Changes

# Joint Recommendations to the ICANN Board and the NRO Executive Council.<ref name="finalrep" />

# Joint Recommendations to the ICANN Board and the NRO Executive Council.<ref name="finalrep" />

Public comment was minimal - a total of two commenters, one of which was the NRO itself.<ref name="finalpc">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-aso-review-03may12-en.pdf ICANN.org - Report on Public Comment Proceeding], May 3, 2012</ref> The other comment expressed concern that the ASO memorandum of understanding permitted the NRO to oversee the review, which presented a possible conflict of interest.<ref name="finalpc" /> The NRO agreed with or provided no comment on nineteen of the recommendations. Their comments "diverged to varying degrees" with respect to seven of the recommendations:

Public comment on the ITEMS report was minimal - a total of two commenters, one of which was the NRO itself.<ref name="finalpc">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-aso-review-03may12-en.pdf ICANN.org - Report on Public Comment Proceeding], May 3, 2012</ref> The other comment expressed concern that the ASO memorandum of understanding permitted the NRO to oversee the review, which presented a possible conflict of interest.<ref name="finalpc" /> The NRO agreed with or provided no comment on nineteen of the recommendations. Their comments "diverged to varying degrees" with respect to seven of the recommendations. The following recommendations drew the most dissent from the NRO:

* ''Recommendation 1: Clarify the purpose, mandate and objectives of the ASO and distinguish between the ASO functions to be undertaken by the Address Council and those to be undertaken by the NRO Executive Council.'' The NRO responded that these were clearly defined but acknowledged the need to cure some confusion among the ICANN community regarding those topics.

* ''Recommendation 1: Clarify the purpose, mandate and objectives of the ASO and distinguish between the ASO functions to be undertaken by the Address Council and those to be undertaken by the NRO Executive Council.'' The NRO responded that these were clearly defined but acknowledged the need to cure some confusion among the ICANN community regarding those topics.

* ''Recommendation 2: Update Attachment A of the ASO MoU to ensure that it is consistent with the description of the Global Policy Development Process (GPDP) in the Address Council Operating Procedures (ASO AC OP) document.'' The NRO argued that the operating procedures should conform to the MoU, not the other way around.

* ''Recommendation 2: Update Attachment A of the ASO MoU to ensure that it is consistent with the description of the Global Policy Development Process (GPDP) in the Address Council Operating Procedures (ASO AC OP) document.'' The NRO argued that the operating procedures should conform to the MoU, not the other way around.

* ''Recommendation 3: "The signatories of the ASO MoU should mutually agree on a procedure on how the Address Council should deal with a global policy proposal that has been objected or rejected by the ICANN Board.''

* ''Recommendation 5: The signatories of the ASO MoU should agree on a procedure through which the recognition of the ability of the ICANN Board to request the Address Council to initiate a policy development process through the RIRs would be provisioned.'' The NRO stated that the ICANN Board was already empowered to start a PDP (in Annex A of the MoU), and that the Address Council had agreed to develop procedures for such an occurrence.

 

The other comments contained clarifying statements or other minor disagreements with the report's characterization of the status quo.<ref name="finalpc" />

 

==References==

==References==

{{reflist}}

{{reflist}}