ASO AC Teleconference 11 March 2010
AC Attendees:
- Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH − AfriNIC
- Alan Barrett, AB – AfriNIC
- Kenny Huang, KH – APNIC
- Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF – APNIC
- Louis Lee, LL − ARIN
- Martin Hannigan, MH − ARIN
- Jason Schiller, JS – ARIN
- Hartmut Glaser, HG . LACNIC
- Francisco Obispo, FO – LACNIC
- Dave Wilson, DW, RIPE NCC
- Wilfried Woeber, WW – RIPE NCC
Secretariat:
- Laureana Pavon, LP – LACNIC
Observers:
- Einar Bohlin, EB – ARIN
- Nate Davis, ND − ARIN
- Filiz Yilmaz, FY – RIPE NCC
- Ernesto Majó, EM − LACNIC
Apologies:
- Hans Peter Holen, HH − RIPE NCC
- Naresh Ajwani, NA − APNIC
Agenda:
1. Welcome
2. Agenda review
3. Approval of the minutes from the 4 February 2010 teleconference
4. Review of the 2010 board of director selection activity
5. Outcome of the candidate interviews conducted via teleconference on 9 March 2010
6. AOB
7. Adjournment
1. Welcome
LL, who chaired the meeting, welcomed participants and apologized for the late start (13.15 UTC). NA, who was originally connected to the teleconference, sent an e-mail asking to be excused from the conference because he could not be reconnected.
2. Agenda review
The chair proceeded to read the draft agenda. There being no objections, the draft agenda was approved.
3. Approval of the minutes from the 4 February 2010 teleconference
FO motioned that the minutes of the 4 February 2010 ASO AC teleconference be approved. KH seconded the motion. There were no objections and the motion carried.
Action item 0310-1: Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 4 February 2010 meeting from draft to approved.
4. Review of the 2010 board of director selection activity
LL commented that the 9 March candidate interviews had gone well despite some issues with the connections. He said that all four candidates who were still in the running at that stage had been interviewed. He added that by now all candidate comments had been posted and that the public comments period had now closed. He noted that the selection phase had begun.
5. Outcome of the candidate interviews conducted via teleconference on 9 March 2010
A discussion of the candidate interviews that had been held on Tuesday 9 March ensued from approximately 13.25 UTC to approximately 14.15 UTC.
Once the discussion of candidate specifics was concluded, DW proceeded to read the relevant article of the ASO AC Operating Procedures:
“The period of the selection phase is 14 calendar days. It will start at the close of the interview phase. At the start point, the Address Council will meet to evaluate all of the candidates. It will review all documentation accumulated for each candidate. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Address Council will have 7 calendar days to continue its deliberations regarding the candidates. At the end of this 7 day period the members of
the Address Council will have 7 calendar days to vote. The vote will be conducted electronically by plurality voting with secret ballot. In the event that no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, a second round (runoff) election will be conducted considering only the candidates that received the highest and second highest number of votes, except that if more than one candidate tied for first place, then only the first place
candidates will be considered. Additional rounds…”
LL asked how that would fit in with the current process.
DW replied that he had checked and that there was a 30 March deadline for notifying the Secretary of the ICANN Board of the ASO AC selection. He said that if we proceeded now with the deliberation, 7 days of the deliberation phase starting today meant that the election could not be conducted before Wednesday next week. He suggested scheduling the election to begin at 00.01 UTC on the morning of Friday the 19th to finish on the evening of Monday the 22nd as that would allow three more days in case a second round of voting were necessary.
An idea was presented relating to the voting logistics. It was asked whether it would be useful to ask the Secretariat, e.g. a week before the live phase, to set up a mock electronic vote to make sure that the logistics are working properly and that there are no problems distributing the URLs, how people use the website for electronic voting, collecting the votes and so on.
LL agreed and thought it was a good idea. He asked LP if this was possible.
At this point the Secretariat was disconnected from the call and was connected again less than one minute later. The Secretariat was able to hear the following:
To a question from HG regarding an e-mail sent by MH to the ac-coord list on 9 March, MH replied that his intention in sending the e-mail had not been to insinuate that there were any potential problems, and that there really was nothing to worry about except making sure that the process appears to be honest and transparent.
HG observed that the Secretariat had sent a reply, that the office was in their part of the world and that he would like to clarify that LACNIC is working in an open and transparent manner.
As a final question HG asked whether MH considered that everything had been clarified or if he still had some concerns, to which MH replied that he had replied to the list and that was all he had to say, adding that for him it was a closed issue.
LL asked LP once again whether it would be possible for the Secretariat to set up a mock election as soon as feasible so that the AC could practice voting and make sure that there are not problems during the actual election and that everybody can vote.
LP said that she would talk to the technical staff and get back to the AC with the details after making the necessary arrangements.
JS noticed that the vote should include four choices as well as the ability to abstain.
DW repeated his suggestion to start the voting on the morning of Friday the 19th and end it on the evening of Monday the 22nd in order to allow 3 days to try to get the vote in time in case there’s a tie and a second voting round was needed. He added that this timeline would allow 4 calendar days (2 working days) for voting and asked everyone to speak up on whether that would be enough time.
AB asked when exactly the deliberation period had begun: whether immediately after the closing of the interview period or after this conference. He added that if the clock were already ticking we should be able to start the voting on the 18th to allow deliberation for the full 7 days
DW observed that the procedure states that the selection phase “will start at the
close of the interview phase”, so AB’s interpretation was valid. JS concurred.
DW said that the most important deadline to consider was 30 March, and that the process would have to be completed one way or another before that date, as that was ICANN’s deadline for nominating the candidate, adding that it would be necessary to begin the real election on 18 or 19 March.
LL said that, as it was necessary for everyone to cast a ballot, the election could be run for as long as needed to get everybody’s vote, adding that this might mean using up the whole time or simply running the election for 2 days if everyone managed to get on line and vote during that time. He asked whether it would be feasible for the Secretariat to check who had voted and that if all ballots had been cast to make that announcement. It was also suggested that if, say, on Monday morning the Secretariat noticed that somebody had not voted a follow-up message could be sent the Secretariat.
It was mentioned that the Secretariat should make sure that all communications state that times are UTC times, and that perhaps a note could be added reminding that daylight saving time is changing soon for some people.
After further discussion of the possible start and end dates for the election, AB presented the following motion: “The first round of voting shall begin at 00.01 UTC on Thursday the 18th of March and end at 23.59 UTC on Monday the 22nd of March. The election may be closed early if it becomes apparent that all the votes have been cast before the closing time.”
This motion was seconded by DW. There were no objections and the motion carried.
Action item 0310-2: The Secretariat to set up the mock election and send out the e-mails for the actual election.
LL asked the Secretariat to make sure that the option exists to vote for any of the four candidates and also to have the choice to abstain from voting.
DW presented the following motion: “If a second round election is necessary, it should begin as soon as possible after the closing of the first round and end at 23.59 UTC on Thursday the 25th of March. The election may be closed early if it becomes apparent that all the votes have been cast before the closing time.”
The motion was seconded by AB. There were no objections and the motion carried.
LL said that once there was a clear winner the Secretariat would announce this to the list and then he would draft a letter to send to the ICANN Secretary to let them know the decision. He asked whether ICANN could be notified immediately or if there were any restrictions, to which AB replied that there were no restrictions.
DW confirmed this by reading from the procedure: “At the request of the Address Council Chair, the Secretariat will notify the Secretary of ICANN providing the name and contact information of the successful candidate.”
6. AOB
In reply to a question posed by the Secretariat regarding whether or not the discussion of candidate interview specifics should be reflected in the minutes, MH presented the following motion: “To strike the conversation regarding candidate specifics from the record and simply state that candidate discussion took place.”
WW seconded the motion. It was suggested that a roll call vote be called for the motion.
A roll call vote was conducted with the following results: eleven (11) in favor of the motion and none opposed. The motion carried.
It was mentioned that as the ASO AC had not met for the face-to-face meeting in Nairobi some way to agree on a new alternative venue and date should be defined. Several options were discussed, among them Brussels (in June) or other European locations, and the suggestion was made to start a discussion on the mailing list.
7. Adjournment
HG motioned to adjourn. The motion was seconded by JS.
Hearing no objections, the teleconference adjourned at 14:59 UT.
Last modified on 29/01/2020