ASO AC Face-to-Face Meeting 23 April, 2007

ASO AC face to face meeting held on Monday, 23 April 2007 (14:30 UTC)

Held during the ARIN XIX meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico

AC Attendees:

  • Sebastian Bellagamba (SB), Chair
  • Sanford H. George (SG)
  • Martin Hannigan (MH)
  • Hans Petter Holen (HPH)
  • Toshiyuki Hosaka (TH)
  • Kenny Huang (KH)
  • Hartmut Glaser (HG)
  • Louis Lee (LL)
  • Francisco Obispo (FO)
  • Dave Wilson (DW)
  • Alan Barrett (AB)
  • Wilfried Woeber (WW)

Secretariat:

  • Samantha Dickinson, Recording Secretary – APNIC

Observers:

  • Donna McLaren (DM) – APNIC
  • Paul Wilson (PW) – APNIC
  • Raymond Plzak (RP) – ARIN
  • Richard Jimmerson (RJ) – ARIN
  • Bart Boswinkel (BB) – ICANN
  • Raimundo Beca (RB) – ICANN
  • Olof Nording (ON) – ICANN
  • Leo Vegoda (LV) – ICANN
  • Dave Wodelet (DWT) – ICANN
  • Raúl Echeberria (RE) – LACNIC
  • Axel Pawlik (AP) – RIPE NCC
  • Paul Rendek (PR) – RIPE NCC

Apologies:

  • Jean Robert Hountomey (JRH)

Absent:

  • HJ Kwon (HJK)
  • Ali Badiel (ADB)

Draft agenda

  1. Welcome and agenda review
  2. Open discussion on ICANN Board Selection Process and candidates
  3. Any other business

  1. Welcome

    The Chair called the meeting to order at 14:40 UTC, noting that the meeting was an informal meeting, so no quorum was needed and no formal roll calls would be necessary. The Chair explained that the meeting agenda was very loose to allow free discussion on the ICANN Board Selection Process and candidates.

  2. Open discussion on ICANN Board Selection Process and candidates

    The Chair noted that all AC members now had received all the relevant material about the Board candidates and that it was now the final phase of the Board selection process, as defined in section 7.4.5 of the Board Selection Procedures. the selection phase.

    The Chair noted that there would be provision for three rounds of voting to allow for potential ties. As decided at the 4 April teleconference, the Chair explained that the first round of voting would last 72 hours. However, if all members have finished voting before 72 hours, the voting can be closed early.

    The Chair explained that to be elected, a candidate must have a majority of the votes. If one candidate had majority vote in round one, there would be no need for further voting rounds. Otherwise, only the top two or top tied candidates would go through to a second voting round.

    The Chair explained that the second and third voting rounds would last 48 hours, with possible earlier closure if all AC members have voted.

    The voting periods would begin at midnight Brisbane time due to limitations in the e-voting software. The exact starting times of the voting rounds are:

    Brisbane time (UTC +10) UTC
    Midnight, Monday 30 April 2007 14:00 Sunday 29 April 2007
    Midnight, Thursday 3 May 2007 14:00 Wednesday 2 May 2007
    Midnight, Saturday 5 May 2007 14:00 Friday 4 May 2007

    WW asked that the formal announcement of voting starting times be sent to the AC-COORD mailing list in UTC time.

    The Chair explained that this voting timeline was necessary because there was a deadline to announce the ASO’s candidate to ICANN by the end of the 8 May 2007.

    HG suggested that the ASO AC needed to be prepared for last minute solutions in case there was a three-time tie during voting. He suggested that maybe the AC members onsite in Puerto Rico could discuss possible solutions over lunch.

    MH stated that the AC members had already voted on this issue last meeting.

    The Chair suggested that perhaps the AC meeting scheduled for 2 May 2007 could be moved to 7 May so the AC could deal with the a potential third tie during that meeting.

    MH noted that he thought there was a requirement to announce AC meetings in advance. He explained that he organised his schedule around AC meetings and would not be able to attend the meeting on 7 May 2007.

    The Chair noted that it would be possible to call an emergency meeting with a seven day lead.

    HG asked how much time the AC had to communicate the candidate decision to ICANN if voting finished at 14: 00 UTC, 7 May 2007. The Chair replied that the decision had to be announced formally on 8 May 2007.

    HG then agreed a conference call on 7 May would be a good idea.

    The Chair noted that there would be a contingent emergency meeting organised for 7 May 2007. However, if a successful candidate was chosen, during the three voting rounds, the emergency meeting would be cancelled.

    WW asked that AC members try to vote as soon as possible during the voting period.

    The Chair asked for discussion on candidates. RB announced that he would withdraw from the meeting at this point.

    [RB left the room at 15:00 UTC]

    The Chair noted that there was no agenda for the discussion on candidates. Instead, there would be open discussion based on the background information already received.

    The Chair noted that four of the five interview committee members were present at the meeting and encouraged the other AC members to ask questions of the interview committee if needed.

    HG noted that MH had raised an issue about one candidate who had a number of similar references posted to the public comment site that had come from generic email domains. That candidate was Al-Din J. Kadhem Al-Radhi.

    MH explained that there was a very unusual amount of participation in the public comment phase of this Board selection process. There had been a total of 153 comments posted to the website. Of these comments, the most posts were received by the following three candidates (listed in order of number of comments received):Al-Din J. Kadhem

    • Al-Radhi
    • Jordi Palet Martinez
    • Vikram Gupta

    MH explained that most of the public comments received for Al-Radhi had come from generic accounts. MH had conducted spot checks on some of the emails sent from people who stated they came from official or government positions but had sent their statements of support from generic accounts. He had asked these people to confirm their support by resending email from their official email address. MH noted that he had a 50% success rate in receiving replies from official accounts after sending out his requests. He said that no conclusions could be drawn from this. He suggested that each individual AC member needed to view the comments as they saw fit. He further suggested that AC members needed to understand that a large amount of comments did not necessarily mean support from the RIR community.

    MH also noted that many of the comments received did come from people the AC would recognise and definitely should be considered by AC members.

    SG suggested that, in future, maybe the AC should consider some form of verification before accepting public submissions.

    The Chair agreed, stating that the AC would have all of 2008 to make improvements to the Board selection process as there would be no election during that year.

    The Chair noted that it was important to remember that submissions of public support were to be used with discretion.

    HG asked for information about the interviews held at the ICANN meeting in Lisbon. MH responded saying that, after the Lisbon meeting, minutes were sent to all AC members containing information such as the details of each candidate and their responses to questions during the interview.

    HG asked how many candidates were present in Lisbon. MH answered that there were four:

    • Jordi Palet Martinez
    • Kuo Wei Wu
    • Raimundo Beca
    • Remco Van Mook

    The Chair noted that the minutes from the Lisbon meeting were definitely sent to the mailing list. He asked HG to let him know if he had not received the email, and if the minutes needed to be resent. MH suggested that HG check the mailing list archives.

    TH noted that Kuo Wei Wu had indicated that he was willing to resign from th APNIC EC if elected to the ICANN Board. He asked if APNIC knew about this situation.

    PW noted that the APNIC EC knew about this, but no public announcement had been made to the community yet.

    TH asked if an APNIC EC election would be needed if Kuo Wei Wu was elected.

    PW answered yes. He noted that APNIC could appoint a temporary EC member in the interim.

    RE noted that this was a matter for APNIC and Kuo Wei Wu. He noted that similar discussion had taken place at the time Raimundo Beca was elected to the ICANN board. RE noted that there was no formal requirement from the ASO standpoint for an ICANN Board member to resign from their position on a board at an RIR. He suggested that is was an issue for the individual organisations, and not for the ASO itself.

    MH noted that RP, on behalf of the ARIN Board, had raised a concern about Kuo Wei Wu sitting on both the ICANN and APNIC boards. MH noted that the difference between Kuo Wei Wu’s position and Raimundo Beca’s position was that the ASO and ICANN had matured in the intervening years.

    MH explained that the ASO AC were sending a Board member to ICANN in the hope that the Board member would be supportive of the addressing community. He noted that there are times when a Board member may have a conflict of interest in regards to signing contracts, etc. If the ICANN Board member was also a member of an RIR board, the member would have to abstain from voting if there was a conflict of interest. Abstaining during votes, particularly when the voting numbers are close, could hurt the ASO community as a whole.

    MH suggested that if Kuo Wei Wu were to be elected, the ASO AC should show him respect by letting him submit his resignation before the AC contacted the ICANN Secretariat with details of his selection. MH noted that the AC did not have an official procedure to do such a thing, but that there should not be any problems doing this.

    RE agreed with MH. He also stressed that there was also no formal ASO requirement for ICANN Board nominees to resign from RIR board positions. Therefore, Kuo Wei Wu’s offer to resign was informal. RE asked whether there should, in future, be a more formal process to respond to similar issues. He noted that it could not be considered a formal constraint for election this time.

    The Chair suggested that if Kuo Wei Wu were elected, the AC could send an informal email to him on 7 May telling him of his selection, so that he could immediately send a resignation letter to the APNIC EC. However, the Chair noted that the AC could not delay sending the selection decision to ICANN while the AC waited from confirmation that Kuo Wei Wu had sent his resignation letter to the APNIC EC.

    MH suggested that if anyone would like to send such an email to Kuo Wei Wu in the event of his election, they should feel free to do so.

    There was continued discussion about whether it would be a conflict of interest to have an ICANN Board member also serving an RIR board member. MH though that although the issue was not a requirement of the current selection procedure, the AC could consider it in deliberations before voting.

    RE suggested that the conflict of interest discussion was only relevant when there was an area of particular interest to the RIR of which the board member is involved. RE noted that several Board members on ICANN work for organisations that have contractual relationships with ICANN.

    MH raised the issue of fiduciary responsibility, asking how one person on the ICANN Board could have dual fiduciary responsibility when deliberating on issues.

    RE suggested that the issue of conflict of interest was really more relevant for ICANN to consider, rather than the ASO or RIRs. He suggested that the discussion belonged at the ICANN level so that all conflict of interest cases are resolved, including ASO nominated Board members as well as Board members associated with domain name registrars.

    DWT explained that only some people have voting rights on the ICANN Board, but that anyone could take part in discussions. He confirmed that sometimes, some members of the Board had a conflict of interest, which did put them at a disadvantage when voting on issues where the voting numbers are very close.

    MH forwarded to the AC-COORD mailing list an email about fiduciary responsibility issue email that he had first sent on 26 March 2007 and asked for it to be read into the record of this meeting:

       ---------- Forwarded message ----------
   From: Martin Hannigan 
   Date: Mar 26, 2007 10:06 AM
   Subject: Candidate Conflict Remarks for ASO AC
   To: ac-coord' AC 

   Dear Colleagues:

   We have discussed this as a group and consulted with a representative
   of the ARIN region. ARIN has a position that is not specific to any
   candidate. They are generally concerned whenever a single well
   qualified candidate has fiduciary duties to two entities where these
   duties can compete. For example, in this case, a candidate has a
   fiduciary duty to APNIC. If elected to the ICANN Board, he would also
   have a fiduciary duty to ICANN. These two duties can theoretically
   conflict at the worst possible time. For example, ICANN may be asked
   to consider a contract between ICANN and an RIR, like APNIC, or with
   the NRO, where APNIC's position is by definition the same as all the
   RIRs. If the individual votes with ICANN's fiduciary duty in mind to
   reject such a contract, he would be breaching his duty to APNIC. For
   this reason we prefer a  situation where a person has only a single
   no-competing financial duty at a time. The ARIN Board has taken the
   same position when an ARIN Board member would have experienced a
   similar conflict. Therefore, ARIN would be very happy if the election
   to the ICANN slot led to a simultaneous agreement to resign the RIR
   EC or other slot. The ARIN Board will take the issue under advisement
   and address the issue as needed.

   We agree that this is an issue to be considered.

   Best Regards,

   Martin/For the IC

    TH asked if it would be disclosed how individual members of the ASO AC voted in the ICANN Board votes.

    The Chair explained that, from the current election on, only the aggregate results were made public. Previous elections did have open voting, however.

    MH noted that four of the candidates had never attended an RIR meeting:

    • Shahmeet Singh
    • Vikram Gupta
    • Al-Din J. Kadhem Al-Radhi
    • Smain Aouissi

    MH noted that Smain Aouissi had not submitted a CV and had not received any submissions of support, either.

    MH suggested the ASO AC wanted someone who was known to participate in the RIR community. He asked if anyone present at the meeting knew any of these candidates and could provide any information to help the AC evaluate the four candidates properly.

    MH noted that in 2008, he hoped that a selection procedures administrative guide would be developed so that deadlines could be met more easily in future and that all the little steps that need to be taken would be documented thoroughly. He said that when developing those guidelines, it would be worth considering whether the ASO AC needed to do face to face interviews with candidates in future.

    MH noted that since nobody had any knowledge of the previously discussed four candidates, there were now four remaining preferred candidates:

    • Jordi Palet Martinez
    • Kuo Wei Wu
    • Raimundo Beca
    • Remco Van Mook

    MH noted that at the ICANN meeting in Lisbon, it was interesting to watch the ICANN Board meeting. MH had sought feedback from his own regional community about who would be the best ASO representative on the ICANN Board. The feedback he had received was that it was extremely important to follow the policies and procedures of the Board. The feedback was that ICANN should operate like the ASO is required to. MH speculated that this feedback seemed to be related to the .xxx decision. Some people he talked to also felt that the .xxx decision did not follow all policy and procedure, but was based on personal opinion or on the opinions of people who had not participated in the bottom-up process considered so important by the RIR communities. Other feedback he had received was that there was a varied level of experience amongst the Board candidates.

    MH noted that there had been a lot of discussion with the candidates about IPv6, but little discussion on IPv4. He noted that only one candidate had touched on IPv4 transition.

    MH noted that one candidate had outstanding experience with IPv6, but no stated experience in IPv4, whether in transition to IPv6, or stand alone.

    MH noted that in Van Mook’s recent email to the AC, he had complimented the APNIC region on the “IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal”. MH noted that no other candidate had mentioned the transition from IPv4 to IPv6.

    MH stated that he would like an ICANN Board member who had the character of a board member. Potential Board members need to have a good public face and be able to interact with the existing Board members.

    MH suggested that the gathering of support statements for some candidates was perhaps a bit too effective. He though that perhaps candidates should have been more selective in garnering more strategic statements of support.

    MH stated that he thought the successful candidate needed to have a background in IPv6, IPv4 and business to be an effective candidate.

    LL stated that he had had contact with Remco Van Mook the previous week at the EuroIX meeting, where Van Mook had run a session on regulatory issues surrounding IXes. LL thought Van Mook had been able to talk intelligently and accurately. LL had been impressed by Van Mook’s thoughts on the transition to IPv6 and his ability to work with varying types of people from business and technical areas.

    SG stated that he would like all unsucsessful candidates reminded of the ICANN Nomcom process for electing ICANN Board members.

    The Chair noted that the Nomcom deadline was before the ASO AC selection deadline.

    SG stated that he was fairly certain that the deadline for Nomcom would be extended. SG agreed to send an email to all candidates about the NomCom process.

    MH noted that he had also spoken to Van Mook.

    MH stated that there should be some level of predictability in the selected candidate. He thought that Van Mook displayed these traits. MH noted that Van Mook had support from GAC members, had been in the community for a while and had submitted a good follow up statement to the AC. MH expressed support for Van Mook.

    [ON left the call at 15:55 UTC]

    FO suggested that an ICANN Board member should be more than technical person. He explained that he supported Jordi Palet Martinez in the previous election because of his diverse background in technology and business. FO also noted that Raimundo Beca was also working hard for the commuity.

    [HG rejoined the call at 16:03 UTC]

    HG stated that he had a strong feeling that the AC needed to approach the situation from the perspective of the ICANN Board. HG noted that the Board had lost its African representative last year and that Raimundo Beca’s time on the Board would end this year. HG suggested it was important to have a continuation because of IPv6 and transition issues. HG suggested he would like Raimundo Beca to be re-elected. HG thought Beca was a very strong candidate because he had a good relationship with the ASO.

    SD reminded AC members to change their default passwords for the e-voting system.

    MH stated that, on the ICANN site, he could not find a lot of links between Beca and the ASO outside Beca’s biography. He requested some more information showing the connection between Beca and the ASO. The Chair stated that he would forward this information to the list. The Chair stated that Beca had represented the ASO well in the Global IPv6 Policy adoption.

    MH stated that strong representatives of the ASO would consistently represent themselves as ASO representatives in all Board deliberations.

    SG stated that he thought Beca had performed well as an ASO ICANN Board representative. SG stated that the fact that Beca was willing to stand for election second time, considering the large time commitment involved, meant that the AC should support him. SG noted that there is a two-term limit to serve on the Baord, so Beca would not be able to run for election again if he was re-elected this year.

  3. Any other business

    RE stated that he thought the ASO AC should take more advantage of face to face meetings such as the Puerto Rico meeting to receive reports from ASO-elected representatives on the ICANN Board. The Chair agreed with the idea and stated that he would raise it as an issue for the next face to face meeting.

    The Chair noted that the next scheduled face to face ASO AC meeting would be at the ICANN meeting in the Asia Pacific region in late October and early November.

    The Chair closed the meeting at 16:15 UTC.

Last modified on 03/03/2020