- Sebastian Bellagamba (SB), Chair
- Sanford H. George (SG)
- Martin Hannigan (MH)
- Toshiyuki Hosaka (TH)
- Kenny Huang (KH)
- HJ Kwon (HJK)
- Hartmut Glaser (HG)
- Louis Lee (LL)
- Dave Wilson (DW)
- Wilfried Woeber (WW)
- Ali Badiel (ADB)
- Alan Barrett (AB)
- Samantha Dickinson, Recording Secretary – APNIC
- Hisham Rojoa (HR) – AfriNIC
- Son Tran (ST) â€“ APNIC
- Gerard Ross (GR) – APNIC
- Raymond Plzak (RP) – ARIN
- Einar Bohlin (EB) – ARIN
- Leslie Nobile (LN) – ARIN
- Richard Jimmerson (RJ) – ARIN
- Raimundo Beca (RB) – ICANN
- Olof Nording (ON) – ICANN
- Leo Vegoda (LV) – ICANN
- Filiz Yilmaz (FY) – RIPE NCC
- Bart Boswinkel (BB)
- Hans Petter Holen (HPH)
- Jean Robert Hountomey (JRH)
- Francisco Obispo (FO)
- Agenda review
- Approval of the minutes of March 8, 2007
- Update on ICANN Board selection process
- Approval of electronic voting method
- ASO workshop at ICANN meeting
- Any other business
The Chair called the meeting to order at 22:10 UTC, noting the presence of a quorum.
The Chair reviewed the agenda and called for any comments.
It was noted that following issue would be added to the AOB:
- ASO AC Puerto Rico meeting agenda
Approval of the minutes of March 8, 2007
The Chair called for comments on the minutes of March 8, 2007.
HG asked if it would be appropriate to add a statement at the beginning of minutes noting that the that the meeting was one day late due to technical reasons.
MH noted that the reason the meeting was not held on March 7 was that there was no quorum.
HG expressed concern that the March meeting was not held on the officially announced date. He was concerned that this might cause problems in future.
MH suggested that if a statement were to be added to the minutes, it should state that the meeting was late due to the failure to reach a quorum.
HG also questioned who “ML” was in item 4 of the minutes. GR explained that it was a contraction for “mailing list” that had been missed before the minutes were circulated.
The Chair suggested moving the adoption of minutes to next meeting. The Chair noted that the AC had had a month to correct the minutes. He suggested waiting until the minutes had been updated with HG’s corrections and then approving them at the teleconference in May. There were no objections.
Update on ICANN Board selection process
RB stated that he would step out of the call during the discussion of the election process. He requested to be dialled back into the call when the election discussions had ended.
[RB left the call at 22:28 UTC]
MH noted that the interview and comments phases were underway. He stated that all candidates who had not been interviewed in Lisbon were contacted to let them know that they were welcome to send statement supporting their nomination to the ASO AC.
MH noted that the comments phase would close around 20 April 2007. Following the comments phase, the discussion period would begin. Then, the online voting would begin. MH noted that the AC members had been sent passwords to allow them to participate in the online voting.
MH noted that there was one step to be completed to comply with the selection procedure: all candidates are to be interviewed in writing. He noted that the candidates interviewed in Lisbon had been encouraged candidates to write statements if they felt it necessary.
Approval of electronic voting method
WW noted that there had been discussion about splitting the allocated e-voting time in case a second round of voting was needed due to a tied result in the first round.
MH noted that it was necessary to adopt version 1.1 of the ICANN Board Selection Procedures to allow electronic voting to occur in the current Board nomination process. The electronic voting procedure is described in Section 7 of version 1.1 of the document. He explained that the document had been sent to the mailing list some weeks ago.
MH moved the following: “The ASO AC resolves to approve the use of version 1.2 of the NRO-approved ASO-AC ICANN Board Selection Procedures from Section 7 forward to enable electronic voting for the ASO-elected ICANN Board member in May.” HG seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. The motion was unanimously carried by all present.
MH noted that Section 7.4.5 of the document stated that a majority of votes was needed for a candidate to be successfully elected.
MH explained that the document provided a seven-day voting window; however the document did not provide any details about whether the voting could only be one round of voting, or multiple rounds of voting. He requested that AC members make their votes in a timely fashion so that if there was a tie, a re-vote could be held more quickly.
[AB left the call at 10:35 UTC and rejoined two minutes later]
HG asked if it would be possible to split the seven-day voting period into two parts. Three or four days could be dedicated to first round of voting. If needed, a second round could be held in the final two or three days of the seven-day voting period.
MH suggested that the only potential problem with HG’s proposition is that if not everyone has voted in the first round, it would not be possible to move on to a second round of voting.
RP suggested that if the AC has agreed on a time period for a round of voting, it is then up to individual AC members to vote in time. If members chose not to vote, it would not hold up subsequent voting rounds.
AB pointed out that in the case of a tied vote, only those candidates who tied would move through to the second round of voting.
MH suggested holding two three-day rounds of voting. The advantage of this would be that the seventh day would be available for a third round of voting if needed.
DW noted that Section 7.4.5 of the Selection Procedures document stated that a majority of votes was needed to elect a candidate, so this meant that 50 per cent of the voters plus one would have to vote for a single candidate. He noted that this could well lead to the need for second or third voting rounds.
RP noted that the Selection Procedures document stated that a “majority of votes cast” not a “majority of Address Council” be for a single candidate.
MH suggested holding voting rounds of 72 hours, 48 hours, and 48 hours. he suggested that the polls could close sooner if all AC members voted early.
RP noted that once polling hours were established, it was not possible to close the polls sooner. The established polling hours needed to be adhered to for due process.
GR noted that the e-voting software used by the Secretariat did not allow re-voting within a single poll. He also noted that the voting software only allows polls to begin and end at midnight.
HG asked if it would be possible to say that the voting period would be “up to x hours or until everyone has voted”.
RP noted that it was necessary to establish operating period of the poll, but that the operating period could include an “or until all eligible voters have voted” clause.
MH asked for the following items on the agenda be discussed while he developed the motions for e-voting.
ASO workshop at ICANN meeting
KH stated that he had presented a report on IPv4 consumption as part of the ASO workshop. He noted that there had been a lot of questions from those at the workshop.
The Chair noted that the workshop was held on the Wednesday morning of the ICANN meeting. Around 35 people attended the workshop to watch four presentations. One presentation was on IP address numbers and allocation statistics. Presentation two was on the RIR policy development processes. Te third presentation was about current RIR policy discussions the RIRs. The Chair noted that there was a lot of discussion during the discussion time.
The Chair suggested that the ASO continue this kind of workshop at future ICANN meetings. He noted that IPv4 exhaustion was a hot issue at ICANN, so people were eager to find out more.
ON stated that he also thought it was an excellent workshop. He suggested that it would be good for future workshops to be held at times when there was less competition from many other parallel tracks. He thought it was worth trying to ensure this because the workshop would be of interest to a wide audience.
The Chair suggested that there should be a basic set of information that is included in each future workshop. This could be followed by a more specific issue of interest.
Any other business
- Puerto Rico agenda
[RB rejoined the call at 22:54 UTC]
MH noted that he had sent the draft Puerto Rico agenda to the mailing list.
The Chair explained that he had suggested Sunday to the mailing list because it was mostly free of other meetings.
MH said that the AC meeting would either overlap with foosball or the ARIN meeting itself. he suggested a late Sunday afternoon meeting.
[DW rejoined the call at 22:57 UTC]
MH suggested discussing the timing of the meeting on the mailing list.
The Chair noted that the time needed to be finalised by the end of the current week so ARIN staff could make arrangements for a room.
The Chair asked the ARIN AC members what time best suited them, since they would need to attend most of the ARIN meeting. MH stated that the original schedule he’d sent to the mailing list appeared to be least intrusive.
The Chair set a deadline of Friday 6 April for all AC members to agree on the meeting time via the mailing list.
MH asked GR if the electronic voting software would start the voting at 0:00 UTC or local time. GR stated that he would have to investigate the software to find that out.
MH stated that the UTC or local time issue would affect how he devised his motions for e-voting.
After some discussion, it was decided to leave the precise start time of the voting out of the motions for e-voting.
MH moved the following: “The first poll of eligible voters will begin in a time zone to be announced by the Secretariat prior to the opening of the poll and end 72 hours later or upon certification by the Secretariat that all eligible voters have voted.” AB seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by all present.
MH moved the following: “If required, per approved board selection procedure version 1.1 Section 7.4.5, the second poll of eligible voters will begin in a time zone to be announced by the Secretariat prior to the opening of the poll and end 48 hours later or upon certification by the Secretariat that all eligible voters have voted.” AB seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by all present.
[HG rejoined the call at 23:09 UTC]
HG noted that he did not see how the AC could guarantee that there was a way to break ties through this multiple voting round method.
MH suggested that although there were lots of different possible scenarios, it probably was not worth worrying about all possibilities. He suggested thinking about the most likely problems, which should be solved by today’s three stage voting process.
[RB left the call at 23:10 UTC]
HG asked if RB should be present on the teleconference while there was discussion on the election. The Chair stated that since it was only procedure being discussed, and not candidates, there was not a problem with RB being on the call.
HG suggested that if, after three voting rounds, there was still a tie, the AC could narrow down the selection be using additional criteria such as region.
DW explained that Section 7.4.5 was quite specific about the voting process. He noted that it is possible to have an indefinite tie, but experience shows that this does not tend to happen. People will change their votes to break deadlock. He noted that the AC cannot change the process defined in the selection procedure. He suggested not doing anything formally at the current stage to address the issue.
MH stated that the discussion phase would be useful in helping to prevent ties occurring since it would help the AC members work out which were the stronger candidates.
MH moved the following: “If required, per approved board selection procedure version 1.1 Section 7.4.5, the third poll of eligible voters will begin in a time zone to be announced by the Secretariat prior to the opening of the poll and end 48 hours later or upon certification by the Secretariat that all eligible voters have voted.” WW seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by all present.
The Chair asked if there was any other business to discuss.
WW noted that RB had asked to be called back when the voting discussion ended. The Chair thought this was unnecessary as the meeting was effectively over.
DW noted that the conference system worked very well during the teleconference.
It was noted that there were no RIR meetings in March to report on.
The Chair asked the AC to work on the Puerto Rico agenda on the mailing list and define a time for it to be held by Friday 6 April. He reminded the AC that LL was collecting Puerto Rico arrival and departure dates of AC members.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 11:27 UTC. HG moved the motion. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.