ASO AC Special Meeting Held on June 10th, 2015 (12:00 UTC)

ASO AC Attendees

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

APNIC
Ajay Kumar, AK
Aftab Siddiqui, AS
Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF

ARIN
Ron da Silva, RS
Jason Schiller, JS
Louie Lee, LL

LACNIC
Ricardo Patara, RP
Jorge Villa, JV

RIPE NCC
Filiz Yilmaz, FY

Observers
Carlos Reyes, CR – ICANN Staff
Adam Gosling, APNIC
Izumi Okutani, IO – APNIC
Einar Bohlin EB – ARIN
John Curran, JC – ARIN
Ray Plzak, RPL – ICANN Board
Athina Fragkouli, AF – RIPE NCC

Apologies:
Wilfried Woeber, WW

Secretariat
German Valdez, GV
Laureana Pavon, LP – LACNIC (Scribe)

Draft Agenda ASO AC April 10th 2015 Teleconference

Agenda
1) CCWG ICANN Accountability status
2) ICANN 53
a. Topics for the ASO’s report on Monday
b. Agenda f2f meeting in Buenos Aires
c. Agenda ICANN Board meeting
d. Agenda public session on Wednesday ICANN 53
3) AOB

The meeting began at 12:06 UTC.

GV performed a roll call, at which time 9 members from 5 regions were present, so quorum was established.

Because the regular ASO AC meeting scheduled for the previous week had been cancelled due to conflict with the AFRINIC meeting, and considering that today’s meeting was considered a special meeting, GV provided the following procedural information via chat:

5.3. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Address Council may be called for any purpose at any time by the Chair of the Address Council or any five (5) council members providing that there are persons from at least three (3) RIR Geographic Regions. Notice of any special meeting shall state the purpose of the meeting and shall be made no later than five (5) business days prior to the meeting.

1) CCWG ICANN Accountability status

LL said they would focusing this meeting on preparations for ICANN 53, that’s why they’d invited IO and AF to join. LL asked IO and AF for an update.

AF thanked LL for the invitation to provide an update from the CCWG. She said IO had just shared a link via chat from the RIPE meeting a few weeks ago (slides from the update AF gave), which gives a good idea of what has happened and our position on the matter.

AF went through the slides available at https://ripe70.ripe.net/presentations/180-CCWG-update_Athina9.pdf:

– AF stressed the Suggested Amendments (slide No. 7).

– Suggested Powers: Five powers were identified (the power to reconsider/reject budget or strategy, reconsider/reject changes to bylaws, approve changes to fundamental bylaws, recall individual ICANN directors, recall the entire ICANN board).

– There was discussion on how these five powers would be given to the community (membership organization or designators structure). There were also some concerns about the enforceability of two of the powers, particularly budget/strategy. In both models SOs / ACs would have to qualify as “unincorporated organizations” in order to participate.

– Preference was expressed for the membership model.

– Statement at ICANN 52 meeting in Singapore:

Any proposed solution should:

1. Not be a delaying factor for the IANA stewardship transition
2. Be simple and address the concerns in the most effective way with minimum changes
3. Not interfere with the IANA numbering function
4. Not interfere with the consensus-based decisions of the affected operational communities

IO said that AF had covered all the important points and emphasized the importance that these accountability considerations should not be a delaying factor in the transition. She added that what the group has proposed is based on existing SOs and ACs, but that many issues must still be resolved in terms of implementation details.

RPL (via chat): The AoC is between the USG and ICANN, not between the “community” and ICANN. There is a AoC between ICANN and the IETF and ICANN and the NRO. They are just not called that.

AF agreed, but noted that some commitments from the community were incorporated into the bylaws.

FY thanked AF and IO for the presentation and provided a link to the presentation. She said that, in Buenos Aires, on Wednesday, they’ll have a session with the ICANN board and asked if it would be appropriate to ask them if they see any risk of delay in of the IANA transition due to the process taking place in the CCWG on Accountability

Ray said to go ahead and ask the question. He said that he’s personally firmly on the side of everything that’s been proposed so far by the NRO and the IETF.

FY noted that there was an ongoing process for collecting questions to ask during that meeting and suggested that LL include this question on that list. JS supported asking this question.

FY proposed the following text for the question (via chat): Does ICANN Board see any risk about the Accountability CCWG process having an impact on IANA Transition Process, namely causing a delay in the latter?

Action item 150610-01: LL to submit the following question for consideration by the ICANN board: “Does ICANN Board see any risk about the Accountability CCWG process having an impact on IANA Transition Process, namely causing a delay in the latter?”

IO said she’d also like to share the text currently suggested in the CCWG on ICANN’s mission related to the numbers – “In this role, with respect to IP addresses and AS numbers, ICANN’s Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs.”

AF (via chat) shared the email she sent to the RIPE community flagging numbers related issues: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/2015-May/000753.html

LL asked IO whether CRISP Team felt like there’s much contention from the other communities and how close it feels like we actually are to having a proposal for the NTIA.

IO said that it’s hard to foresee precisely. She added that the target is to submit to the NTIA in October, and that the implementation will go all the way until sometime in mid-2016

JC said they’re at a point where it’s important to have the various plans come together into a focused plan, but that there are still some rough edges that need to be worked out. He said they don’t want to cause a delay in the process, but they don’t want to end up with a proposal that can’t be implemented. He added that there’s an open question regarding IPR where there are different views and that there’s also a potential lack of detail regarding community powers and that it’s hard to tell if they’ll end up with the ability to remove individual directors. He said that it’s also possible that the ability to spill the entire board may not be enforceable or will only be enforceable under California law (51% of the members). He said that one issue they need to face is the lack of specificity in the CCWG document regarding how they plan to implement the powers for the membership model, which is the preference that has been expressed.

LL asked if anyone felt like they would need to have these mechanisms spelled out (the powers that come with membership).

JC replied that the problem is the ability to enforce those powers in a court. He noted that the first thing that has to happen is that any party that will end up litigating ICANN needs to have a legal status distinct from ICANN. He said that the NRO has that status and that there’s a memo that outlines “unincorporated associations.” Much depends on whether they designate board seats as designators or elect board seats as members – members have all the abilities of designators, but also have control for budget issues, major bylaws decisions, etc. Unfortunately, the CCWG have left the implementation details to the legal team and risks can’t be assessed until the level of detail in the CCWG is defined.

Since so much of this is based on legal enforcement, LL asked whether there was an actual push to make it easier to move ICANN out of the United States.

IO said that the short answer was yes – there are people who support exploring this possibility. She added that the rationale doesn’t seem to be to moving out of the United States for political reasons, but that if the existing California or US law does not give the necessary accountability they shouldn’t be bound to California or US law. She said they were currently at the stage where they think we can address this within the California law.

IO said there had been a big discussion and that there were voices (particularly from GAC) about different jurisdictions (Geneva, for example). She noted that the consensus was that you cannot pick just any jurisdiction and see if these accountability mechanisms would work and that the tendency was to move this discussion to a later stage.

FA said that there was no strong push, not as yet, but that it depends on the review of the public feedback they receive and the discussions in Buenos Aires.

LL asked AC members that if they heard anything that might delay the process, specifically if there’s anything opposing what’s coming out of the RIRs, they should please inform the team.

RPL said he’d also like to be informed. He mentioned that there were some interesting conversations going on in the board right now and that not all board members were exhibiting an understanding of how the numbers community works. He said that if there was anything particular that anyone would like him to bring up, to please let him know.

LL said that informing the team meant informing at least everybody on this call.

FA said they’d inform as requested.

Regarding the jurisdiction problem, JC noted that there were many views on that. He added that, for the transition, it would be OK for everyone to agree on the United States, but that in the future they might want to say “let’s get it out of the US” and that that’s why having US jurisdiction as a fundamental bylaw would be a mistake for the community.

LL thanked everyone for their input.

TF apologized and left the meeting at 13.04 UTC.

2) ICANN 53

a. Topics for the ASO’s report on Monday

LL asked how much time they had for this; GV replied that they had 10 minutes (5 for the ASO, 5 for the NRO), no requirements regarding the topics, and that it was up to the ASO to report on what they think is relevant for the audience.

LL said that the ASO side might focus on policies and an update on our ICANN Board selection; the NRO side could handle the inputs from the community about the transition and other NRO activities. He said they could do as they’d done before: summarize the policies that are being discussed, ratified, pick one or two that the AC believes would be interesting to the community maybe include activities with IPv4 transfers and see which other policy would be more interesting for the community.

FY noted that they should see whether CRISP team’s work would also be part of this report, otherwise the CRISP team’s activities on the IANA transition should be mentioned (either in the NRO part or the ASO part).

LL said he’d work with Axel to see that it’s in there somewhere, at least as a teaser (5 mins is not enough time).

DO suggested that the issue of use of resources outside the RIR’s region is also something that might be interesting to talk about.

LL said that, to do the topic suggested by DO justice, they could discuss this topic in the public session but would include a teaser on Monday.

DO said that was reasonable.

JC agreed with the proposed approach.

GV mentioned that he was providing support for this and asked LL to please keep him in the loop.

b. Agenda f2f meeting in Bs As

GV noted that the f2f meeting was scheduled from 2 to 5 pm, but that depending on the agenda these times could be adjusted.

LL asked whether they would allow a portion of the ASO AC f2f meeting to be open to the public

GV said that might depend on the size and arrangement of the room provided at the venue.

RPL commented that the public portion of RIR activities was already satisfied by the RIR meetings, so there’s no real need for the AC to have an open public meeting unless the AC has something specific that they want to convey.

In that case, LL said that they could keep the Tuesday 2:00 to 5:00 pm meeting closed to the general public (observers would of course be welcome).

Action item 150610-02: GV and LL to work on the ASO AC face-to-face meeting agenda

c. Agenda ICANN Board meeting

LL said he had already proposed a few ideas for the ICANN board (summary of the policies, activity from the CRISP team) and asked whether anyone had anything they’d like to add. He asked RPL whether there was anything the board would like to hear from the AC in a session like this.

RPL said they might like to hear about what’s going on in terms of the transition and so forth. He noted that what’s being proposed was not very well understood. In his opinion, the focus should be on those key things that are important. RPL also mentioned that another thing he’d noticed in the annual report was the status of ipv4 depletion, which has been sidetracked by the transition.

RPL then asked the AC if there were any questions they’d like him to ask them.

LL noted that the board typically asks the AC what they can do to help and that hopefully everyone was thinking of ways in which the board can help.

LL concluded by saying he would think of some questions and that he hoped that everyone else would do so as well. He said he’d be asking the different RIRs to help him by preparing even a 1-slide presentation on At large participation at RIR meetings, as that could highlight where more help from ICANN is needed.

FY noted that the agenda for the ICANN board has a deadline, so they might prioritize this in their preparations.

d. Agenda public session on Wednesday ICANN 53

LL mentioned that at the top of his list for the public session would be CRISP activity.

GV said they would have 90 minutes for this session (3:30-5:00 pm).

RPL said that the problem with Wednesday’s public session was that there tend to be other sessions scheduled at the same time.

LL asked for other ideas to include in this agenda, adding that, if there’s nothing to say, we could just cancel the session. He said the other thing they could be doing is an IANA update – perhaps the pros and cons of a transfer policy (not any specific policy, but speaking of the challenges of having a transfer policy in place). He noted, however, that that might be a terrible idea, as they don’t want to get into the topic of IP address ownership.

JS said that, if they focus on the cons, they also run the risk that the discussion will naturally progress into a discussion about solutions, when ICANN is not the right forum for creating policy.

LL suggested that perhaps it could be framed as trying to educate each other, how certain solutions could work and others not, making it obvious that it is not a policy forum at all.

JS said they should be very careful to make it very clear that this is not part of the policy development process and push people in the right direction.

RPL agreed with JS, saying that they must make sure this doesn’t become a policy discussion. He then noted that the other activity scheduled at the same time as this meeting was CCWG workshop No. 2 and offered to try to intervene to get that time slot can be changed.

LL said that perhaps they had been assigned that time slot because nobody else wanted it.

As background information, CR said that the schedule was based on how sessions had been scheduled in former meetings.

RPL suggested to fix it and find a suitable time.

Action item 150610-03: GV to request a time slot change for the ASO AC Public Session at ICANN 53 within the next five hours so that he can help with this change of time for the Public Session.

Action item 150610-04: LL will work with AP to see that the CRISP team’s activities on the IANA transition are in the report, at least as a teaser.

LL then asked FY if she could take over the workshop scheduled for Wednesday 15:30 to 17:00.

FY replied that she’d be happy to do so.

Action item 150610-05: FY to work with GV on the workshop scheduled for Wednesday 15:30 to 17:00 and keep LL in in the loop.

LL said they would now take all the topics they’d discussed during the call to the mailing list so they can flesh them up.

AOB:

LL congratulated for his election to the ICANN board. He also thanked RPL for his many years of service.

FY asked who would be attending the Buenos Aires meeting.

LL suggested confirming their presence on the mailing list as not everyone was present on the call.

DO then provided a brief update from the AFRINIC 22 meeting:
– Several sessions were provided around the IANA transition.
– They also had the PDP working group meeting.
– Two policies were discussed:
1) Out-Of-Region use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources: Was sent back to the list for discussion.
2) Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points: Pending some minor changes, gained consensus.

DO said he’d share a report via email.

Action Item 150610-06 DO to send a written report of the AFRINIC meeting to AC-COORD list.

Before concluding the meeting, it was decided that they would not discuss the text for the removal of ASO appointees during this meeting but would instead do so at the f2f meeting.

There being nothing further to discuss, RS moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by ME. No objections were heard and the meeting was adjourned at 13.50 UTC.

New Action Items

Action item 150610-01: LL to submit the following question for consideration by the ICANN board: “Does ICANN Board see any risk about the Accountability CCWG process having an impact on IANA Transition Process, namely causing a delay in the latter?”

Action item 150610-02: GV and LL to work on the ASO AC face-to-face meeting agenda

Action item 150610-03: GV to request a time slot change for the ASO AC Public Session at ICANN 53 within the next five hours so that he can help with this change of time for the Public Session.

Action item 150610-04: LL will work with AP to see that the CRISP team’s activities on the IANA transition are in the report, at least as a teaser.

Action item 150610-05: FY to work with GV on the workshop scheduled for Wednesday 15:30 to 17:00 and keep LL in in the loop.

Action Item 150610-06 DO to send a written report of the AFRINIC meeting to AC-COORD list.