ASO AC Teleconference 13 April 2016

ASO AC Teleconference
Wednesday, 13 April 2016

MINUTES

Attendees:
AFRINIC
Fiona Asonga, FA
Mark Elkins, ME
Douglas Onyango, DO

APNIC
Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Aftab Siddiqui, AS

ARIN
Jason Schiller, JS
John Sweeting, JSw

LACNIC
Ricardo Patara, RP (Vice Chair)
Jorge Villa, JV

RIPE NCC
Filiz Yilmaz, FY (Vice Chair)
Nurani Nimpuno, NN

Secretariat:
German Valdez, GV – NRO Executive Secretary
Therese Colosi, TC – ARIN Scribe

Apologies:
Louis Lee, LL
Wilfried Woeber, WW
Hartmut Glaser, HG
Ajay Kumar, AK

Observers:

APNIC:
Adam Gosling

ARIN:
Einar Bohlin, EB
Nate Davis,
Susan Hamlin,
Sean Hopkins, SH

RIPE NCC:
Athina Fragkouli

ICANN:
Carlos Reyes
Ron da Silva
Selina Harrington

Agenda
0. Welcome.
1. Agenda Review.
2. Review of Open Action Items.
3. Approval of ASO AC Minutes of 02 March 2016.
4. ICANN CCWG Report.
5. ASO Procedure Change (ICANN Board Election Selection Phase).
6. ICANN Board Election Update.
• Establish ASO AC Teleconference to discuss Results of Interview Phase.
7. Reports.
A) IANA Transition Update.
B) Other ICANN Groups Reports.
8. Any Other Business.
9. Adjournment.

Minutes

0. Welcome.

FY, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 12:09 UTC. The presence of quorum was noted. It was acknowledged that the Chair had sent his regrets.

1. Agenda Review.

FY reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. NN suggested moving item 5 and 6 to the end of the call so that she could exit the meeting early, as these items pertained to ICANN elections. She was a candidate and wanted to avoid any conflict of interest. FY agreed to do so.

2. Review of Open Action Items.

Action Item151209-03: GV to work with JS on consolidating the ASO AC’s Operating Procedures into one document. To be discussed at the end of the call. OPEN

Action Item: 160210-03: Chair to request NRO EC update the ASO AC directly with reports regarding progress of the new gTLD drafting team. Chair to finalize, and GV to follow up with Chair. OPEN.

Action Item: 16-0302-01: GV to remove draft status from 10 February 2016 ASO AC Minutes. CLOSED.

Action Item: 2016-0302-02: DO to work with GV to gather information from staff and other RIRs to start a discussion on the question “How is your SO/AC doing in enhancing diversity in all dimensions?” on the list, and summarize examples and how diversity is being done at the membership level and leadership groups within the RIRs (Advisory Councils, Boards, Chairs of the SIG or leadership of policy working groups).

GV stated this was to be discussed at the last ICANN meeting and was unsure if there was more work to do, as it was not finalized at the ICANN meeting. NN stated that it came up at the meeting, however the NRO EC had more pressing questions, and that was all that was discussed. NN believed the item was obsolete now, but suggested that it may be worthwhile to be continued as questions will arise in the future. She did not see any urgency at the moment.

DO stated that there was a request from the Board to have it presented at the Board’s meeting during ICANN 55. DO had sent a draft on 05 March to the ASO AC and there had been no objections on the text. He explained that the expectation was to present the draft response to the Board. He believed this action item was completed with regard to drafting the text. He asked if the response was presented at the Board meeting?

NN replied that when the agenda was crafted, the NRO EC questioned the agenda and had pressing matters to discuss at the meeting (such as the IANA transition and signing of the SLA), and there was general agreement that the draft response would not be discussed at the meeting. It was mentioned however, at the meeting. NN thanked DO for his work on it. She stated that she believed the work was relevant, but may be a long-term effort.

FY thanked them. She closed the action item. But asked to keep DO’s text available to refer to at a later time. CLOSED.

Action Item: 2016-0302-03: Chair to find out the status of the Public Safety WG with regard to WHOIS accuracy. OPEN.

Action Item: 2016-0302-04: Chair to send an email to the AC’s list regarding participation record on the ASO website, so that all members are aware of it. It was suggested FY send the email to close the item, if possible.

GV to send FY the information so that FY finalize the action. Action item reassigned to FY. OPEN.

Action Item: 2016-0302-05: GV to include the 2016 ASO AC Work Plan on the ASO AC’s website. CLOSED.

3. Approval of ASO AC Minutes of 02 March 2016.

GV stated feedback from JS was incorporated into the minutes. TF stated that he had also sent comments on the minutes and wanted to ensure they were incorporated. FY asked if the last version was circulated to the list. GV stated it had not been circulated. FY asked him to send the lasted draft of the minutes to the list so that the AC could ensure that all of their comments had been incorporated. FY stated the AC could approve them at their next meeting.

New Action Item 2016-0413-01: GV to send final draft of 02 March 2016 to ASO AC for review. OPEN

4. ICANN CCWG Report.

AF provided an update stating that the ICANN Bylaws are being revised in accordance with the CCWG report, focusing on issues relevant to numbers. The ICANN mission is being revised with regard to the Global Policy Development Process and the IANA function. There is interest in the dispute resolution process where the ASO asked to be excluded from the scope. The ASO would like it mirrored in ICANN’s Bylaws so that number-related disputes are outside of the scope to prevent duplicates from happening. The PTI and all of the review committees refer to names and not numbers.

A discussion on ICANN’s mission has taken place and reflects what has been agreed upon. There is an extra provision that refers to agreements that ICANN has with parties that are enforced from 01 October 2016, and such agreements cannot be challenged by members of community on the basis that they are in conflict with ICANN’s mission. AF explained that this is beneficial because the SLA and ASO MOU are included in the agreement in the exemption – which ensures that no one from ICANN will challenge our agreements and we are independent.

AF pointed out that many agreements are not revised and if the SLA or MOU were revised, the exemption would still be in place. This raises the concern of how do we know that there is no conflict with ICANN’s mission if they are revised? We would not want our agreements to be evaluated by the ICANN community. This matter is under discussion by the CCWG members in an effort to make sure agreements would not be conflicted with ICANN’s mission; however, numbers agreements were not included. This can affect our agreements and we want to make sure we are part of the discussion. It has been brought up to the NRO EC, and they were asked for guidance, as were the ASO AC Chairs. We wonder if we will be affected in practice because we have the SLA and MOU, and we want them amended and the process won’t let us – hence they may be terminated. AF pointed out that the dispute resolution process would exclude the numbers agreements. Different options are being discussed and explored.

FY thanked her for the update. NN asked AF about the public comment period, as it came up in ICANN meeting. The latest update states that the SLA and IETF MOU will be made available for 30 day period prior to ICANN Board consideration. Is this still true? AF stated that the SLA period was discussed and ICANN still wanted to share the document for public consultation and they did. We received some comments and we are in process of finalizing the SLA based on the comments. They were basically from the NTIA, who wanted to change the wording on a sentence which would not change the context, but would make it easier for them to accept the documents and make the transition smoother. We are ready to publish the final version.

FY thanked everyone for their comments. AF left the meeting at this time.

FA joined the meeting at this time (12:42 UTC).

FY explained that items 5 & 6 would be discussed after the reports, as NN and FA were candidates. FA agreed.

FY stated item 7 would be discussed at this time.

7. Reports.

A) IANA Transition Update. NN provided an update stating that ICANN and NRO EC met at the ICANN meeting and finalized the text for the SLA and had general agreement that no more major changes would made. The CRISP Team reviewed the final version and did not see any conflict. The IPR issue was proceeding. Izumi and NN, as Chairs, handed it to the RIRs, as it is now an implementation issue. The coordination group is making sure it progresses smoothly. There are monthly calls with the community, with ICANN present, and it is proceeding nicely. GV and Oscar Robles are working on the practicality of the implementation.

B) Other ICANN Group Reports. FY called for any other reports. DO provided an update on next ICANN meeting stating that there were three meeting time groups for the ASO AC and this one falls into the “B” time group for a face-to-face meeting. The Board agreed that a group needed to be formed to see how this will work. A representative from each SO and AC would be appointed.

The first meeting took place on 24 March. Discussions took place on how to proceed, to agree on a course of action that will work, a call for presentations, and to draft an agenda. Members were asked what the priorities were for sessions with other constituencies. IANA transition, the CCWG, and ICANN accountability will be discussed. All feedback will be culled and a call for presentations will take place after the next meeting.

FY asked is there any potential that the call will lead or result in changes to travel plans or are the days are fixed? DO stated that no changes or extensions were anticipated.

FY asked if there were any issues with the ASO AC holding a face to face at this meeting. DO stated that we are discussing using each day to get to work on SO, AC, and face to face meetings. Most likely it will end up that if the ASO AC wants to meet separately, they can do so and then we will change to sessions with community work – cross-cutting. FY thanked him for the information.

FA expressed an idea to reduce the number of reviews as opposed to many different one in order to alleviate the community of repetitive issues. She noted that the Chair had previously asked Carlos to check with staff about it. It was still an open item. Carlos stated that he checked with the communications team on an info-graphic to explain the various reviews, and they are working on it as several people have requested this be done. FA thanked him for the update.

DO stated that with regard to overlapping sessions, he had transmitted FA’s concerns to the coordination group, and the idea around priorities of discussions to be held, are being formed. We are going to come up with metrics on the review process with regard to overlap. We will collapse to one session – this concern is valid and is being worked on.

FY thanked everyone for their comments. She also noted that a process is being explored for a code of conduct document. Initial thoughts are being explored among community leaders.

FY confirmed that both FA and NN had left the call.

It was agreed to discuss item 6, prior to item 5.

6. ICANN Board Election Update.

• Establish ASO AC Teleconference to discuss Results of Interview Phase. JSw stated interviews took place in Marrakesh. GV distributed the results to the ASO AC. The next step is to schedule an ASO AC call to discuss it the results of the interviews.

GV stated the need to finalize notes on one of the face-to-face interviews, and that he would distribute them to the ASO AC. He noted that a table of information would also be sent to the ASO AC by the end of the week. GV pointed out that the procedural text regarding the ICANN Board Election Selection Phase needed to be finalized.

5. ASO Procedure Change – ICANN Board Election Selection Phase.

FY stated that it would take time to go through the revisions, and pointed out that the deadline is 29 April 2016. GV explained that the deadline could be changed. The actual deadline is that someone needs to be selected by the end of October, but we intend to so by the end of June.

GV stated that the procedures needed to be aligned with the ICANN Bylaws. JS was not sure that it could be done very quickly. JSw agreed it is a concern, stating that we have ongoing selection at this time and trying to change the process in midstream could be time consuming. He looked to GV for the timeline to get this done and meet the targeted deadline. FY agreed that changing the procedure creates timing pressure needing NRO EC approval. Is there an alternative to reaching the deadline? GV stated that he was not speaking for the NRO EC but he acknowledged that there was a high interest in the NRO EC for this procedure to be updated. He noted that their next meeting was Tuesday 19 April 2016, but the document could be approved via the EC’s mailing list. JSw strongly believed that the ASO AC needed to agree on the proposed language.

JS stated that he had suggested text that he had sent out to the ASO AC list yesterday. It was not clear to him if it encompassed all the points the ASO AC wanted.

JSw stated that if the AC could not approve the text today, he could not see meeting the timeline for this election period.

JS stated he would reply to the Chair’s recent post on ASO AC Procedures vs. ICANN Bylaws; and would post it to the AC’s list now. The AC reviewed JS’s reply.

Discussion and review ensued at length to agree upon the revised language.
It was noted that the proposed text must be available for discussion 7 days on email prior to voting. It was agreed to incorporated ICANN Bylaws language to keep the procedures in line with the Bylaws.

JS asked if anyone objected to the text as revised. FY confirmed that the ASO AC members supported the text as revised and confirmed there were no objections.

FY asked if the ASO AC approved of asking the NRO EC for approval for this small piece now, and then asking for NRO EC approval of the consolidated operating procedure text for later time? All Agreed.

FY stated that JS would send text we just discussed now and send the Consolidated to the NRO EC at the next meeting. JS agreed and noted the NRO EC had the consolidated text for a month at this point.

GV stated that, after reviewing the procedures, the AC could not approve of the text on their mailing list. He would create a Doodle Poll and include the text and ask AC members to vote it via the poll.

FY noted that electronic votes can be concluded sooner than the 7 day period, and that it has been done in the past.

Action Item 2016-04-13: 02: GV to set Doodle Poll E-vote of Election Procedure revisions, in order to send the revised text to NRO EC for their approval.

It was moved by DO and seconded by JSw, that:

“The ASO AC move put amendment to an electronic vote.”

The motion carried with no objections.

6. ICANN Board Election Update. Discussed previously.
• Establish ASO AC Teleconference to discuss Results of Interview Phase.

7. Reports. Discussed previously.

A) IANA Transition Update.
B) Other ICANN Group Reports.

8. Any Other Business. FY called for any other business. ME thanked David Olive from ICANN for the great treatment at the meeting he attended held during ICANN 55. JSw stated that if anyone gets chance to meet with fellows, as he had, it was interesting and interactive and he recommended the opportunity to do it. ME stated that NN did a great job speaking on behalf of the ASO at ICANN 55 and that session looked great.

JS updated the Consolidated Procedures with the new text the AC is considering, and sent it to the AC’s list.

9. Adjournment. FY entertained a motion to adjourn at 14:13 UTC. ME moved to adjourn, seconded by TF. The meeting adjourned with no objections.

Last modified on 29/01/2020