ASO AC Teleconference 3 August 2016

ASO AC Teleconference
03 August 2016


ASO AC Attendees

Douglas Onyango, DO

Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Aftab Siddiqui, AS

Louie Lee, Chair
Jason Schiller, Jsc
John Sweeting, JSw

Ricardo Patara, RP/Vice Chair
Jorge Villa, JV

Filiz Yilmaz, FY/Vice Chair
Nurani Nimpuno, NN

Therese Colosi, Scribe
German Valdez, GV


Adam Gosling

Nate Davis
Sean Hopkins

Axel Pawlik

Ron da Silva, (ICANN Board) RS
Maemura Akinori, (ICANN Board-elect) MA
Selina Harrington
Carlos Reyes

Fiona Asonga, Mark Elkins, Ajay Kumar, Hartmut Glaser, Wilfried Woeber

0. Welcome.
1. Agenda Review.
2. Review of Open Action Items.
3. Approval of Minutes.
4. Operational Procedures Update.
– Voting System
5. Reports.
• Any Other Reports
6. Any Other Business.
7. Adjournment.


0. Welcome. The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:08 p.m. UTC. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair turned the chairmanship for this meeting over to FY.

1. Agenda Review.

FY reviewed the agenda with the ASO AC and called for any comments.

2. Review of Open Action Items.

(Tabled) Action Item 20151209-03: GV to work with JSc on consolidating the ASO AC’s Operating Procedures into one document. At the ASO AC Meeting on 30 June 2016, GV stated that the document is undergoing updates since the last election, and that work on this action item will resume thereafter. At that time, JSc asked that the action item be tabled until edits to the procedures have been completed. The Chair agreed.

Action Item 20160210-03: Chair to request NRO EC update to the ASO AC directly, with reports regarding progress of the new gTLD drafting team. The Chair stated that further updates should be forthcoming from AK directly, and that he would reach out to AK, as an action item.

Reviewed during ASO AC f2f Meeting and replaced by 20160630-01. CLOSED

Action Item 20160630-01: Chair to request direct updates to the ASO AC from AK regarding progress of the new gTLD drafting team.

The Chair noted AK was not on this call, and that he would follow up with AK via email.

Action Item 20160630-02: GV to publish a record of the ASO AC May Teleconference explaining why had not been minuted.

GV stated that the results of the interview of the candidates was done via teleconference, and that the agenda for that call was published. No notes were published due to the confidential nature of the business conducted. CLOSED.

Action Item 20160630-03: GV to post the ASO AC June Minutes as final. GV stated this has been done. CLOSED.

Action Item 20160630-04: Chair to recommend to the NRO EC that Work Stream 2’s work be completed before ATRT3 begins, and share the EC’s response with ASO AC.

The Chair stated that this will be done shortly. OPEN

Action Item 20160630-06: GV and Secretariat to develop a comprehensive ASO slide template for future public session use.

GV stated that this is being worked on. OPEN.

Action Item 20160630-07: GV to notify appropriate parties about HG’s appointment to the ICANN Nomination Committee (NomCom).

GV stated that this item has been completed. CLOSED.

3. Approval of the Minutes.

FY confirmed that GV had sent the Minutes to the ASO AC for review. GV thanked Sean Hopkins for the minutes taken at the meeting.

It was moved by TF, seconded by JSc, that:

“The ASO AC approves the Minutes of 30 June 2016, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

New Action Item 20160803-01: GV to post the ASO AC Minutes of June 30, 2016 as final.

4. Operational Procedures Update.

FY asked JSc for a summary, and what his expectations were from the ASO AC.

FY noted that NN joined at this time (12:25 UTC).

The Voting System. JSc stated that there was a lengthy discussion at the ASO AC’s face-to-face meeting in Helsinki in June. He stated that he wanted to fix the gaps in the procedures. The reference of ‘majority’ in the procedures was a conflicting. During the meeting, discussions were focused on ranked ballots, and on not having multiple cases of people submitting votes. Afterwards, he investigated further into ranked ballots. He found that there are issues that cause tactical voting. He explained the details of this to the ASO AC. Another way to game the system, he noted, was voting for the less preferred candidate to most preferred candidate, and to redistribute votes due to a drop out of a candidate in the race. JSc looked at a number of different voting procedures. He personally settled upon pair-wise ranking, known as the Schulze (or Condorcet) method. He explained the details of this way of voting, and its drawbacks (no tie-breaking mechanism).

FY noted that with all the possibilities there were to game the system, it gets complicated. She suggested that the ASO AC choose an easier way, but wanted to hear JSc’s recommendations. JSc stated he had not thought of any recommendations as he had tried to figure out the best ‘ranked ballot’ election method taken from the outcome of the meeting in Helsinki. He offered to further investigate or decide if the flaws of the system outweigh using it. JSc believed the ASO AC should have that discussion, and he noted that if everyone voted their honest preference, it would be a non-issue.

FY asked if he believed that to be true in both cases? JSc replied that it was true for the ranked ballot system, but it can be a problem in the rounds of voting that take place as it stands.

FY called for comments further comments. Jsc asked if the AC still preferred a ranked ballot system at this point?

NN stated that she had reviewed JSc’s posting on the matter, and noted that it identified the challenges well. She acknowledged that there was no ‘perfect fit’. NN stated that seeing how people voted was not a transparency issue or lack of willingness to be transparent, but was tied to the fact there are several rounds of voting. If there were not several rounds, it would reduce the issue of transparency due to results. NN believed that not having the issue of a tie breaker in the Schulze method can be solved separately in another way.

FY addressed JSc question regarding keeping a ranked ballot system. She stated that the AC needed to look at why the several rounds of voting was happening at the larger scale. She believed that the voting system needed to be corrected or become flexible so it was no longer a concern. If the ASO AC believed it was a problem, they needed to choose another method that JSc had found.

NN asked JSc if the Schulze method option was the best approach for ranked ballot. He replied that it was the least susceptible to gaming.

FY stated she wanted to move forward and suggested a Doodle poll to decide the best system. In order to be able to have voting in a ranked ballot system, the AC need to understand the pros and cons. Did everyone understand it enough? She suggested: 1) give the AC more time to read about it, and then run a Doodle Poll to decide on a system; or, 2) given the lack of comments from the AC she surmised it was due to a lack of information and understanding. FY suggested that JSc list the pros and cons for each method, and post the list to the AC’s mailing list for another month.

JSc stated that he had tried to do that, but review it and re-post it. He asked if the AC was in support of ranked ballot system and suggested having a poll on that to be certain.

DO suggested that there be much more involvement on the AC mailing list and that they vote on one way to move forward, not multiple ways. He wanted to continue it on the mailing list and move to a logical conclusion from there. FY noted that this had been posted now for a month on the AC’s mailing list. JSc is asking for this. If we find that the ranked ballot system is too complicated and risky, then we should start looking for other solutions.

NN agreed. She stated that the AC needed decide if they believed that a ranked ballot system was needed or not. If there was agreement that it was not needed, then there are other ways to conduct elections. Everyone needed to understand the Schulze method and then provide comments. If the AC did not understand the options, they may need further explanation. NN commended JSc for a great job explaining the options, but she noted the difficulty in understanding them. She did not prefer to wait for another month. She pointed out that JSc put in a lot of work into this matter, and he has not received much feedback.

FY agreed, stating that she had found the methods complicated, but would review them again. She suggested a two-week deadline, with an action to review the information and post a Doodle Poll to decide on the ranked ballot system. JSc agreed and wanted to move forward to get the procedures corrected. He would be happy to see forward momentum. He stated that he would write up a summary on Schulze method describe the different ways and the pros and cons of the different selection methods. He stated he would have it by the end of next week.

FY agreed. She suggested a Doodle Poll by 27 August 2016, giving the AC two weeks to review the information. The Doodle Poll would be conducted to decide on a ranked ballot system or not.

NN suggested there may be a You Tube video explaining the Schulze method. JSc stated that it was heavily mathematic, but will look to see if there was a video.

FY thanked JSc very much for his work on this item.

New Action Items:

Action Item 20160803-02: JSc to come up with a summary, and pros and cons list email for the different voting methods.

Action Item 20160803-03: GV to send a Doodle Poll to the AC on 27 August 2016, asking if they choose to move forward with a ranked ballot system or not.

Action Item 20160803-04: ASO AC to review JSc’s summary email before completing the Doodle Poll GV is to send out.

RP stated that he did not have the time yet to review JSc’s post, and asked if the current voting system issue was that there was no tie-breaking solution? FY replied that yes, that was one of the issued. There was also the concern that voting rounds reveal alot about the vote as the process repeats. JSc noted that there was a third problem: the current voting procedures are contradictory and need to be rewritten either way. RP acknowledged.

JSc suggested if it would be helpful to run a mock election. NN thought it would be very helpful. JSc suggested sending a ballot to GV that he can send out and track. FY agreed.

FY pointed out that all of the AC had to participate in the mock election in order for it to work correctly. She asked GV if he could help. GV agreed. JSc stated that at least 4 candidates were needed for the mock election.

New Action Item 20160803-05: JSc and GV to work on conducting a ‘mock election’ with all of the AC in participation.

5. Reports.

FY called for update reports on the following items:

• CCWG Report. JV provided an overview of the CCWG’s work after meeting in Helsinki. He stated that the CCWG has been speaking with NRO EC and agreed to proceed with second stage of CCWG.

• AFRINIC 24 Report. DO provided an overview of the meeting’s happenings to the Council to include status of policies; and, noted that the topic Inter-RIR transfers had been discussed at the meeting.

• Any Other Reports. FY provided a short update on CCWG Internet Governance. She stated there would be appointed members and the topic of anyone being a member and observing the group’s work was being addressed.

6. Any Other Business.

The Chair called for any other business items.

• ASO AC meeting with NRO EC. JSc asked if there had been any progress on the matter of the ASO AC getting together with NRO EC to discuss: a) the AC’s new power of removing ICANN Board members; b) how the ASO AC interfaces with ICANN community; and, c) what part of the ASO AC is the AC and what part of it is the NRO NC.

FY stated that she had asked the same question about a month ago and summarized the issues to the NRO EC, but had not received any feedback. JSc asked for FY’s summary for the ASO AC. She agreed.

AP stated the NRO EC Is happy to meet with ASO AC and would come up with a date to set up a meeting.

New Action:

Action Item 20160803-05: FY to send summery of issues sent to the NRO EC, to be sent to the ASO AC for their information.

• ICANN 57, Hyderabad, India. FY stated that the next ICANN meeting has moved from Puerto Rico to Hyderabad. She noted that new dates were also applied: 03 November through 09 November 2016. She wanted to make sure the ASO AC was aware, and that she needed GV to find out which ASO AC members were going to attend well in advance. GV agreed.

New Action Item 20160803-06: GV to gather the names of the AC attendees to ICANN 57.

RdS provided the reasoning behind the meeting being relocated, stating that the primary motivator was in regard to the Zika virus. Further, the dates in Puerto Rico dates also had the IETF and RIR meetings that took place around that timeframe. RdS also noted that a local host was a needed for each meeting to ensure that visa processing went easily, the venue and security was ensured, and the general facility was also a big criterion. India stepped up and offered, and ICANN accepted.
FY asked if CR had any information on the ICANN 57 meeting structure. CR stated that this was the first year that ICANN had held meetings under the new meeting strategy. ICANN 57 will be the first ICANN ‘C’ meeting, being slightly longer than A or B meetings, and would have two public forums. Earlier this year, Adiel and another person agreed to a series of Plenary sessions and time slots for the Numbers community. They are building this into the schedule. More specific information on the format and tentative block schedule is on a blog post that CR had going on in the chat. He stated that if the AC needed more information on the schedule, he would reach out to the Chairs to coordinate and plan.

FY thanked him for the information asked for the link to blog post.

JSc asked if the the time slot for ICANN 57 was standard for all C meetings, or just for ICANN 57. CR stated it is standard to all C meetings, but he explained that the particular dates are specific to this ICANN meeting only. All future meetings will be standard: Saturday and Sunday and through the ensuing week.

RdS stated that the IETF meeting was being held the following weekend after ICANN 57, so it would have been problematic if people wanted to attend both meetings. He also noted that locations and dates are firm through 2018; and that ICANN staff had sent invitations for the next two years to all the SO AC Chairs for input. FY stated that she would check with the Chair to see if he received the invitation.

7. Adjournment.

FY entertained a motion to adjourn at 1:12 UTC. DO moved to adjourn, seconded by NN. The meeting adjourned with no objections.

Last modified on 29/01/2020