Minutes ASO AC teleconference held on Wednesday, August 5th 2015 (12:00 UTC)

ASO AC Attendees

AFRINIC

Douglas Onyango, DO
Fiona Asonga, FA
Mark Elkins, ME

APNIC

Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Aftab Siddiqui, AS

ARIN

John Sweeting, JSw
Jason Schiller, JS

LACNIC

Ricardo Patara, RP
Hartmut Glaser, HG
Jorge Villa, JV

RIPE NCC

Wilfried Woeber, WW
Filiz Yilmaz, FY

Observers

Gianina Penski, GP – LACNIC
Barbara Roseman, BR – ICANN Staff
Selina Harrington, SH – ICANN Staff
Carlos Reyes, CR – ICANN Staff
Adam Gosling, AG – APNIC
Alan Barret, AB – AFRINIC
Einar Bohlin, EBo – ARIN
Nate Davis, – ARIN
Ernest Byaruhanga, EBy – AFRINIC
Izumi Okutani, IO

Apologies:

Louie Lee, LL
Ajay Kumar, AK

Secretariat

German Valdez, GV – NRO Executive Secretary
Laureana Pavon, LP – LACNIC (Scribe)

Draft Agenda

0.- Welcome
1.- Agenda review
2.- Review of open action items
3.- Approval of Minutes
a) July 1st 2015
4.- ICANN CCWG report
5.- Removal of ASO appointee
6.- NomCom Appointment
7.- Mailing Subscription
8.- ICANN Board Election 2016
9.- AOB
10.- Adjourn

0. Welcome

Meeting started at 12.12 UTC.

Roll call was performed and quorum was established.

LL had previously apologized for not being able to attend and asked FY to chair the meeting.

1. Agenda review

BR suggested one additional agenda item during AOB.

2. Review of open actions

Action Item 150307-04: The Chair to send a message to the CCWG-IG Chair informing them of AK’s appointment. FY to coordinate with LL to get this done. – ONGOING

Action Item 150701-01: The Secretariat to update the status of the June teleconference minutes from draft to final. – DONE

Action Item 150701-02: DO to draft a very simple text regarding the procedure for removal of an ASO appointee with the simple majority rule. – DONE

Action Item 150701-03: GV to let ICANN staff know that FA is officially appointed to be part of the ICANN Academy working group. – DONE

Action Item 150701-04: LL to send an invitation to the AC mailing list to see whether there are any other AC members interested in being appointed to the NomCom. – DONE

Action Item 150701-05: GV to send a full list of the mailing lists that the AC uses and the intended reason for each. – DONE

3.- Approval of Minutes

  1. a) July 1st 2015

TF proposed a motion to approve the minutes of the July 1st teleconference. WW seconded the motion. No objections or abstentions were heard and the motion carried.

4.- ICANN CCWG report

IO presented a report of the last developments of the CCWG Accountability Working Group. Summary of the report is based on the slides presented by IO and available at https://aso.icann.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/XPL_CCWG-Proposal_Visual-Summary_FINAL.pdf

FY thanked IO for the update and opened the floor to questions.

FY thanked IO for the timelines. She said she understood CRISP wanted feedback from the AC and asked whether she could specify whether there was anything they needed to adjust in their procedures and, if so, in which part (WS2 period or WS1 period). She also asked whether, considering the membership model, the mechanics of the decision making process would also be part of the latest proposal.

FA said that, as far as their procedures were concerned, so far the CCWG proposal doesn’t require any changes (the AC is already looking at how to remove appointees, that’s already covered). She concluded that they are looking at the procedures they need to look at. After this public comments period, they hope there will be no significant changes, but they’ll deal with them if needed.

JS suggested they would probably need a procedure on how to make the decision regarding the independent appeal, maybe even a simple majority.

IO suggested a simple majority within the ASO could start the process for removing a board member, and then 2/3 are required to remove the member. She suggested they might consider if they agreed with this approach.

FY asked whether the common procedure would be signed off after the public comments period.

IO replied that it’s defined (per the five powers previously listed in the slides).

FY asked whether IO recommended the ASO should start working already or wait until having certainty with the public comments.

JS said it would be worthwhile to start working now, as they can always introduce any necessary changes later.

FY suggested creating a small group to kickstart this work.

WW suggested sending a message to the ASO mailing list announcing the creation of this small working party.

Action Item 150805-01: The Chair to send a message to the mailing list to see if there are any volunteers to join JS, FA and IO to begin working on cross-checking procedures against the recommendations that are being made by the Accountability CCWG and highlighting where further work will be needed.

WW asked a question regarding slide No. 12 (removal of directors). He noted that the coordinator of the nomcom is appointed by the board of directors and the body lives only 12 months, after which it gets dismantled. He asked whether it was appropriate in this framework that the nomcom of the subsequent year would be in a position to remove an ICANN director which was seated by the previous year’s nomcom.

IO said she couldn’t remember what their conclusion had been regarding the selection of a replacement for the nomcom directors, but that it had been acknowledged that this needed separate consideration. She said the conclusions were included in the details of the proposal.

WW said he was happy this issue was already on the list of things to think about.

IO noted the comments period would remain open until 12 September, after which they’d be calling for comments from the numbers community. Then the ASO would need to approve the final proposal. She noted that it might be helpful for the ASO to provide public comment, if they find this appropriate; alternatively, she said they could submit comments on behalf of the ASO AC.

FY asked what feedback mechanisms they were using with other groups and whether the ASO was supposed to make a joint statement. She wondered whether IO had any recommendations.

IO said that, if the ASO has something they want the group to consider, it might be easier to provide comment during the public comment period as the ASO.

JV noted that during this period comments could be submitted either as a group or as individuals.

FA said that, in her opinion, it was important for the ASO to come up with a joint position (this has been lacking in the process of developing the proposal, likely because the ASO meets only once a month). She suggested that the ASO needs to present additional input giving a position as the ASO.

FY asked how the ASO would like to deal with this: a) Bring it to our attention and lead the process of drafting the collective response? b) Everyone to read through the entire proposal (two weeks) then submit comments, which can then be compiled to create a joint response.

JS recommended that FY send an email asking everyone to read the document and stating that there are two weeks for comments, allowing FA to start compiling these comments to create the response, having an informal call after two weeks, and then sending the text to the list for comments before final approval.

AS asked JS whether he though they should vote in favor of the response or via email.

JS replied that, once the drafting was done, they could have the chair call an emergency meeting; they could also do it as an e-vote; or they could have a motion right then saying that after drafting the text would be sent to the mailing list to see if there are any objections and, if not, consider the draft approved. He added he had no personal preference.

DO said he thought it wouldn’t be necessary to have a vote.

FY said FA could send a mail to the mailing list with the link to the document; request comments and consolidate the collected feedback to prepare a draft which would receive the group’s approval before being sent as the ASO’s joint response.

JS observed that procedures say they need a motion and majority vote, adding that he was not sure whether procedures would allow having that motion today.

Action Item 150805-02: Chair to immediately send an e-mail pointing to the public comments and call for comments on the mailing list regarding (deadline 2 weeks). FA to consolidate these comments (until 2 September). ASO to decide on the draft during its meeting to be held on September 2nd. (Re. CCWG proposal)

JS mentioned that the the NRO EC had sent a message regarding exemption of numbers-related issues from the appeals process. He asked whether that applied to the IANA functions or to policies as well.

AB said he wasn’t sure where that message had been sent. As to the question of whether it applies only to IANA functions or to policies as well, he recalled they hadn’t focused on policies in any way. He seemed to recall that they weren’t thinking of exempting it from the appeals mechanism, as this was purely for the IANA functions.

IO saud they had received advice from the NRO EC. The idea was intended to cover both the IANA functions as well as the global policies on the number resources. She said at this point they were not making it specific and if the ASO felt this section needed more clarity, their input was welcome.

IO posted the exact wording via chat:

“Exclusions. Numbering Resources: The Address Supporting Organization has likewise indicated that disputes related to Internet number resources should be out of scope for the IRP. As requested by the ASO, decisions regarding numbering resources would be excluded from standing.”

JS thanked IO and said it was fine.

FY said that if anyone had any further questions regarding this agenda item, they should please send them to the mailing list.

5.- Removal of ASO appointee

FY asked DO to provide a brief update.

DO provided the following update: The email was sent out on 2 July. There was one piece of feedback (from Ray). His comment was in the sense that there should be a separate removal process for appointees, but considering that the CCWG will make sure that the appointing organization has the power to remove an appointee, this mandates us to create a procedure and obliges us to have a process in place.

JS said that, if they could agree right then to have this as part of their procedures, they should move forward, as they can always make changes later.

JS said that, if there was no opposition, he would move to sign off on this internal procedure.

FY asked whether anybody needed more time to look at the text DO had prepared and if there were any objections to moving forward with the proposal.

No objections were heard.

JS moved that they have vote to take the six points from DO’s email sent on 2 July (subject: Modified ASO Appointee Removal Text) and make them part of the ASO AC’s regular operating procedure, assuming the EC approves it.

DO seconded the motion.

6.- NomCom Appointment

FY noted there had been a call and an action item on LL. She said she was aware of TF’s interest. She asked GV whether there was a deadline for this.

GV replied that he didn’t remember a particular deadline, just that Hans Peter Holen had said “the sooner the better.”

FY asked whether there were any other pending actions.

HG said the new nomcom expects to have all the names before August 21st, adding that the nomcom will begin working in Dublin so, in his opinion, there was no rush. However, he added that they had received a letter from the new chair stating the names should be ready by 21st August.

It was established that, so far, there were two interested parties: TF and HG.

WW proposed going ahead and deciding during this meeting, using the proper procedure.

FY asked what the proper procedure was.

HG replied that the last time there had been a roll call vote during a regular meeting.

JS read the applicable procedure.

WW proposed to going forward with an electronic vote.

AS said he’d like to wait 3-4 more days to see if anyone else was interested before concluding there were only two candidates.

FY suggested opening the voting period on 12th of august and running for the next 7 days.

GV summarized the conclusions as follows:

– Wait for any other candidates for one week (5-12 august)
– Whatever names are submitted to the list by the 12th will be considered
– Voting will open on the 13th and end on the 20th of August.
– GV will submit the results on Friday 21st at the latest.

JS moved that the ASO accept HG and TF as current candidates for the nomcom, that the chair send an email to the ASO AC listing stating the current candidates and asking further candidates to express interest before the 12th, after which an e-vote will take place.

AS seconded the motion. The motion was approved.

Action Item 150805-03: The Chair to send an email to the ASO AC listing stating the current candidates and asking further candidates to express interest before the 12th, after which the e-vote will take place.

7.- Mailing Subscription

GV said that at some time there had been discussions about who the members of the lists were and he had been asked to prepare a report. He noted that the information had been sent to the mailing list.

FY thanked GV for his mail explaining what was what.

8.- ICANN Board Election 2016

GV said they should soon begin the process to select seat No. 10, due to expire after the ICANN general assembly in October next year (this seat is currently held by Kuo Wei Wu). GV said he’d sent an email with a suggested timeline, based on what they’ve done in the past in terms of the duration of the different phases and the nomcom request that they should have the candidate selected before ICANN 56.

GV added that idea was that ASO AC members review the information and hopefully they can confirm the timeline on the next teleconference.

Action Item 150805-04: GV to send a summary of the information regarding the 2016 ICANN Board Election to the mailing list.

JS noted that at this point several members had left the meeting and asked whether they had lost quorum and would no longer be able to make decisions. GV clarified that there was indeed still quorum.

9.- AOB

BR had suggested an AOB. Because she had to leave, she withdrew the topic and will raise it with LL and GV before bringing it to the AC.

10.- Adjourn

There being no further business to discuss, WW moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by TF. No objections were heard and the meeting was adjourned at 13.50 UTC.