AC Attendees:

  • Vincent Ngundi, VN : AfriNIC
  • Alan Barrett, AB : AfriNIC
  • Kenny Huang, KH : APNIC
  • Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF : APNIC
  • Naresh Ajwani, NA : APNIC
  • Hartmut Glaser, HG : LACNIC
  • Francisco Obispo, FO : LACNIC
  • Sebastian Bellagamba, SB : LACNIC
  • Martin Hannigan, MH : ARIN
  • Louis Lee : ARIN (Chair)
  • Jason Schiller, JS : ARIN
  • Dave Wilson, DW : RIPE
  • Hans Petter Holen, HPH : RIPE
  • Wilfried Woeber, WW : RIPE

Secretariat:

  • Fergal Cunningham, FC : RIPE NCC
  • Nick Hyrka, NH : RIPE NCC

Observers:

  • Leo Vegoda, LV : ICANN
  • Raimundo Beca, RB : ICANN
  • Dave Wodelet, DWo : ICANN
  • Olof Nordling, ON : ICANN
  • Adiel Akplogan, AA : AfriNIC
  • Nate Davis, ND : ARIN
  • Ricardo Patara, RP : LACNIC
  • Roque Gagliano, RG : LACNIC
  • Filiz Yilmaz, FY : RIPE NCC

Absent:

  • Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH : AfriNIC

Draft Agenda

  1. Welcome
  2. Agenda review
  3. Discussion & resulting actions:
    “Final Report and Proposal for Complaint Mitigation”
  4. ICANN Board election results
    1. a. Secretariat to announce results:
      – total number of AC members who participated
      – number of votes received by each candidate
      – number of abstentions
    2. If a candidate receives a majority vote, then confirm vote with suggested motion:
      “That the AC, having reviewed the election results, confirms the election of the candidate to Seat 9 of the ICANN Board of Directors.”
    3. If no candidate receives a majority vote, then the AC holds a run-off election:
      “That the AC, having reviewed the election results, finds that it is necessary to hold run-off elections in accordance to established procedures.”
  5. Call to initiate review of AC’s ICANN Board election process.
  6. AOB
  7. Adjournment

1. Welcome

The Chair welcomed participants and started the teleconference at 13:13 UTC.

2. Agenda review

The Chair went through the agenda and asked for comments. There were no comments.

3. Discussion & resulting actions:

“Final Report and Proposal for Complaint Mitigation”

The Chair asked MH to take the AC through the report. The report is available to view at:
https://aso.icann.org/ac-reportv2-1-3.pdf

MH said he would give a summary. He said he tried to address a broad spectrum of issues, summarise them as neutrally as possible and give a proposal on how to deal with them. He said if anyone had an issue they should go right to it rather than go through the points individually.

HPH suggested they go through each point. The Chair suggested they go through all points and add comments as necessary.

SB said we have two elements to deal with – the list from NA and the report from MH explaining the problems and mitigations. SB noted that both were shared on the ac-coord list. He said he was not sure if it was necessary to go into the details. He proposed to go the motion that would move the process forward and if any issues prevented that they would be brought up. He said if there was nothing to prevent the process moving forward then that does not prevent fixing the procedures for the future. MH Agreed.

The Chair said this was a worthy goal and would support but with the concern that it was necessary to go through all items soon anyway so any challenges to the appointment can be quickly addressed to allow the appointment to start rather then redo it all if a challenge is valid.

MH said that a motion would do that and he reiterated that the main issue is about picking the best candidate.

HPH was concerned with an approach to go forward on motions until all concerns were voiced and understood by all. He wanted to know what were the big issues and real concerns so he is certain they’re proceeding correctly.

SB agreed with HPH. He asked if they were comfortable with selecting a candidate and if a majority is comfortable we move ahead and if they are not comfortable we should review issues. He asked are the issues big enough to stop the process or should we move forward and address the issues afterwards.

JS asked if the process could move forward after discussion.

The Chair asked if there should be a motion to move forward with election process?

HG asked to address NA before going to the motion. HG said that he has been on the ASO AC a long time and NA has been on the list a relatively short time and he wanted to advise that putting all concerns in writing and sending to the list can lead to mistakes and misunderstanding. HG said that when the AC makes mistakes it is never on purpose – all members are volunteers. He asked NA to show flexibility and indulgency. He assured NA that he and all the ASO AC would not try to do anything wrong and no one wants to show preference for anybody. He said NA was correct to go through all the process and even though NA discovered minor errors, no one had an ulterior motive.

NA responded that he wished to acknowledge HG and he proposed that he drop all points that he listed, but he wanted to say that the points he made were no minor.

[FO joined the call at 13:26 UTC]

WW proposed that the ASO AC walk through MH’s report because it was formally submitted and he would like to see conscious reevaluation of all the items and would like the AC to consciously and on record confirm or propose alternatives to the items in the document. He added that he support SB on not going into details for future improvements but he also agrees with HPH that these things should not be dismissed. He concluded that the AC should consider the individual items and do a formal roll call if necessary on individual items.

SB said the proposal was not to address these items now but to do that in future.

WW said the problem was that the AC was challenged on procedures and it
should make sure it formally documents its position so it can be in a position to refute.

SB agreed and asked if the issues prevented selection of a candidate.

WW said if they went through each item they would so see if anything could stop the process.

The Chair said there were different motions on the table. He said he wanted to move forward in a conscious way knowing where we stand on each issue. He said overall the AC should move forward with idea that none of the issues are large enough to stop the election. He asked if it was agreeable to go through them on next teleconference or at the face-to-face meeting.

WW and AB suggested it should be done here quickly.

[MH disconnected at 13:31 UTC]

The Chair asked is the proposal to go through the items was acceptable to NA and NA agreed.

[MH reconnected at 13:32 UTC]

NA said that every time he made an attempt to make discussion or only limited it to procedure, there was debate. He said if they would discuss the issues then he could talk about the size of the mistakes. He said that HG made the right proposal to drop all this and discuss it at the face-to-face meeting and, during this discussion, members can debate but it should not be a major challenge. He said he would like his assurance that issues would be dropped and for this to be noted in the minutes.

MH agreed with WW that there was no turning back and with NA that his offer should be noted. He said if there was less opposition, they should go through the report items.

NA said he was the only one who made motions so he knew what the result would be.

AB said it was true that NA had been the one to raise concerns but he was not the only one to have concerns. AB said he had concerns too. He suggested in future the procedures should be followed more closely or they should be made easier to follow. He added that he believed the deviation was sufficient to prevent continuing with the election.

JS agreed with AB and said it would be good to know exactly what the deviations were and that everyone was comfortable with the outcome.

The Chair said he would read through the items on the report.
https://aso.icann.org/ac-reportv2-1-3.pdf

The Chair read Item 1 of the report and asked for comments. HPH said his concern on this item is that it can be viewed from outside the ASO AC that it affected the process. He said he had this concern about all the items in the report.

The Chair said they should address the concerns in item 1 when they get through the points and go back to HPH.

The Chair read Item 2 of the report and asked for comments.

HPH said if it prevented public support that would have affected the decision then that could affect the process. He said the question was whether outside parties would think it affected the process.

AB said there were two pages with links to candidates’ biographies and support statements. He said one of them remained correct throughout the process. He said the links on the ASO homepage were added much later and had an incorrect link.

HPH said this makes the problem smaller.

MH said the support messages were not as important as biographies or questionnaires.

The Chair said in discussions they relied on biographies and questionnaires and the interviews and although public opinion is considered and the web page is publicly facing it can be explained by each AC member if brought up by someone else.

The Chair read Item 3 of the report and asked for comments.

The Chair said there was a proposal to reaffirm or reject the candidate’s nomination. He said if no action was taken, then the candidate can continue in the process. There was no call for action and the Chair moved to the next item.

The Chair read Item 4 of the report and asked for comments.

WW said the issue with this candidate was comparable to the issue in item 3. He proposed having a roll call to see if there was support for the Nominations Committee decision that was made on the spot. He asked for a formal decision on whether the candidate’s status as confirmed candidate should be retained.

NA said the issue was so minor that it should not even be talked about compared to other issues.

MH seconded WW’s proposal.

AB pointed out that there is a motion on p.5 of the report and a roll call vote can be deferred until then.

WW agreed to delay the motion until then.

The Chair read Item 5 of the report and asked for comments.

The Chair said there was also a motion on p.5 of the report for this issue. He suggested deferring the issue until then.

NA said there were two sets of questionnaires – one prior to interview and the second one post interview. He said that under section 7.4.4.4. of the procedures the candidates should get questions in preparation for the interview as mentioned in a request to the Secretariat.

MH said that the same questionnaire was sent to all candidates before the interviews and NA is referring to follow-on questions. He said the follow-on questions were sent as preparation for interviewers. He said the interviews were not scripted and in the spirit of transparency they wanted to document all questions. He added that there was no procedural requirement to do this but they wanted to do this for transparency purposes.

The Chair said there was a contention on the second set of questions because they were different from the list sent initially to every candidate.

JS said there were three sets of questions – eligibility questions, written questions and interview questions. He said he wasn’t sure everyone was talking about the same questions.

WW said that this should be revisited on an update of procedures because there is no point in declaring questions for a face-to-face interview that needs flow and there is no point in having questions and giving them to candidates beforehand. He said it was not clear what questions should be given beforehand and what should just be given in the interview.

JS asked if the complaint was that the face-to-face questions were not the same for all candidates?

NA said that prior to the interview each candidate should be given a list of questions in preparation for the interview. He asked was this given or not.

AB said the requirement was that at the beginning of the interview candidates should be given questions to help prepare. He said this did not happen and in all previous years they did not receive interview questions.

[HPH disconnected at 13:41 UTC]

WW said this requires repair. He said it was the same for all candidates so there was no advantage to anyone and it had no effect of the result.

[HPH reconnected at 13:42 UTC]

HPH said he was concerned about the reasoning of doing things because of how they were done in the past. He said if procedures were approved then that excuse couldn’t be used.

WW said the discrepancy needs attention.

MH said the questions sent to candidates also allowed them to prepare for the interview but that is splitting hairs and he said he agrees with WW for the most part.

The Chair read Item 6 of the report and asked for comments.

HPH said the outside world could see this as special treatment for candidates and if they are elected then people will think it affected the result. He said candidates not elected could think the same thing.

The Chair said if one of three that were funded for in-person interview was selected then there would be no contention, but if the candidate selected for an informal face-to-face interview were selected there would be contention.

HPH said he would replace “would” for “could”. He said the informal face-to-face interview was somewhat mitigated by the telephone interview the final candidate. He said there should be a formal telephone interview with the candidate that received the informal interview

MH said this advice was not acted on because it could be perceived that a second interview would allow the candidate extra preparation time for questions.

HPH asked if advice from the NRO EC was not taken and MH said it was not taken.

WW said the easiest solution was to drop the candidate from the list of confirmed candidates on the basis of not submitting the required documentation in time.

HPH said he did not like this course of action.

MH asked if this affected the outcome – he thought it did not.

NA said the issue was not about the outcome but about how they must give the impression that they were fair to all candidates. He said the AC needed to be conscious about election situations and, even if it was a minor issue, the ASO AC still needed to be sure not to be casual in such situations.

MH said it was not casual and it was brought up on the mailing list and the recommendation to interview the candidate in person came from the ASO AC.

The Chair said that they let everyone know that three should be selected and all others could attend if they were on location.

MH said that if the fifth candidate were onsite at the time of the face-to-face interviews he would have been in same situation.

The Chair said for this election it might or might not change result of election but in future the invitation should go to all candidates if it is offered to one.

MH said they could also adhere to just interviewing three candidates.

HPH said he would like to propose reverting to the old procedure where dates are given and candidates can show up or not and funding could be separate.

WW said in this case the line of thinking was that it would be a useful exercise that would cost no more and would give better information for the full ASO AC to use in forming its decision. He added that this was a flawed point of view in retrospect.

The Chair said the Nominations Committee always acted for democratic values by gathering as much information as possible for the rest of the ASO AC and didn’t act to give an advantage to a single candidate.

HPH said we should be careful about using the “democratic values” as reasoning when one person was treated differently, and the Chair noted the point.

The Chair read Item 7 of the report and asked for comments.

The Chair did not think he could be viewed as being on the Nominations Committee. He said he did participate in the candidate interviews but the only persons who could be confused would be JS and MH, both of whom were active on the Nominations Committee.

NA said that the position of the Chair was not in question and that this error is not minor. He said that the ASO AC meeting minutes of 17 November 2008 noted the participant from ARIN and it is a major change to the Committee make-up as all three ARIN people formed part of the Nominations Committee during the interview period, so ARIN could be seen to be dominating the Committee.

HPH said he understood and had the same concern. He said it is a problem is the AC elects a candidate from the ARIN region and they end up on the ICANN Board when there was a full ARIN Nominations Committee.

MH said this was discussed with the whole ASO AC on the call and the minutes reference that. He said JS asked if he could participate and this was allowed. The Chair asked all if they wanted to be involved and there was obviously no effort to stack the Nominations Committee. MH as what could be done to resolve this issue.

NA said, in the future, we should be very careful. He said there was no mail to confirm the composure of the Nominations Committee. He said he understood that the Committee and observers were at interviews but the emails are not clear about JS and MH from ARIN, so we missed out to send a mail about who is in the Committee. He said we should acknowledge the mistake and move on. He added there were no observers because some asked questions, and the mail from the Secretariat said observers could attend but they couldn’t ask questions – but seven people asked. He concluded that the AC just needed to be careful in future.

MH said this happened in all interviews and not for one candidate and it was discussed with the full ASO AC and it should be acknowledged that it was a mistake and not an effort to stack the Nominations Committee for one region.

JS said he wanted it to be clear that he funded his own trip to San Francisco for the interviews.

MH said he believed at all times that he was on the Nominations Committee and also that he believe the full ASO AC believed this to be the case.

NA asked if there was any mail saying MH was on the Nominations Committee.

The Chair said there may have been a request to put MH on mailing list.

HPH said there could be no changing of previous minutes.

NA said he was referring to minutes of 8 November 2008.

The Chair said it could be that he was mistaken for being on the Nominations Committee.

MH said if no one has a specific problem then we should drop this one entirely.

The Chair read Item 8 of the report and asked for comments.

NA said the issue is minor but it should be understood that if a timeline is made, then changes to the timeline should be made publicly and candidates should be informed of any changes. He advised that the ASO AC should be careful in this regard in the future.

JS said all interviews were conducted outside the interview phase because the interview phase is supposed to begin 30 days from the start of the comment phase, which was 23 February.

The Chair said no candidate was unfairly given an advantage. He agreed that if a timeline was published and not adhered to, it should be communicated. He added that if a timeline was published in the ASO AC meeting minutes it may constitute notice, and there was no disagreement on the timeline in the meeting of 5 March 2009.

JS said he believed the Nominations Committee was following the timeline and there was discussion on this about moving up the process and that MH said this to the full ASO AC.

MH said it was mentioned that there would be some parts of the process run concurrently to ensure requirements were met.

JS said that comments from the public were started on 22 February 2009.

MH said that on the 5 March teleconference there was a request to move up the timeline.

NA said that the procedure states that the telephonic interview should happen before the in-person interview. He said the last date for interview was 22 March and we did telephonic in month of April.

The Chair said that his understanding was that a formal telephonic interview should be conducted if an in-person interview was not possible.

WW said there was no provision that the sequence is prescribed.

NA said that section 7.4.4. of the procedure gives the list in sequence.

WW said that because they were in order on the procedures does not imply a sequence on the actual timeline.

JS said that both have to happen in the interview phase, which starts 30 days after the comments phase starts.

AB said that his reading was that there must be either exactly three face-to-face interviews or exactly three telephone interviews or no mixture. He said once we did that violation then the order it is done in is not important but we did two extra interviews.

JS said in that case, if we do three face-to-face interviews and if one can’t make it then we can’t do the face-to-face interview, and he asked if it says both cannot be done.

NA asked when the comments phase started and the Chair said 23 February 2009.

NA said the interviews went to April so there must be a deviation.

The Chair said this deviation was on the timeline but not to anyone’s advantage.

NA said if a candidate is told an interview will be held and then they are not told when it will it happen then this is not fair to all candidates.

The Chair said all minutes are public.

NA said it was not made public that the interview phase was extended from 30 to 40 days.

MH asked who fell outside the period.

HPH said he agreed with NA that the ASO AC should be better at communicating to candidates and the community about matters like this in future.

The Chair asked if MH’s question could be deferred and MH agreed.

The Chair said this would then be a matter for the ASO AC face-to-face meeting.

The Chair read Item 9 of the report and asked for comments.

[AB rejoined the call at 14:36 UTC]

The Chair said ASO AC members were free to accept or reject the recommendation given by the Nominations Committee and that the ASO AC members were given all relevant material generated to view.

HPH said it was not a requirement to present a recommendation. He asked if it was a violation to present a recommendation. He said he believed that the ASO AC should put more effort into talking about the candidates instead of the procedures.

WW agreed with HPH and he said it is up to ASO AC members to disregard the advice of the Nominations Committee.

NA said it was about the size of the problem. He said if this happened as a commendation from one person from each region it would be one thing but it came from three members from ARIN so it seems like lobbying. He said the obligation to make a recommendation is not mentioned in the by-laws so the issue comes down to the ARIN members on the Nominations Committee.

The Chair said he was concerned that NA might think he was on the Nominations Committee and that his involvement was only with interviews. He added that he was not on the Nominations Committee mailing list or active in the Committee’s administration.

NA said he would like to correct his remark and say six instead of seven people on the Committee at the interviews.

The Chair accepted this and asked that from now on he not be considered part of the Nominations Committee.

WW said he could understand NA’s impression on the composition of the Committee. He said he would never have thought about that and including a recommendation in hindsight was a mistake and he was partly guilty too. He said the aim was to try to impart the Nominations Committee’s feelings after the interviews and he added that the Committee’s feeling was that it would be reasonable for the full ASO AC not to simply see the report but also to see individual Nominations Committee preferences. He said that he did see NA’s point of view and agrees the recommendation was a mistake. He said any recommendation should have been offered individually.

The Chair said individual members also had the chance to give personal viewpoints during the deliberation period.

JS noted that far from being an ARIN conspiracy, there was argument between two ARIN members on the recommendation.

HPH said he did not believe there was a conspiracy but his concern was that it could be viewed as such from outside.

MH said that is why there are members from all regions and if anyone has a problem they can bring it up and affirm or reject.

HPH said this was a key part of the problem, and he doesn’t like it to be viewed as something like this.

MH said in any region, ASO AC members are expected to address that region’s concerns. He said all members have credibility in their regions so they are able to address concerns in our region.

The Chair said we could defend to point of ridiculousness. He said any segment of the Internet population could complain but we can all defend the fairness we tried to take.

MH said this is a credibility issue and it is probably not a good idea for members to start questioning credibility.

HPH said we should acknowledge where we didn’t follow policy and not try to fit it into the existing policy.

JS asked if that was not what we were trying to do now.

The Chair said that the point of this meeting was to defend against accusations.

The Chair read Item 9 of the report and asked for comments.

The Chair said this was discussed already and if there were no comments he would move on. There were no comments.

The Chair read Item 10 of the report and asked for comments.

The Chair said the issues in this item have already been discussed and he suggested moving on.

Motion to address item 1: “That the AC, understanding that the Nominations Committee was staffed with one extra member and after an explanation provided for by the Nominations Committee, affirms composition of the Nominations Committee as one member from each region and re-designates Martin Hannigan as an observer and restates Wilfried Woeber (RIPE), Alan Barrett (AfriNIC), Jason Schiller (ARIN), Dr. Kenny Huang (APNIC) and Sebastian Bellagamba (LACNIC) as members of the Nominations Committee.”

MH proposed the motion and WW seconded. There were none opposed and the motion carried by consensus with modified wording.

Motion to address item 3: “That the AC, understanding that the nomination was late and after an explanation provided by the Nominations Committee, accepts the nomination.”

WW proposed the motion and MH seconded. There were none opposed and the motion carried by consensus as written.

Motion to address item 4: “That the AC, understanding that the required questionnaire completion was late and after an explanation provided by the Nominations Committee, accepts the answers to all questions.”

HG proposed the motion and MH seconded. There were none opposed and the motion carried by consensus as written.”

Motion to address item 5: “That the AC, understanding that there was one document, the “Questionnaire”, used for interview selection criteria, that this document was submitted to the AC on 5 March 2009 and that the Nominations Committee did utilise this document in their decision, hereby accept it as criteria for establishing candidates acceptable for interview.”

AB proposed the motion and HG seconded. There were none opposed and the motion carried by consensus as written.

Motion to address Item 7: “That the AC, understanding that there was a clerical error that resulted in the misidentification of observer(s) as Nominations Committee participants, correct the record of the meeting by identifying the Chair and Secretariat staff as “observers”.”

MH asked to withdraw this motion and the Chair agreed as the make-up of the Nominations Committee was discussed in the first motion.

Motion on notification of ICANN and candidates of complaints: “That the AC direct the Chair to notify the ICANN Secretary that problems occurred and to formally transmit the complaints report marked as “final” and presented in the Special AC Meeting Call held on 22 April 2009 to him showing what those complaints were, how they were addressed and that a copy of that correspondence with instructions on how to provide comment to the AC are also sent to each candidate.”

The Chair said he objected to this motion because it needed modification.

MH said he would like to counter this motion. He said the reasoning is that the outcome of the election would not be affected by the problems so it might be best to restrict notification to just ICANN.

HG said there was no need to notify ICANN because there is no problem here related to ASO AC procedures.

HPH said he would support that and defer the whole motion until after the election and these minutes could serve as a means of notification.

MH supported HPH.

The Chair said he considered this motion deferred.

HG asked HPH what would happen after the motion was postponed and HPH responded that it would depend on the outcome of the final motion.

Motion to address moving the appointment forward: “The ASO AC directs the Chair to notify ICANN of the appointee, of further processing per the procedure is not required.”

HG said it was obvious that the ASO AC needs to notify ICANN.

MH said that because a credibility issue was raised then it is only beneficial for the minutes that we ask for a roll call vote.

JS said it was important to indicate that the AC believes all concerns have been adequately addressed.

HPH and MH supported that.

JS proposed the motion that the AC instructs the Chair to inform ICANN of the nominee for Seat 9 noting that all concerns that were raised in making the appointment have been adequately addressed.

AB asked that the results be made known before instructing the Chair to notify ICANN.

NA said the AC should be open to criticism but we shall notify ICANN of the minutes of the meeting and say issues resolved and we must bring the entire minutes to ICANN and candidates.

The Chair asked if NA wanted the motion include sending the minutes to ICANN of this meeting as supporting evidence of addressing issues raised and NA said it was.

The restated motion proposed by JS was “that the AC instructs the Chair to inform ICANN of the nominee for Seat 9 noting that all concerns that were raised in making the appointment have been adequately addressed and the minutes of this meeting will be sent to ICANN in support of that.”

MH suggested a link to minutes be sent to ICANN when they are posted and the Chair agreed.

The Chair, WW, MH and HPH agreed that the report should also be made public.

HPH seconded the motion. There were none opposed.

The Chair called for a roll call vote. There were 14 ASO AC members in support of the motion and one member was not on the call.

The Chair thanked everyone for the discussion before moving on.

The Chair requested that FC provide the vote tally and it was as follows:

  • 13 ASO AC members voted.
  • Ray Plzak received 11 votes.
  • Suzanne Woolf received 2 votes.
  • No other candidate received a vote.
  • There were no abstentions.

The Chair said because a candidate received a majority of the vote there is a need for a motion.

HG expressed disappointment that two people did not vote and show their support of the AC by taking part in the process. He asked that his disappointment be noted in the minutes.

The Chair agreed and invited those who did not vote to say why not.

WW said he did not vote for the reason that he did not think it was appropriate to do so before this meeting.

MH asked if WW would have voted after this meeting considering how the issues were address and WW said he would have voted.

WW said the clarifications mean that he would have voted for Ray Plzak in the election.

NA said he did not vote, partly because of the same reasons as WW and partly because he was too late. He said if he could have cast his vote it would have been for Suzanne Woolf.

HG said he was happy with the explanations provided by WW and NA and he thanked them for that.

HG proposed the motion that having reviewed the election results the ASO AC approves the election results. MH seconded the motion and there were none opposed. The Chair declared the motion carried by consensus.

The Chair said he would inform the ICANN Secretary of the result and send ICANN the link to these minutes and the report.

4. ICANN Board election results

a. Secretariat to announce results:
– total number of AC members who participated
– number of votes received by each candidate
– number of abstentions

  • 13 ASO AC members cast a vote.
    • Ray Plzak received 11 votes
    • Suzanne Woolf received 2 votes
    • Jordi Palet Martinez received 0 votes
    • Barry Shein received 0 votes
    • Rajesh Chharia received 0 votes

b. If a candidate receives a majority vote, then confirm vote with suggested motion:

“That the AC, having reviewed the election results, confirms the election of the candidate to Seat 9 of the ICANN Board of Directors.”

The motion was passed (see above).

c. If no candidate receives a majority vote, then the AC holds a run-off election:

“That the AC, having reviewed the election results, finds that it is necessary to hold run-off elections in accordance to established procedures.”

One candidate received a majority of the vote so there was no need for this item.

5. Call to initiate review of AC’s ICANN Board election process.

The Chair said he would like to start a formal review with a report that would come out of the review that would be presented to NRO EC and also as a way to improve the election process. He added that members could comment now and this will be further discussed in the ASO AC’s face-to-face meeting. He asked if there should be a committee and if someone on the committee would write a report.

HPH proposed that the ASO AC form a committee and that he wanted to be on it. He asked NA to be on the committee and NA said that would be happy to join the committee.

The following people volunteered, with the Chair saying he could join for his region if the ARIN member needed to withdraw: AB, NA, JS, FO, and HPH.

The Chair said these volunteers are confirmed for now and he said it would be an action item on the 17 May ASO AC teleconference to solicit people from all regions.

HPH proposed the motion that the new Committee produces a report on the procedures to elect a candidate to the ICANN Board. DW seconded the motion and there were none opposed. The motion carried by consensus.

6. AOB

The Chair asked if there was any other business and there was none.

7. Adjournment

HG moved that the meeting be adjourned and AB seconded. There were none opposed and the motion carried.

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 15:36 UTC.