The APNIC Community has re-elected Brajesh Jain to serve on the Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC)/Address Supporting Organization  Address Council (ASO AC). His two year term will begin on 1 January 2019 and end on 31 December 2020.

In line with the ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and the ICANN Bylaws, the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) has issued a call for nominations for Seat 10 of the ICANN Board of Directors.

The selected candidate will serve for a three-year term, which will begin at the conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Assembly during the ICANN 66 Meeting, scheduled from 2-7 November 2019 in Montréal, Canada. 

Eligibility Requirements
All nominated candidates must meet the selection criteria and conflict of interest requirements as outlined in Article 7 of the ICANN Bylaws. The nominated candidates will undergo a due diligence review by an independent ICANN contractor.

Nomination Process
Community members are invited to submit nominations by email to nominations [at] aso [dot] icann [dot] org by Friday, 30 November 2018 at 23:59 UTC.

Nominations must include the following information:

• The full name of the person being nominated.
• Contact email address of the person being nominated.
• Contact telephone number (if available) of the person being nominated.
• The full name of the person making the nomination.
• Contact email address for the person making the nomination.
• Contact telephone number of the person making the nomination.

Regional Restrictions
The ICANN Bylaws state that the Directors selected by a Supporting Organization (SO) for its assigned Board seat(s) cannot reside in the same geographic region (see Section 7.2:c). The current ASO AC selection for Seat 9, Ron da Silva, resides in the ARIN region. Therefore, no nominations for Seat 10 can be accepted from candidates residing in the ARIN region.

Important Dates

• Nomination Phase: 15 September 2018  – 30 November 2018
• Comment Phase: 1 December 2018 – 15 January 2019
• ICANN Due Diligence for nominated candidates: 1 – 15 January 2019
• Interview Phase: 1 – 28 February 2019
• Selection Phase (deliberation): 1 February 2019 – 14 March 2019
• Selection Phase (voting): 15 – 21 March 2019
• Announcement of selected candidate: around 22 March 2019

Further Information

• More information and updated announcements will be added to to the dedicated 2018/19 Seat 10 elections page on the ASO website.
• Detailed procedures for election of individuals to the ICANN Board of Directors by the ASO AC can be found in Section 9 of the ASO AC Operating Procedures.

If you have any questions about the elections or the election process, please contact secretariat [at] nro [dot] net.

Proposed Next Steps

In January 2018, the NRO Executive Council responded to the 18 resulting recommendations that were issued following the second independent review of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) carried out in 2017 by ITEMS International. The last of these Recommendations was that a public consultation be held in each of the five RIR communities to determine the future structure of the ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO).

The recommended public consultations have been initiated in each RIR community over the past six months, including discussions on mailing lists and at meetings in each of the five regions. The NRO EC have considered results of this process to date, and have distilled the following points as a proposed way forward.

1) While not specifically asked as part of our consultation, there was prevailing view across the communities that the number community’s relationship with ICANN (that which is referred as the ASO relationship) should continue. A significant number of community members suggested that the relationship must be significantly simplified and its focus limited to number community matters.

2) The ASO Review recognised that the number community relationship with ICANN is unlike that of other Supporting Organizations. The number community’s engagement with ICANN serves primarily to facilitate coordination of global Internet number resource policies. It follows that number community representatives be careful in appraising current and future proposed ICANN-related work items, and be prepared to decline those that lie outside this scope.

3) It is clear that the existence of two separate identities (those of the NRO and the ASO) leads to complexity and confusion in the ICANN relationship. The NRO EC will work with the ICANN organisation to determine the viability of consolidating the number community’s participation in ICANN under either the “Number Resource Organization” or the “Address Supporting Organisation”.

4) The number community finds value in the ICANN relationship and in ICANN’s defined role as described above. We support ICANN in continuing to undertake this role, and will support continuing evolution of our relationship, including further changes as needed, as time goes on.

The NRO EC provides this statement to the RIR communities in each region as a possible common way forward to aid in their consideration of the future structure of the ASO.

The Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) is pleased to announce that Mr Brajesh Jain has been appointed as its delegate to the 2019 ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom).

About the NomCom

The ICANN NomCom is an independent committee tasked with selecting eight members of the Board of Directors and other key positions within ICANN’s structure.

More information about the ICANN NomCom can be found at: http://nomcom.icann.org/

8 January 2018

In 2017, the Number Resource Organization (NRO) engaged ITEMS International to conduct the second independent review of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO). The objective of this review was to determine whether the ASO has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, whether any change in structure or operations of the ASO would be desirable to improve its effectiveness in the ICANN structure, and additionally whether the ASO is sufficiently accountable to the Internet number community when carrying out its responsibilities.

The result of the ASO Review was published in August 2017, and has been considered by the NRO Executive Council (NRO EC) and by the ASO Address Council (ASO AC). While the final outcome of the Review will be determined through community-wide consultations, the NRO EC and ASO AC have prepared this response to 18 recommendations of the Review Report, including our recommended next steps for addressing each.

Recommendation # 1: ICANN should consider updating its Bylaws to reflect the fact that the NRO will, like the GAC, and according to the ASO MoU, provide its own review mechanism for the review of ASO.

We recommend proceeding on Recommendation 1.

Recommendation # 2: The NRO should consider updating the ASO MoU to reflect the fact that the appropriate section of the New ICANN Bylaws regarding Organizational Reviews is Section 4.4 (previously Article IV, Section 4).

We recommend proceeding on Recommendation 2.

Recommendation # 3: The NRO should adopt a procedure for conducting periodic reviews of the ASO in line with processes used by the ICANN Organizational Effectiveness Committee.

We recommend proceeding on Recommendation 3.

Recommendation # 4: The signatories of the ASO MoU should consider updates to the MoU including i) the addition of AFRINIC as a signatory, ii) the removal of Appendix B. iii) updates in connection with the responsibilities of the ASO as a Decisional Participant in the ICANN Empowered Community.

We recommend proceeding on i) the addition of AFRINIC as a signatory and ii) the removal of Appendix B. We do not recommend proceeding on iii) updates in connection with the responsibilities of the ASO as a Decisional Participant in the ICANN Empowered Community, as such updates would be duplicative of information already contained in ICANN Bylaws.

Recommendation # 5: Upon completion of every independent review of the ASO, the NRO and ICANN should initiate discussions, as per Article 9 of the MoU, to examine results and consequences of their cooperation. The parties should determine if the ASO has a continuing purpose within the ICANN structure, and re-evaluate the MoU accordingly.

We recommend proceeding on Recommendation 5.

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.

We recommend that the ASO AC should work on the “agreed procedures” referred to in steps 12 and 15 of the GPDP. We recommend that the NRO EC should work on the agreement referred to in step 16 of the GPDP.

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).

We consider that there is the two documents serve different purposes and do not conflict. Attachment A of the ASO MoU is the authoritative definition of the Global Policy Development Process. Section 6 of the ASO AC operation procedures gives more detail about how the ASO AC will implement the GPDP. We suggest asking the ASO AC to edit their operating procedures to clarify the relationship between the GPDP and the operating procedures.

Recommendation # 8: With a view to increasing awareness regarding the mission, main operations, and separation of roles between the ASO AC and the NRO EC within the ASO, the NRO should consider the use of more infographics on its website.

We agree to consider the use of more infographics on its website.

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

We refer recommendation 9 to the ASO AC for their consideration.

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.

We refer recommendation 10 to the ASO AC for their consideration.

Recommendation # 11: The ASO AC should ensure that its internal procedure for the removal of an ICANN Board Director is consistent with Section 7.11 of the New ICANN Bylaws.

We agree that there is a need to update procedures for removal of an ICANN Board Director, and note that this may need procedural changes by both the ASO AC and the NRO NC, in view of the NRO’s role in the ICANN Empowered Community. We also note that there are concerns about whether ASO AC members acting in good faith would be indemnified by ICANN, the NRO, or the RIRs.

Recommendation # 12: The ASO should establish the NRO Executive Secretary as the ASO Point of Contact (PoC). The ASO AC should establish procedures for forwarding communications to appropriate parties within the ASO.

As included in recommendation 12, we agree to review the contact points and procedures for reaching relevant parties in the ASO and NRO. We do not recommend proceeding with establishing the NRO Secretariat as the ASO contact point, but instead recommends reviewing and establishing clear contact points and procedures as appropriate.

Recommendation # 13: The ASO MoU should be updated to reflect the new reality of the Empowered Community and specify that the roles and responsibilities within the ASO must be clearly defined.

We believe that the Empowered Community is out of the scope of the ASO review, and that updating the MoU is not appropriate as the updates would be duplicative of information already contained in ICANN Bylaws.

Recommendation # 14: The ASO AC should either confirm that the designated representative of the ASO on the Empowered Community Administration will be the Chair of the NRO EC, or develop a procedure for appointing another representative.

We confirm that the Chair of the NRO EC (or an alternative representative as selected by the NRO EC when necessary) is the Designated Representative of the ASO. The NRO EC is the appropriate body to define the appointment process (rather than the ASO AC) because the Empowered Community is not an ICANN body but a separate organization.

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

We refer recommendation 15 to the ASO AC for their consideration.

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.

We believe that recommendation intends ASO AC when it notes ‘…the ASO should favour the use of a publicly archived mailing list’. We therefore refer recommendation 16 to the ASO AC for their consideration.

Recommendation # 17: In the interests of transparency, the ASO website should be updated with recent presentations, contact details and an archive of the activities of both the ASO AC and NRO EC.

We recommend proceeding on Recommendation 17.

Recommendation # 18: The NRO should initiate a public consultation, involving the five RIR communities, to determine the future structure of the ASO.

We agree that “The NRO should initiate a public consultation, involving the five RIR communities, to determine the future structure of the ASO”.

During the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO) Teleconference, held on 7 February, Ricardo Patara (LACNIC) was appointed as Vice Chair and will serve a one-year term. He joins Kevin Blumberg (ARIN), who was appointed as Vice Chair during the ASO AC’s January Teleconference.

Johan Mikael “Julf” Helsingius has withdrawn his nomination for the election of the Address Supporting Organization’s (ASO) representative to the ICANN Board of Directors (Seat 9).

Three candidates remain:
– Kris Seeburn
– Ron da Silva
– William Michael Cunningham

The comment period is open and will close on 18 March 2018.

For more information on the elections and remaining three candidates, please see here.

The most recent ASO Review concluded with 18 recommendations, which the NRO has resolved to accept. The first 17 recommendations are well defined and practical, and can be implemented by actions of the NRO Secretariat, or of the ASO Address Council, with respect to administrative procedures, documentation, or in some cases adjustments to agreements which are expected to be non-controversial.

The 18th recommendation of the Report is that “The NRO should initiate a public consultation, involving the five RIR communities, to determine the future structure of the ASO”. The NRO EC has concluded to accept that recommendation and is hereby launching a consultation on the issues identified in the ASO Review Report.

While each of the RIRs will launch consultation processes within their communities, the NRO has agreed on this joint announcement, and coordinated call for contributions, in order to maintain consistency in scope of regional consultations, both with each other and with the Review Report.

Scope

The Review Report concludes that “The core mission and administrative tasks for which the ASO was set up remain largely unchanged, and there is no pressing need for organi[z]ational reform”, but at the same time it recommends a “call for a community-wide reconsideration of the role and function of the ASO within ICANN”.

More specifically, the following questions related to the ASO MoU have a TTP (percentage of respondents in Top Two Boxes) that requires us to pay attention to the minority views:

• Does the ASO MoU adequately describe the role and function of the ASO within ICANN? 52% answered Yes.
• Does the rationale for the ASO as spelled out in the ASO MoU need to be updated post IANA transition in light of the creation of the ICANN Empowered Community? 50% answered Yes.

Additionally, the report allocates significant attention to the efficiency of the Internet Numbers Community involvement in ICANN activity after the findings in the question “Does the ASO have a continuing purpose in the ICANN Structure?” with 17% respondents not answering “YES”. Suggesting that some of the activities related to the ICANN engagement might be of marginal interest to the Internet Numbers Community and that could be reviewed:

“We did hear of concerns within the Internet Number community regarding the increasing amount of volunteer time that ICANN engagement seems to require, much of which is of marginal direct interest to the Internet Numbers Community. The NRO will need to regularly evaluate these concerns, and act pre-emptively, if necessary, to ensure that the benefits of the ICANN system are not perceived to be outweighed by the “costs” of engagement“.

Issues to Address:

The scope of this consultation includes the structural implications of issues identified by the ASO Review, including but not limited to:

• Any updates and adjustments identified as required for ASO-related documents
• Any procedural clarifications and adjustments identified
• Reported confusion of roles between ASO and NRO, and their components
• Perceived complexity of relationships among NRO, ASO and ICANN
• Relevance and cost to the RIRs of various ICANN engagement activities

Out of the Scope of this consultation are the following aspects:

• Global Policy Development Process (GPDP)
• ASO AC role with GPDP

Specific Questions:

The NRO EC is looking to specific answer to the following questions:

• What adjustments, if any, should be made in order to address the issues described above?
• Should adjustments be limited to NRO MoU, ASO MoU, and/or ICANN Bylaws
• Over what timeframes should these adjustments be developed and implemented
• What strategic aspects should we pay attention to when considering these adjustments?