ASO AC Teleconference 8 March 2007

Note: There was no quorum at the teleconference scheduled for 7 March 2007, so the teleconference was postponed until 8 March 2007.

AC Attendees:

  • Louis Lee (LL), Chair
  • Alan Barrett (AB)
  • Hartmut Glaser (HG)
  • Martin Hannigan (MH)
  • Hans Peter Holen (HPH)
  • Toshiyuki Hosaka (TH)
  • Jean Robert Hountomey (JRH)
  • Kenny Huang (KH)
  • Francisco Obispo (FO)
  • Hartmut Glaser (HG)
  • Dave Wilson (DW)
  • Wilfried Woeber (WW)

Secretariat:

  • Samantha Dickinson, Recording Secretary – APNIC

Observers:

  • Hisham Rojoa (HR) – AfriNIC
  • Son Tran (ST) – APNIC
  • Gerard Ross (GR) – APNIC
  • Einar Bohlin (EB) – ARIN
  • Raymond Plzak (RP) – ARIN
  • Richard Jimmerson (RJ) – ARIN
  • Leslie Nobile (LN) – ARIN
  • Bart Boswinkel (BB) – ICANN
  • Raimundo Beca (RB) – ICANN
  • Olof Nording (ON) – ICANN
  • Leo Vegoda (LV) – IANA/ICANN

Apologies:

  • Sebastian Bellagamba

Absent:

  • Ali Badiel
  • HJ Kwon (HJK)
  • Sanford George (SG)
  • Francisco Obispo (FO)

Draft agenda

  1. Welcome
  2. Agenda review
  3. Approval of the minutes of 7 February 2007
  4. Planning for workshop at ICANN meeting
  5. Nominations update and discussion
  6. Motions for Nominations rejection and acceptance
  7. Discussion of “final candidates for Lisbon”
  8. Motions for “Final Candidate” Selection
  9. Any other business
  10. Adjournment

  1. Welcome

    The Chair (Louis Lee) called the meeting to order at 22:10 UTC, noting the presence of a quorum.

  2. Agenda review

    The Chair reviewed the agenda and called for any comments.

    HG explained that it had been decided that there was no need to request anyone to leave the call during the discussion of nominees for the ASO candidate for the ICANN Board.

    BB suggested that anyone on the call who was a nominee could leave during the nomination discussions. He explained that ICANN staff had discussed leaving the call when the AC started discussing nominees; however, MH stated that this was not necessary.

    HG moved the following: “The ASO AC approves the agenda for the March 8 meeting.” HPH seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments.

  3. Approval of the minutes of 7 February 2007

    HG moved the following motion: “The ASO AC approves the Minutes of February 7, 2007 as written.” KH seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments.

    Action #0703-01:

    Secretariat to publish minutes of 7 February 2007.

  4. Planning for workshop at ICANN meeting

    LL requested an update on workshop planning activities, noting that nothing had been posted to the ac-coord mailing list in the past day.

    GR reconfirmed the options for the workshop he had posted to the ac-coord mailing list the previous week. ICANN has been able to provide two alternative dates for the workshop: Wednesday 28 March (morning) and Thursday 29 March (afternoon). He noted that the ASO AC had not yet requested any items to be put on the workshop agenda. He noted that ICANN had requested the ASO AC to decide which of the two time slots it would prefer to use.

    LL noted that the nominating committee members would be at the ICANN meeting in Lisbon and asked if any other ASO AC members would also be attending. HPH stated that he may attend, but had a prior appointment on Tuesday 29 March. WW stated that he would not be available on 28 or 29 March.

    HG explained that he would not be able to go to Lisbon and suggested that a majority of AC members may need to be present to interview the candidates. He wondered if it would be possible for AC members to participate in the interviews by phoning in.

    WW explained that the meeting in Lisbon was just to interview candidates and not to make any decisions. Therefore, there was no need to reach a quorum.

    HG noted that the ASO AC would need two separate time slots at the Lisbon meeting: one for the candidate interviews and a second slot for the ASO workshop.

    GR clarified that there are two sets of times ICANN has reserved for these purposes. The times available for the ASO workshop are the morning of 28 March or the afternoon of 29 March. The times available for interviewing candidates for the ASO representative on the ICANN Board are Sunday 25 March, Monday 26 March, or the morning of Tuesday 27 March.

    LL requested that GR send these dates to the aso-coord mailing list.

    LL asked the AC members for input into the workshop agenda. GR explained that SB had said that the agenda would be decided in the March teleconference.

    HPH asked for clarification on whether the workshop would be open to all ICANN attendees or just for AC members. WW confirmed that the workshop would be for all ICANN attendees.

    HPH suggested that the workshop agenda could be similar to the agenda for the ASO Open Input Forum held in Stockholm in 2001.

    LL suggested tabling the discussion on the workshop agenda until the ASO AC heard from SB.

    ON noted that two potential discussions previously raised for the agenda were an introduction to the RIR policy development process and IPv4 depletion.

    RP suggested that the ASO AC should not be concerned about having representation from each region at the workshop in Lisbon as the focus would be on the ASO AC as a whole rather than as representatives of separate regions.

    HPH asked if a workshop on a similar style had been held since Stockholm in 2001. RP did not think there had been.

    HPH noted that the AC would need to decide on the date of the workshop and the potential speakers and publicise the information quickly if the workshop is to be a success.

    RP suggested that one of the ARIN representatives could speak about the RIR PDP. He also suggested that ARIN representatives could also help with the IPv4 depletion topic.

    HG proposed that the two AC Co-chairs and SB should be in touch within the next two or three days to put together a workshop proposal using the Stockholm workshop as a model. And that a draft be sent to the mailing list by the following Tuesday.

    GR suggested that the proposal also include a recommended date for the workshop.

    Action #0703-02:

    SB and the two AC Co-chairs should be in touch within the next two or three days to put together a workshop proposal using the Stockholm workshop as a model. A draft of the proposal is to be sent to the ac-coord mailing list by next Tuesday 13 March.

  5. Nominations update and discussion

    MH noted that he would be elaborating on the information contained in the slides he had sent to the ac-coord mailing list.

    RB stated that he would now leave the meeting because of potential conflict of interest concerns.

    [RB left the call at 22:38 UTC]

    MH discussed the composition and purposes of the nominating and interview committees (slides 1-4). MH explained that the purpose of the interview committee was to keep the process moving. He noted that, in previous nominations processes, members of the ASO AC have never met the candidates face to face. The face-to-face interviews in Lisbon will be the first time this has been tried. MH noted that the interview committee will disband when it has completed its job.

    MH asked GR for an update on electronic voting. GR stated that there was no specific progress to report but that he would have some information to send to the aso-coord mailing list by the middle of the following week. GR explained that one possibility would be to set up a temporary open source portal on https. Each AC member would then be given a login to the portal and could use an installed voing module.

    RP noted that the form to be used for background certification had been completed.

    MH stated that Dave Warner had been selected to be the contact for prospective candidates to explain what it is to be a member of the ICANN Board.

    HG suggested that the interview room in Lisbon should have conference call facilities to allow remote AC members to participate in the interviews. MH stated that he would have to check with GR about the logistics of this.

    MH states that all candidates had been asked if they were available to attend the meeting. He explained that it had been made clear to the candidates that this did not mean that they would necessarily need to be in Lisbon.

    MH noted that one candidate had opted out of the nominations process and that another candidate had chosen to remain a candidate after some confusion about the possibility of an interview in Lisbon.

    HG stated that MH had done a very good job of making the nominations process clear, transparent, and well documented.

  6. Motions for Nominations rejection and acceptance

    MH explained that two candidates were not eligible for nomination as they were both from the ARIN region.

    MH moved the following: “The ASO AC declares nominees Haney and Dowell ineligible based on the bylaw requirements of ARTICLE VI: Sections 3-5 of the ICANN By-Laws, Section 3 with Section 5, of the ASO Board Selection Procedure v1.0”. HG seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. The motion was unanimously carried by all present.

    There was discussion about whether to create a motion that listed all remaining candidates as eligible.

    MH moved the following motion: “The ASO AC declares nominees Remco Van Mook, Raimundo Beca, Jordi Palet Martinez, Kuo-Wei Wu, Shahmeet Singh, Vikram Gupta, Al-Din J. Kadhem Al-Radhi, and Smain Aouissi eligible based on the bylaw requirements of ARTICLE VI: Sections 3-5 of the ICANN By-Laws, Section 3 with Section 5, of the ASO Board Selection Procedure v1.0”. HG seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. The motion was unanimously carried by all present.

  7. Discussion of final candidates for Lisbon

    MH then requested the AC discuss each candidate on their merits, based on the questionnaire. He stated that all candidates had answered “yes” to the following questions/statements:

    • Accepts nomination
    • Understands RIR policy
    • Knowledge of IP
    • Supports ICANN
    • Understands TLD
    • Speaks English
    • Writes English

    However, to the question asking if the nominees had ever attended an RIR meeting, the responses were mixed. MH noted that the last time the ASO AC selected an ICANN Board candidate, only nominees who had answered “yes” to this question had been selected.

    LL reminded AC members that even if a candidate did not attend an RIR meeting, the candidate may have participated in other ways, such as via mailing lists, the policy development process.

    HPH asked if anyone on the teleconference call knew any of the nominees who had answered “no” to attending RIR meetings so the AC could be filled in on those nominees’ backgrounds. Nobody answered in the affirmative.

    HPH noted he was in favour of inviting all eight candidates for interviews in Lisbon.

    HG asked if there was any other information available on the candidates. MH stated that the AC had been given all available candidate information. MH explained that the candidates had not been asked for CVs since the nominating committee was trying to establish eligibility and not make decisions about the relative merits of each candidate.

    HG stated that it would be very hard to make a decision about reducing the number of candidates based on the information gained to date.

    MH stated that if the AC decided that it was necessary to go back and obtain more information from all candidates at this point, or to invite all candidates to Lisbon, it would be logistically difficult.

    HPH stated that if the AC had any doubts that people who answered “no” to attending an RIR meeting could be good board members, then perhaps the AC should definitely invite them for interview.

    MH stated that there had been an effort to keep the eligibility process and final selection processes separate. It was the final list of candidates who are meant to be interviewed in Lisbon.

    LL stated that the AC did not have to interview all final selectees. He suggested that some of them were already well-known enough to the AC members to not need to be interviewed.

    MH suggested that it was not essential to interview all nominees in Lisbon. He suggested that phone interviews would also be a good option.

    HG stated that the AC needed more information to be able to differentiate between the candidates.

    HPH asked where he could find the latest document on board selection criteria.

    WW stated that hopefully the interviews would provide the information the AC needed to help identify suitability of candidates. He stated that he was not happy to mix formal documented process with informal process just to reduce candidate numbers. However, WW also thought that the AC should probably not encourage candidates to go to Lisbon if the AC already knew that those candidates have a very slim chance of being selected.

    GR clarified that candidates have to pay their own way to the Lisbon meeting.

    AB noted that according to the selection process, there is a nomination phase, which has been completed. AB asked MH if the comment phases following the nominations phases had been completed. MH replied that it had not. However, it is the written interview for all candidates that is then used by the nominating committee to decide who to go forward with.

    HPH noted that the comment phases seemed to have been missed before moving on to the written interview phase.

    AB stated that he saw the survey completed by the nominees as an eligibility questionnaire and not as the detailed written interview described in the nomination procedures.

    MH explained that the nomination process used aimed to get as much information about the candidates in as short a time period as possible. He stated this if the process was to be changed, suggestions would be needed. MH explained that the questions in the questionnaire were designed to help the AC move from larger list of nominees down to a smaller list of qualified candidates.

    AB stated that it did not seem proper to use the questionnaire to fulfil both the eligibility and interview processes.

    HPH stated that he did not have a copy of the final procedure. The last copy he had was the procedure sent to the mailing list on 6 December 2006. He asked for a link to the latest document on the website.

    It was noted that the document on the website was version 1.0 but that the document to the mailing list on 6 December was version 1.1. It was further noted that version 1.0 sent to the mailing list on 5 December 2006 was not the same as the version 1.0 on the website.

    It was clarified that the document on the website is the one being used to guide the nominations process.

    AB withdrew his objections.

    HPH stated that he objected to the website document in 2004 or 2005 and made a proposal to modify the document due to the reference to the ASO general assembly.

    AB stated that in Sao Paolo, the AC had voted to replace the current website document with a newer version. He asked which document the AC should be following for the current ICANN Board nominee selection process.

    MH suggested that perhaps the AC should use the document listed on the website.

    AB moved the following motion: “The ASO AC to use the nominations procedure published on the ASO website in so far as it does not contradict other procedures of the ASO”. MH seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. AB, KH, TH, LL, MH, HG, DW and WW voted yes; HPH voted no to the motion.

  8. Motions for “Final Candidate” Selection

    MH noted that the interview committee still needed to work out the background documents and stated that this was an issue for the Secretariat to pursue. As noted earlier, MH stated that he was waiting on more information from the Secretariat on the onling voting details. A public comment section of the ASO website is also needed for the candidates.

    HPH stated that all eight eligible candidates should be posted to the website for public comment. He stated that the AC should decide which candidates should be interviewed in Lisbon, then, based on material gained through the comment period, other candidates could be interviewed by phone, if appropriate.

    RP asked if the nominee candidate Kuo-Wei Wu was also the same Kuo-Wei Wu who was a member of the APNIC Executive Council. GR answered that he was. RP stated that there has previously been a member of the APNIC EC on the ICANN Board and that the ARIN Board would consider this, if it were to happen again, to be a conflict of interest.

    RP noted that may be possible to interview candidates at the ARIN meeting and still meet the deadline.

    MH suggested that the ASO AC put the names of all eight nominees on the website for public comment, then have another AC meeting before the Lisbon interviews in which the list of names to be interviewed in Lisbon could be decided.

    LL noted that there was time for a 30 day comment period before the 2 May deadline.

    HPH asked RP if the NRO EC would object to the AC’s decision to use the election document on the website, even though the document was not the latest one approved by the ASO AC.

    RP stated that there should not be any problem.

    RP explained that the first revised election procedures document had not been looked at in detail due to the distraction of WSIS.

    AB moved the following motion: “The ASO AC will invite nominee Jordi Palet Martinez for an interview at the ICANN meeting in Lisbon”. WW seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. The motion was unanimously carried by all present.

    AB moved the following motion: “The ASO AC will invite nominee Kuo-Wei Wu for an interview at the ICANN meeting in Lisbon”. WW seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. The motion was unanimously carried by all present.

    AB moved the following motion: “The ASO AC will invite nominee Raimundo Beca for an interview at the ICANN meeting in Lisbon”. HG seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. The motion was unanimously carried by all present.

    AB moved the following motion: “The ASO AC will invite nominee Remco Van Mook for an interview at the ICANN meeting in Lisbon”. HG seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. The motion was unanimously carried by all present.

    AB moved the following motion: “The ASO AC will invite nominee Shahmeet Singh for an interview at the ICANN meeting in Lisbon”. HG seconded the motion. ON raised the issue if a motion could be proposed by a person who was not going to vote “yes” to the motion. It was decided that this was possible. AB, KH, LL, MH, HG, DW, HPH, and WW voted no; TH voted yes.

    AB moved the following motion: “The ASO AC will invite nominee Vijay Gupta for an interview at the ICANN meeting in Lisbon”. HG seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. AB, KH, LL, MH, HG, DW, HPH, and WW voted no; TH voted yes.

    WW moved the following motion: “The ASO AC will invite nominee Al-Din J. Kadhem Al-Radhi for an interview at the ICANN meeting in Lisbon”. HG seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. AB, KH, LL, MH, HG, DW, HPH, and WW voted no; TH voted yes.

    WW moved the following motion: “The ASO AC will invite nominee Smain Aouissi for an interview at the ICANN meeting in Lisbon”. HG seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. WW voted yes; AB, KH, LL, MH, HG, DW, HPH, and WW voted no; TH voted yes.

    TH explained that he had voted “yes” for the four candidates who had not attended RIR meetings because he was unsure if the candidates may have attended any meetings remotely.

    LL explained that he had voted “no” to the four candidates who had not attended RIR meetings because he thought it was important that nominees for the ASO representative on the ICANN Board had attended RIR meetings.

  9. Any other business

    HG congratulated LL on chairing the longest ASO AC to date.

    GR thanked ARIN for providing the conference bridge for the meeting and promised to sort out the conference call problems for future calls.

    MH raised RP’s earlier concerns that Kuo-Wei Wu serving on both the APNIC EC and ICANN Board would be a conflict of interest. HPH stated that he did not think this changed his eligibility.

    GH suggested that there is no conflict of interest yet as Kuo-Wei Wu is not yet on the ICANN Board. He suggested that if Kuo-Wei Wu were to be elected, he then has the option to resign from the APNIC EC. WW agreed that this would be the case.

    HPH stated that a similar case had occurred in the past, and that ICANN Board member stepped down from their other position.

    RP asked that it be made clear to Kuo-Wei Wu in the interview process that he would have to resign from the APNIC EC if he were to be elected to the ICANN Board.

  10. Adjournment

    The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 0:45 UTC. HG moved to adjourn. HP seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously.

Open action items:

Action #0703-01:

Secretariat to publish minutes of 7 February 2007.

Action #0703-02:

SB and the two AC Co-chairs should be in touch within the next two or three days to put together a workshop proposal using the Stockholm workshop as a model. A draft of the proposal is to be sent to the ac-coord mailing list by next Tuesday 13 March.

Last modified on 29/01/2020