[arin-announce] NRO EC and ASO AC Joint Response to the 2017 Independent ASO Review Recommendations

[ARIN]

This message is shared on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO):


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”.