits for the Chair and Vice Chair.

AS noted that the recommendation is to limit number of years a person can act as the ASO AC Chair and suggested that five years be imposed as the limit. After serving five consecutive terms, a break of one year would be necessary before becoming the Chair again.

BJ suggested that the limit be three years. He noted that the proposed wording is unclear.

KB noted that the wording could be cleaned up later but that the ASO AC needed to agree on intent.

JS disliked term limits: if the right person is doing a good job they should be kept in place as Chair. However, if all agreed that term limits were necessary, the proposed approach is the correct one. He also disagreed with putting limits on Vice Chairs: it is very important that the current Chair be able to serve in supportive role as Vice Chair in the years after they serve as Chair.

KB noted that, in Canada, term limits of nine or 10 years are preferable in not-for-profit organizations according to good governance. Changing Chairs is difficult: three years too short and five is an acceptable medium.

HG noted that elections are held every year and the Chair can always be replaced so five years is reasonable.

After discussion, the ASO AC agreed that a five-year limit for the chair and a one-year break would be reasonable.

  • Vice Chair

NN commented that it was a matter of finding a balance but didn’t understand the reasoning behind proposing that the Chair cannot become a Vice Chair in the year immediately after their term ends. She thought that having the previous Chair in a Vice Chair role would be valuable to the incoming Chair in terms of knowledge, advice and continuity.

KB noted that, for good governance, it is unusual for someone to return to an organization as a subordinate. An ex Chair is usually put into an advisory role. Having the previous Chair as a new Vice Chair might cause confusion for the community.

NN disagreed: she has seen many example where the Chair stays in some sort of role, advisory or not. However, if the ASO AC believed that this was a good model, she would not object.

LL noted that if the Chair is prevented from becoming the Vice Chair, it seems limiting not to have an advisory role. Would it make sense to create an advisory role to offer to the outgoing Chair?

AS and KB supported this idea.

NN believed that this would add more layers of unnecessary bureaucracy: the ASO AC has a very limited work scope. It is helpful to have continuity but she would prefer not to add another role.

JS agreed with NN: adding another role for the ex Chair but not allowing them to carry out Vice Chair duties doesn’t make sense.

FY added that the restriction should be removed: the ASO AC did not want to be in a situation where there are new members and little constitutional knowledge, with those who have experience and knowledge being restricted from contributing.

The ASO AC agreed to remove the proposed restriction on the outgoing Chair serving as Vice Chair in the year after their five-year term limit ends.

Note: at 15:33 AST quorum was lost: FA (AFRINIC) was not in the room at the scheduled re-start time after the afternoon break. The ASO AC continued their discussion informally and no minutes were taken or decisions made during this period. Quorum was achieved shortly thereafter at 15:35 AST when FA returned to the room. Minute taking then resumed.

KB proposed the motion that, the ASO AC, having reviewed the proposed edited text for 4.4 in the ASO AC Operating Procedures, would request to have it edited by an external party for clarity. RP seconded the motion. There were no objections.

  • 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.

The ASO AC discussed the proposed draft text regarding the duties of the AC Chair and Vice Chair(s).

AS noted that in the current operating procedures, this section is blank.

KB noted that there was some confusion with some responsibilities noted in the draft text and asked the ASO AC to again consider the intent rather than the wording. The Chair is the spokesperson of the ASO AC and the ASO AC guides the Chair as to what s/he should say.

FY noted that there is not much written documentation about the role of the Chair but there is an understanding in the ASO AC that the Chair is there to guide and lead conversations and to ensure that the AC sticks to its work plan and timelines. She was concerned that the text as proposed seems to give too much power to the Chair due to the wording. The Chair should not speak unless the ASO AC is clear on a position.

AS noted that this is defined in the ASO MoU.

FY continued that the ASO AC should be careful about what is put into the blank space in the Operating Procedures because whatever is put there will make the Chair responsible and accountable and there was a reason it was kept empty. She noted that she didn’t feel comfortable making a decision on this proposed text, as she had not had the chance to read it thoroughly yet. She thought that the text should be kept short and should focus on the leadership duties, adherence to timelines and the Chair being the connection between the NRO EC, Secretariat and the ASO AC.

JS suggested adding a phrase to the text noting ‘when supported by the ASO AC’.

KB noted that if the Chair were not given responsibility to act, how would the ASO AC deal with external requests that come in from ICANN? If the Chair does not have the power to act on behalf of the ASO AC s/he will need to forward every request to the ASO AC for a vote. He noted that previous Chairs had just handled such requests without involving the ASO AC.

FY noted that, sometimes, the NRO EC makes decisions or appoints the ASO AC Chair, for example the Ethos Awards panel in 2017, so there is no need to involve the wider ASO AC. The words used in the proposed text, such as ‘ambassador’ or ‘in charge’ were too strong: the ASO AC Chair is not in charge of the ASO AC.

NN suggested that the ASO AC is given more time to look at the proposed text: defining the Chair position is a significant task. She believed that the ASO AC should be careful about adding tasks that have not been part of the responsibility in the past as the scope of the Chair will be expanded. She believed there was a difference between representing the council and speaking on behalf of the council: the latter implies that the Chair can say what s/he likes without consulting the ASO AC. The wording needs to be improved.

AS agreed: the Chair’s responsibilities are in line with what is stated in the MoU.

BJ noted that the proposed text is too detailed: there are too many duties outlined.

AS agreed that too many duties may be listed but that he thought the description should be as detailed as possible to avoid ambiguity.

FA noted that details are OK: the wording needs work to ensure that everyone understands what the role of the Chair is so there is no confusion or ambiguity. She added that it is a good starting point and gives a good overview of the duties.

KB explained that the proposed text for the Vice Chair role is not very detailed: it is suggested that the Chair will tell the Vice Chair(s) where s/he wants assistance. Should the role of Vice Chair(s) be more prescriptive?

FA thought that as long as the Chair’s role is clear, then the Vice Chair(s) would understand their own role. It allows for flexibility and continuity, which is very important.

KB noted that, if the Vice Chair(s) didn’t have a defined role, they might have no concept of what the Chair is doing: they would be involved at the discretion of the Chair.

JS proposed some re-wording: the task of the Vice Chair can be any subset of the Chair duties. The Vice Chair needs to be informed enough to be able to step into the role of Chair in the event of a vacancy or as necessary.

After further discussion, the ASO AC agreed to review the proposed text for the ASO AC Chair and Vice Chair roles for discussion in the next ASO AC meeting.

  • New Action Item 20180313-7: All to review the proposed text on the duties for the ASO AC Chair and Vice Chair and suggest improvements before the next ASO AC meeting.
  • Recommendation # 11: The ASO AC should ensure that its internal procedure for the removal of an ICANN Board Director is consistent with Section 7.11of the New ICANN Bylaws.

The ASO AC discussed Recommendation #11.

KB noted that the 2017 Chair, FY, had submitted a letter to the NRO EC in November 2017 requesting clarification about whether ASO AC members acting in good faith would be indemnified by ICANN, the NRO, or the RIRs. The ASO AC is still waiting for definitive information.

  • Recommendation # 15: ASO AC meetings should be open to the public, except for discussions regarding the selection of individuals for ICANN roles.

The ASO AC discussed Recommendation #15.

AS noted that the proposed text in response to Recommendation #15, to open up the ASO AC meetings to the public, had been agreed upon in the past. He, KB and RP had made some proposed changes to the wording but had not changed the meaning. The text had not yet become part of the operating procedures.

NN noted that, if the ASO AC had agreed to this, it should ensure that the meetings are open: much of today’s meeting agenda was supposed to happen in the closed section. She noted that the meetings should be kept open except for when candidates for the ICANN Board of Directors are being discussed. The ASO AC should ensure that this is the only part that is discussed in the closed part of the meeting and that the agenda reflects this. It is not only about following prescriptive recommendations: it’s also about actually being more transparent. If the ASO AC states that it will do something a certain way, it should ensure that it does it.

KB noted that the proposed text says that discussion on the ICANN Board candidates will be discussed in a closed session. It does not say that this is the only thing that will be discussed in the closed session. The ASO AC should not limit itself here, as this will become part of the Operating Procedures. Whatever is in the closed session will be noted on the agenda, which is public. He agreed that the ASO AC should be as open as much as possible.

BJ agreed.

NN agreed with the need to be pragmatic but noted that the principle of transparency is important.

AS noted that there is nothing as yet in the Operating Procedures about opening the meetings and the mailing list, which was why discussion on this topic was initially added to the closed portion of the meeting. The ASO AC has always been as transparent as possible: minutes and meeting agendas are made public. However, improvements are necessary.

KB proposed the motion that, the ASO AC, having reviewed the text for Recommendation #15 (5.6), would request to have it edited by an external party for clarify. HC seconded the motion. There were no objections.

  • 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.

The ASO AC discussed Recommendation #16.

AS explained that the existing ac-coord [at] aso [dot] icann [dot] org mailing list’s archives cannot be opened to the public as they contain personal and other sensitive information. He suggested a new mailing list, ac-discuss, is created. The existing ac-coord mailing list should be archived and no longer used. The ac [at] aso [dot] icann [dot] org mailing list should be used for discussion on the ICANN Board candidates and other confidential matters, as only the ASO AC members and the Secretariat are part of this list: there are no observers. Moving forward, all other mailing lists would be deactivated and there would be only two active lists.

KB noted that it is proposed that the ac [at] aso [dot] icann [dot] org list is used in a self-regulating manner: anyone who starts a discussion on this closed list that should be something discussed on the public list should be asked to move it to the appropriate list.

NN wondered whether the aso-announce mailing list might be useful to keep people informed of important ASO-related news and proposed to add this to the agenda for the next meeting.


Agenda Section 2: Closed Session (ASO AC members only: no minutes)

At 16:35 AST AS asked all observers to leave the room and remote participation was disconnected. A private Webex session was initiated for those ASO AC members not in the room. The closed section of the ASO AC meeting then resumed. No minutes were taken.

12. ICANN Board seat 9 election

  1. Preliminary Interview Phase Report by IC
  2. Review of Rest of the Election Timeline.

No minutes were taken.

13. AOB (ASO AC members)

No minutes were taken.

14. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 17:12 (AST).