ICANN-ASO MOU: What Happened Between March and October? And Where Did Openness, Transparency and Documentation Go?
On October 21st, ICANN announced the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Address Supporting Organization. ICANN's press release notes that "This formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) outlines new policy processes for the Address Supporting Organisation (ASO), which is the oldest Supporting Organisation in the ICANN framework, dating back to 1999." The press release also explains that "The purpose of the ASO is to review and develop recommendations on global number resource policy and to advise the ICANN Board on these matters." The ICANN-ASO MOU is available on ICANN's website at https://www.aso.icann.org/docs/aso-mou.html.

However, there is another and quite different version of the ICANN-ASO MOU on ICANN's website. This earlier MOU, which is not marked "draft" is dated "31 March 2004". The March version of the ICANN-ASO MOU is available on ICANN's website at https://www.icann.org/aso/icann-aso-mou-30mar04.htm.

It should be noted that on April 2, 2004, ICANN published an ICANN-ASO "letter of intent" dated March 30th, 2004 stating the intention of ICANN and the Number Resource Organization (NRO), a key component of the ASO, to sign the March MOU. The letter did note that final approval of the MOU was contingent on public comment periods administered by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) of the NRO and by ICANN. The letter closed by stating, "Providing that there is no significant change to the MoU, it is the intent of ICANN and the NRO to sign the MoU at the earliest opportunity."

There were significant changes made to the March MOU, changes that ICANN did not discuss or mention in their October press release. For example, the Purpose section of the March MOU listed three reasons for establishing the MOU. The third purpose listed for the March version of the MOU was, "defining accessible, open, transparent and documented procedures for the selection of individuals to serve on other ICANN bodies, including selection of Directors of ICANN and selection of members of various standing committees and ad hoc ICANN bodies."

The October version of the MOU included a section called "Purpose and Scope" that also listed three points. However, the October version of MOU deleted "defining accessible, open, transparent and documented procedures" as being a purpose of the document.

The October MOU, at various places in the text, does call for selection of the RIR members of the Address Council to be made, "via an open and transparent procedure." The October MOU also calls for openness and transparency with regard to selection of initial Address Council members and for removal of RIR Address Council members.

It is critical to note that the section of the October MOU discussing appointment of members of ICANN's Board of Directors by the Address Council does not mention accessible, open and transparent procedures, which was one of the three purposes of the March version of the MOU. Furthermore, the October MOU also does not mention open and transparent appointments to any other ICANN-related organization, such as standing committees and ad hoc bodies, as was to be required by the March MOU.

Another essential difference between the March and October versions of the MOU is that the requirement for documentation of "accessible, open, transparent" procedures that was part of the purpose of the March MOU was deleted in the October version of the document. Nowhere in the October MOU is there a requirement for "documented procedures." How can stakeholders be assured that any process or decision affected by the ICANN-ASO MOU is open and transparent if the procedures behind the process and/or decision are not documented?

ICANNfocus.org welcomes comments on the differences between the March and October versions of the ICANN-ASO MOU from all stakeholders, including, of course, ICANN.