notes were made from the Real Audio archives of the
teleconference, posted at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso.
Although a sincere effort was made to capture the full
discussion, some comments which could not be clearly
heard are not incorporated below.
Three members of the Names Council are unable to
participate in the teleconference.
Ken Stubbs: I get calls on a regular basis asking how
this is going to work, how the whole system is supposed
to work and I have to tell them that I don't have that
Amadeu: It's simple, the NC will select the best three
nominees for the board.
Chair: NC will focus teleconference on Item 3
(Election of Permanent Names Council Members) and Item 9
( Election of ICANN Board Members) of the posted
3. Election of Permanent Names Council Members
ICANN has received 4 applications for permanent
recognition of constituency groups, one application for a
geographic waiver and are considering a second..
- gTLD - only one member, hasn't
adopted any formal procedures. ICANN board likely will
approve without any problem.
NCDNH - duplicate of proposal that
board accepted in Santiago along with a commitment to
hold elections within 6 months. Fine with board so
long as next 6 months will be used for outreach.
During that kind of period, the ICANN board intends to
make the Names Council a permanent NC for purposes of
electing DNSO representatives to the ICANN board even
if one or two of the constituencies haven't held
permanent elections for their NC representatives, and
those constituencies won't be precluded from voting
and wont have their votes be diluted because they
haven't held their permanent elections. Board seems
willing to go along with that.
IP and business constituencies.
Difficult to get all the ICANN board for a
teleconference. We were hoping to do all applications
together in a package. Have routed around that. - went
to board's executive committee and they are okay with
that, with a caveat that it's okay if they want to
impose an additional geographic requirement above
bylaws requirement. Citizenship is the test for
geographic diversity. IP has an ambiguity in the
bylaws to make clear about the test for geographic
cctld has held elections and two of
the three have come from countries in Europe. Rob Hall
submitted a geographic diversity waiver. Used STD
procedure and Rob Hall was third member. Board has
agreed to a 90-day waiver only. Less burdensome option
is adjusting STD transferable vote rules that they
used, which would mean replacing the third highest
vote getter with another from a different region.
registrars have sent informal waiver
because accreditation is not geographically diverse
and that forms basis for waiver request. ICANN gives
the sense that it will agree on a 90-day basis.
ISPs - no application received by
ICANN board to the best of my knowledge. (someone said
that ICANN has received it).
Bottom line is that the ICANN board really wants to
enforce geographic diversity provisions. The sense that
if the ICANN board is not even-handed in applying those
rules, there will be some feeling of favoritism.
Amadeu: we thought September 15 deadline is for
amendments to the charter.
Andrew McLaughlin M: You should all send a formal
application even if it is the same as the original
Board is sensitive to fact that there are unfairnesses
and bizarre results created by the geographic diversity
requirements. Board is interested doing a full scale
review of that policy but comments have been few and far
in between in reviewing that policy and will make a
concerted effort to get public comment before Los Angeles
meeting. There is a waiver provision if the registrar
really can't make it work.
Executive committee may meet by Internet as early as
today to see if revisions are necessary.
Don Telage: Isn't the registrar issue example similar
to that of the gtld constituency in that it's hard to
impose diversity when there aren't sufficient members in
Ken Stubbs: Want to be clear on what does the 90-day
waiver means. You're telling us is that any election that
we hold today, with respect to any potential exception
that is created for this election, would be tolerated for
90 days, and if two members of the registrar constituency
were according to ICANN bylaws citizens of the same
region even if they represent corporations and be
residents in another region, that situation would be
allowed for 90 days and then would have to be remedied.
Andrew McLaughlin: For sure the registrars and ccTLDs
can have a 90-day waiver essentially to get us through
this election period without too much disruption. If
registrar constituency concluded that it needs a
permanent waiver on the grounds of impracticability,
which is the standard in the bylaws, the registrars
should make that waiver request, but ICANN will want them
to find a way to comply.
Jonathan Cohen: We are going to be requesting a waiver
of short duration because we didn't decide until London
ten days ago the fundamentals of our constitution and now
have a backlog of more new members than existing members
and we want to give them a proper election. What we did
is confirm our current members, we will hold new
elections no later than March 31, 2000.
Andrew McLaughlin: Executive committee is giving
waivers to others, most likely will give it to IP. Don't
feel comfortable speaking for them. I think the board
will grant final accreditation subject to holding final
elections with some specific time.
Ken Stubbs: with respect to registrar constituencies
and I'm going to treat it as status quo for 90 days.
Andrew McLaughlin: Proceed under plans you have been
operating under. Assume that the geographic diversity
requirement is waived as to one person. We should take up
off line what to do after that 90 days.
Reports on individual constituency
- ISP - will have three new NC members in
time for the ICANN elections. Candidates will come
from three different regions.
cctld - Three now on NC will be the same at
the time of the ICANN elections.
business - NC elections will be held before
elections for the ICANN board. Will not be the same
people who are now on the NC
gtld - Don Telage again; "Last three people
I tried to appoint to this job quit in protest, so I
guess I'll have to stay on the job"
NCDNH - will be same ones now on NC during
registrars - currently running election; new
members by October 8
IP - three we have now will be there until
new elections are held.
Andrew McLaughlin: Names Council should think about
whether revision to geographic diversity requirement
should be changed and how to do it. GAC is coming up with
some diversity advice across the board , both for At
Large and SO level.
Jonathan Cohen: Concerned that the board, by pushing
for new NC elections before the ICANN board meeting who
not only don't have NC experience but also may not be in
a position to know new candidates as well as one may like
on an election of this import.
Item #9: ICANN elections
Andrew McLaughlin: Board intends to approve these
amendments. Staff has posted five different amendments to
clarify and make easier to get SO elected directors on
the ICANN board. 15-day notification is now a 7-day
notification period, to allow SO directors an additional
week to elect directors in October. Aggregate rules on
geographic diversity will be borne by on the At Large
side. Its not feasible to tell SOs which regions are
first in sequence. SOs should have autonomy within the
bounds of the rules.
Art 6, Section 4. No one can serve simultaneously as
SO director and ICANN board member. We thought that this
was implied in bylaws. Basic principle of conflict of
interest: Nominees cannot participate in any discussion
or vote of the SO council relating to election of
Restatement of provision of geographic diversity
extended to ASO and PSO.
Don Telage: I can see the intent of the provision.
Disturbed to have it characterized as a clarification. It
has stronger import and it represents a significant
Amadeu: a suggestion about having non-voting members
attending NC meetings. No objections raised.
Stubbs: Candidates don't lose their status on the NC
if they aren't elected for the ICANN board.
Don Telage: What is rationale for barring a
constituent from voting. If the gTLD constituency
nominated me for a board seat, that constituency would
have no vote for that election.
Andrew McLaughlin: Justification is the basic
principle of conflict of interest is that when you are a
member of a council that makes policy decisions or things
of nature, members should not vote for matters on which
they have an interest in that outcome. People on the
inside have advantages over those on the outside. e.g.,
they can swap votes. Concern that the SO elections would
be very closed and have significant advantages for those
on the inside.
Not the board's intention to deprive anyone of a vote.
Each constituency can choose Names Council members in any
way they want, so if someone wants to run for the board,
that NC should select another individual who serves on
the NC during the election process.
Amadeu: We are running our nomination process in
parallel, so you are not a member of anything during that
period. On October 8, you are depriving them because you
don't have time to run a new election and select someone
Ken Stubbs: There are situations where the SOs have a
very limited representation by certain regions. If
someone who is a member of an SO is also in a specific
region, you then minimize their ability to represent
their region in the election.
Don Telage: The focus is not from an individual point
of view. We are representing in most cases large classes
of participants, so the focus should be on what impact
these changes would have on the constituency itself,
rather than on a particular individual.
Theresa Swinehart: On universities, when committees
need to vote on issues and say the parent of one of the
students is on that committee, the parent will step aside
during that voting period. Is it only the individual who
been nominated who abstains from voting or the whole
constituency who cannot vote?
Andrew McLaughlin: An individual who has a stake in
the outcome should not vote. I can understand the
constituencies setting up a requirement that in the event
the NC representative is nominated for the ICANN board,
the administrative committee can appoint a temporary
representative to the names Council consistent with the
geographic diversity requirements.
Jonathan Cohen: To suggest that by having anyone on
the NC who chooses to accept the nomination cannot vote
Theresa or Caroline: You are arguing about an unfair
advantage. There is also an unfair advantage for the
constituencies that are all developed who represent
certain interests not to be able to vote for the ICANN
board. There are strong competing unfair advantages.
Amadeu: Need to have all constituencies represented in
full force for this decision. Not enough time to find
replacements for this election. Perhaps should not apply
it for this election. I don't feel that these changes are
coming in a bottom up fashion. This is a top down
decision from the board and I have seen very little
support for this from the general membership.
Ken Stubbs: The board should say who is making that
decision. We need to understand the logic behind this. It
would be very difficult for constituencies to change
their bylaws to allow for a substitution in such a short
time. Also concerned with disenfranchisement of
Andrew McLaughlin: Idea is not to disenfranchise any
constituency, just individuals who are in a conflict of
Stubbs: You are asking us to conduct a Chinese fire
deal. Not giving us enough time to deal legitimately with
Andrew McLaughlin: Public is afraid that the fix is in
and that the DNSO will choose three of its own and will
do some internal horse trading. Where you have a personal
stake in the outcome of the vote, you should not be
allowed to participate in the vote.
Theresa Swinehart: If this concern is being raised
outside the NC, and the concern is about a capture of the
NC, we need to take a look at that. Whoever is on the
board is representing the DNSO in its entirety, so
whoever is on the board, they have an obligation toward
the entire DNSO as part of their responsibility to the
Michael Schneider: Who are making these suggestions? I
think the board is being lobbied by a few individuals. No
objection in principle to the intent but I think changing
the rules in the middle of the process is unwise because
people might have made different decisions if they had
known. Want to clarify if Administrative Committee can
appoint a temporary NC member purely for the purposes of
Andrew McLaughlin: That is what we would hope but this
isn't yet a done deal and we have to wait for the
comments. Even with the pressing nature of the elections,
we have to wait and read the comments of the SOs and
Amadeu: We need agreement that this does not affect
voting rights of constituencies but only of the
Andrew McLaughlin: This is not the way we like to go
about making significant policy changes like this. In the
best case, we would have thought of this six months
Item # - Election Process.
End of Real Audio.