The Address Supporting OrganizationAC meeting minutes |
||
|
|
[Minutes]ICANN Address Supporting Organization - Address Council Meetingvia Teleconference Wednesday, 5 February, 2003, 22:15 UTC AC Attendees:
Listener/Observers:
ARIN:
LACNIC:
RIPE NCC:
APNIC:
ICANN:
Agenda
The Chair opened the meeting at 22:15 UTC. Apologies were received from: Wilfried Woeber and Takashi Arano Absent: Seung-Min Lee, Kenny Huang The Chair reviewed the draft agenda and asked if there were any additions or amendments. ED asked about the BOD election process. This matter was deferred to the March agenda. AL noted that there is normally a report from the most recent RIR meeting. This item was also deferred to the March agenda. AP volunteered to circulate the highlights of RIPE 44 and to provide a brief report in the March AC meeting. The Chair noted that the minutes had been circulated and that the comments received had been incorporated. HG moved to approve the minutes from 8 January 2003. ED seconded the motion. There were no objections. The motion to publish the minutes passed. Open action item listShelf list (items pending action outside the ASO AC)The Chair reviewed the background to this matter. He noted that HPH and himself had made public appeals for nominations. The two nominees are Erik Decker and German Valdez. The Chair outlined the proposed selection process: the candidates will be invited to give a brief speech; the AC will be invited to ask questions; and a role call vote will be held. HG suggested that the vote be deferred until the final agenda point, to be conducted in the absence of the candidates. There was consensus that this was the best procedure. Candidates' speeches
[The role was taken again at this point. It was noted that SJ - who had apologised in advance of possible call problems - had dropped out of the call.] Questions from the AC membersKH sought to clarify the role of the Nomcom and asked the candidates what view they had of the best procedures to be developed to appoint members to the board.
The Chair invited more questions. He then asked the candidates whether they would favour a candidate with specific addressing knowledge or one with a more general background.
HG noted that the first Nomcom has a double job. It must prepare the procedures and then elect the first board members. RB noted that the initial Nomcom will have to nominate eight people, and asked the candidates their views about an appropriate equilibrium of the different constituents and the regions.
There were no more questions, so the Chair thanked the candidates. The Chair outlined the contents of the document he had prepared and circulated in relation to the election of chairs and co-chairs. This document is an attempt to define what should happen if the chair becomes vacant. The Chair noted that this document had been circulated to the AC list and had received two comments. The Chair noted that comments he received were on points 7 and 8, specifically relating to the process for the election of chair and co-chair. The Chair called for comments and objections on the document, point by point. On point 2, RP noted that there were would a difficulty if the chair's term ended before the meeting where the election occurred. RE suggested that the co-chair would act as chair pro-temp for the remaining meeting. HPH noted that holding the meeting in January has been a problem in the past, due to clashes with holiday times in some parts of the world. He suggested changing the date of the election. RP noted that the ASO MoU defines the terms as starting on 1 January. He suggested there was a danger of denying due process to people who may not have formally joined the AC at the time the election is held. HPH suggested that to hold the election in June would be possible and would have the advantage that the AC would know more about the candidates. RP also noted that the criteria for chair is that their term on the AC cannot expire during their term as chair. HG noted that the clash with holidays could be solved by briefly postponing the date of the first meeting of the year. The Chair expressed his hope that by the next chair election, there would be online voting so that attendance would not be required. There were several statements of agreement with this point. On point 5, the role of chair and co-chair, RB expressed a concern with proposed process for appointing co-chairs. The Chair noted that this would be dealt with in point 8. On point 7, RB had already proposed on the mailing list that there should be a mechanism for new members on the AC to be nominated. RP noted that it was important that newly elected members should be able to participate in the nominations. The Chair read the provision that RB had suggested. RP argued that new members who had not been formally seated would need to be made eligible to nominate. RP will help The Chair draft additional text for this. The Chair asked if there were any objections to the proposed election process. There were none. RB suggested explicitly stating that nominees are able to participate in the voting. There were no objections to this. On point 8, RB had suggested that the there be a "co-chair one" and "co-chair two". The Chair explained he had tried to incorporate this in section 8.4, which proposes a designated co-chair. The Chair sought the AC's approval to make the changes agreed in this call, to post those changes for final comments, and then to publish the document to the community. RB raised questions about the definition of the designated co-chairs. HG said that it needed to be very clear which co-chair is to act. HG agreed with RB that the co-chair one and co-chair two would act only in an interim capacity and would be clearly empowered to call a election to replace the chair. The Chair to incorporate that change. The Chair apologised that this has not been done. It will be deferred to the March agenda. The Chair noted that the workshop in Amsterdam was very useful and proposed organising a second one. RE proposed to hold a second workshop with the General Assembly in Santiago. HG said that although the first workshop had been useful, it was necessary to have a very clear agenda and reason for holding a second workshop. RE clarified that his proposal was intended to take advantage of the presence of the AC members in Santiago. HG asked whether there was a need to follow any formal procedure to hold a workshop. HPH and RP noted that a workshop was not a formal meeting of the AC and that the regular meeting formalities did not apply. The Chair asked if there were any concerns with the agenda that has been distributed. HG suggested that it should include the Roadmap for 2003-4. There were no objections to the Chair posting the agenda for public comment. RP noted that there have been no negotiations or proposals in January. HPH asked if the RIRs and ICANN are running towards a common goal, or away from each other. RP said they are heading for a common goal but there remain issues with specific language. Election of Nomcom (cont'd)At the request of the Chair, the two nominees left the meeting. RB noted that in terms of determining quorum, it should be based on the voting members and the absence of the candidates would not affect the quorum. It was agreed that this was correct. A vote count was taken. By unanimous vote, GV was appointed to the Nomcom. The Chair will notify the candidates. There was no other business. RB moved a motion for adjournment. Seconded by KH. Meeting adjourned. Open action item list
Shelf list (items pending action outside the ASO AC) |
|
|
|
||