ICANN Address Supporting Organisation

Address Council Teleconference

2200 Wednesday 5 July 2000 GMT

Minutes - FINAL


Agenda:

1. Welcome
2. Agenda bashing
3. Minutes from last meetings
4. ICANN directors election
5. IRP NomCom
6. Response to Michael Roberts letter
7. Emerging RIR document

Present:

Mirjam Kuehne (MK)
Ant Brookes (AB)
Cathy Wittbrodt (CW)
Hyunje Park (HP)
Hans Petter Holen (HH)
Kim Hubbard (KH)
Sabine Jaume (SJ)
Raimundo Beca (RB)
German Valdez (GV)
Louis Touton (LT)
Andrew McLaughlin (AM)
Takashi Arano (TA)
Paul Wilson (PW)

Apologies:

Wilfried Woeber (WW)


1. Meeting open

HH opened the meeting at 2205 GMT, noting that a quorum of AC members was
present.

HH noted that ICANN has designated German Valdez as LACNIC's official
observer.

The AC welcomed German Valdez to the meeting.


2. Agenda bashing

LT proposed 2 new items for the agenda, and the final agenda was agreed as
follows:

    1. Welcome
    2. Agenda bashing
    3. Minutes from last meetings
    4. ICANN directors election
    5. IRP NomCom
    6. Response to Michael Roberts letter
    7. Emerging RIR document
    8. IANA policies
    9. Status of .arpa


3. Minutes from last meetings

3.1 Budapest

RB questioned the minutes regarding the role of listeners, and suggested
that they should attend phone conferences and listen but not speak.

HH suggested that this should be considered later, or at a later meeting.

It was agreed by all that the minutes are accurate, and that they should be
released.

3.2 Last teleconference meeting

HH suggested that actions from the last meeting should be summarised at end
of the minutes.

Actions as summarised by MK include:

- Paul Wilson to resubmit minutes from AC meeting 18 May 2000 (Done)
- Louis Touton and ARIN to work on 24/8
- RIRs to resubmit the 'Emerging RIR' document
- Wilfried to draft response to Mike Roberts letter
- Sabine to resubmit AC procedures graph (Done)
- HH and AM to draft explanatory text on IRP NomCom

PW suggested that the minutes should include apologies received prior to the
meeting.

ACTION: PW to finalise minutes with this addition, and recirculate to the AC
with a final call for comments before publication 7 days later.


4. ICANN Directors election

HH proposed to address this item under three separate topics:

A. Selection procedures
B. ASO Board candidates nominated by RIRs
C. Proposed postponement of election


4A. Selection procedures

TA proposed a simple 3-step procedure for election:

1) Evaluate eligibility criteria according to the MoU (excluding ineligible
persons);
2) Share information about eligible nominees;
3) Vote. (If a candidate receives more than 50% then they are elected,
otherwise AC select between 2 who received maximum number of votes).

LT questioned whether the final vote will be at a meeting rather than by
email, and noted that the ICANN Names Council votes by email.

HH commented that we are bound by the ASO MoU to vote by phone conference or
face-face, and that the MoU should be updated to allow email vote.

LT suggested that the AC could vote informally by email, but ratify the
result formally at a phone conference or face-face meeting.

RB suggested that before voting, the AC should attempt to form consensus on
a single candidate.

SJ suggested that AC members from the applicable region would be in the best
position to provide information about candidates.

RB suggested that expressions of support for ASO Board candidates should be
made public.

HP requested that AC members receive a complete summary of all expressions
of support received, by email, as soon as the deadline passes.

All agreed that expressions of support should be made available on the ASO
Web site as they are received.

SJ noted that eligibility criteria should be explicitly drawn from the MoU.

The following steps were agreed by all:

1) Evaluate candidates against eligibility criteria according to the MoU,
and exclude ineligible persons;
2) Review expressions of support received, for each eligible candidates;
3) Review any additional information about qualifications of eligible
nominees;
4) Attempt to form consensus on most suitable candidate to be elected to
ICANN Board;
5) If no consensus, then conduct a vote as described below.

Election process:

A first poll will be held to select from a ballot of all eligible
candidates.  A candidate who receives more than 50% of votes under this poll
will be considered to be elected. If no candidate receives more than 50% of
votes, then a subsequent poll will be held to select from the two candidates
receiving the highest number of votes in the first ballot (or in the case of
a tie, the smallest group of 3 or more candidates who have received the
highest numbers of votes). The candidate receiving the highest number of
votes in this poll will be considered to be elected (or the process repeated
in case of a tie).


4B. ASO Board candidates nominated by RIRs

RIR representatives PW, KH and MK confirmed that the RIRs do not intend to
nominate additional candidates.


4C. Proposed postponement of election

PW explained technical problems which occurred during June and prevented
expressions of support from being received.

LT confirmed that the deadline for the final decision on new ICANN Board
members is 15 days prior to 1 October 2000.

It was agreed by all that the deadline for expressions of support should be
extended to 31 July, and that expressions of support should be posted to the
ASO website as they arrive.


5. IRP NomCom

RB suggest to extend the deadline 31 July, and consider this issue again at
next meeting.

Agreed by all.


6. Response to Mike Roberts

Action still pending.

Agreed by all to defer this item until next meeting.


7. Emerging RIRs

It was noted that the latest draft of the emerging RIRs document has now
been circulated.

It was agreed by all that a 7-day final call period will be allowed for
comments from the AC, after which the document will be released publicly.

RB confirms that he is satisfied with the proposed wording regarding English
language record keeping.


8. Review of IANA principles regarding RIR requests for resources

LT noted that guidelines for IANA processing of RIR requests are not well
articulated, and suggested that the AC may wish to consider this matter.

CW asked for clarification of any current problems, and for confirmation
that there would be no delay in the RIR request process as a result of this
proposal.

LT commented that the current process is adequate, but could be more
formalised, in comparison with other IANA procedures (eg protocol
assignment).

KH commented that is not clear on whether this is an AC responsibility, or
what action would be expected of the AC by ICANN.

LT suggested that the AC could make a recommendation to be accepted by the
ICANN board, for implementation by IANA; also that the AC would need to
decide whether there are in fact any global policy issues at stake.

PW proposed that RIRs should work with IANA to document procedures, and
present these for subsequent review by the AC, to determine whether there
are any global policy implications and if so then how to proceed.

All agreed.

Action: RIRs and IANA


9. Update on status of .arpa

LT reported that the IAB is still in the process of looking at names to be
migrated from .int to .arpa. The IAB initially indicated that ip6 would be
one of the first, however no further information has been received from
them.


10. Any other business

KH reported that ARIN has called for nominations for election to the AC at
its Open Policy meeting (October 2 to 4 in Virginia); and raised the
question of when AC members' terms of service will start, and whether AC
terms in all regions should be aligned.  Suggested 1 January as an
appropriate starting time for all AC member terms.

There was general agreement that alignment of terms would be desirable for
ease of transition of members into and out of the AC.

LT noted that this would require extension of the terms of initial AC
members by a small amount, and volunteered to advise on implications of such
a change on MoU.

PW reminded the AC that APNIC's Open Policy meeting will be held in
Brisbane, on 25-27 October; also that the AC proposed a face-face meeting on
Sat 28 October, which will include RIR-AC-ICANN workshop as discussed in
Budapest.

MK noted the scheduled ASO slot on the agenda for the ICANN meeting in
Yokohama.

It was agreed that an AC presentation should be given at the Yokohama
meeting, by TA with assistance from SJ and PW as needed.

It was noted that TA, SJ and PW will attend the ICANN meeting in Yokohama,
along with Axel Pawlik from RIPE NCC and David Conrad from ARIN Board of
Trustees.


Meeting closed: 2320 GMT

Next meeting: Wed 2 August 2000 at 2200 GMT

===

Summary of actions outstanding:

- LT and ARIN to work on 24/8
- All to review RIR's last draft of Emerging RIR document and comment by 13
July
- WW to draft response to Mike Roberts letter
- HH and AM to draft explanatory text on IRP NomCom
- PW to finalise minutes from last teleconference
- PW to announce extension of ASO Board EoS deadline, and ensure that
submissions are placed on the ASO website
- PW to announce extension of IRP NomCom nominations deadline
- RIRs and IANA to work on documenting resource request process
- LT to report back on possibility of aligning AC member terms under
provisions of the MoU
- AC members to seek to recruit suitable people for IRP NomCom