Nii Quaynor (Africa)
Kilnam Chon (Asia Pacific)
Dennis Jennings (Europe)
Antony Van Couvering (IATLD
Oscar Robles (Latin America)
Rob Hall (North America)
Peter de Blanc
Fay Howard (scribe)
1 Review of Last meeting
DJ reminded the meeting that they had last met in Santiago but this had been just to talk over the ICANN agenda for the next few days and no notes were made.
2. Definition of Adcom members - regional & special interest groups.
The meeting was reminded of the constituency principle that allowed for each of the regions recognised by ICANN to have representation in the Adcom plus any group of 10 or more ccTLDs.
Currently Nii Quaynor for Africa, Kilnam Chon for AP, Oscar Robles for LA,
Rob Hall for NA, Dennis Jennings for Europe and AvC for the IATLD group.
It was suggested that the Adcom which was set up on an interim basis to get
elections underway, would now need to be formalised. (maybe elections
needed within the regions as current officers may not reflect the choice of
the whole region but just those who participate in the regional group).
It was also felt that a regional definition is most urgently required for North and South America. Canada historically represents North America from the days of the wwTLD formation. Some of the Caribbean Islands feel more affinity with North America than South America due to language, culture and trading relations OR confirmed that his region has no problem with this. It was agreed that the constituency needs to know if ICANN definition precludes them from NA group as they may wish to form their own affinity group.
It was agreed that we should first ask ICANN to better define which
countries it puts into which region and then ask the constituency if they
are happy with the region they have been allocated. If petitions to ICANN
fail, those who do not feel adequately represented by the region in which
ICANN has placed them have the opportunity to form their own interest
group, provided there are 10 or more supporters.
KC suggested that to formalise the existing interest group, AvC submit a list of the registries who would rather be represented by IATLD than their region.
It was agreed that this area of the constituency's rules would need refining for approval of the whole constituency.
3 Adcom elections
Each region would have decide what was necessary see item 2 above.
4. Definition of ICANN regions (which ccTLDs are in which region)
See discussion under item 2 above.
Cannot develop this further until clearer definition of geographical regions from ICANN (further examples are the boundary between Asia/Europe and islands in the Indian Ocean which could fall within Africa or AP regions). ACTION Rob Hall to draft mail to ICANN requesting their full definition of which countries fall into which region. To be circulated to the Adcom for approval.
5. Definition of ICANN Regional Diversity
Some ongoing discussion within ICANN community over whether citizenship or residency should apply in respect of geo diversity. It was reported that in respect of both the Names Council of the DNSO and the directors of the ICANN board, citizenship is currently used.
6. Review of elections to Names Council
The ICANN boards concerns over the geographical make-up of the
constituency's NC representation was discussed.
FH reported that she had put the problem to the Electoral Reform Society for their advice. They were quite clear that it is unsound to retrospectively change the rules for calculating the winners after the event just because you do not like the result. To remove a winning candidate and redistribute his results is not acceptable either as, had people known that their choice was one of two from a particular region and subject to possible exclusion on geo diversity rules, they may have voted differently altogether.
If a candidate resigned voluntarily, this was less of a problem but the European with the least votes, Nigel Roberts, has declined to resign. If ICANN insist, another alternative is to remove the candidate from that region with the lowest number of votes, and have a new election for one seat allowing only candidates from the three regions not represented or to hold full elections again. The first option is still open to some criticism by the ERBS for the reason that the electorate might have voted entirely differently had they known.
Clarification was given that the ICANN resolution referred to waivers for
an individual candidate in breech of the bylaws rather than the consistency
representatives as a whole.
Discussing the options RH felt that we should still be pressing ICANN to accept the result giving the geo diversity of the electorate. FH pointed out that this would only really carry weight if the results had been public and it could be demonstrated that votes for a particular candidate came from a variety of regions. DJ pointed out that a secret ballot had been agreed upon and it would be wrong to make the individual votes public. NQ worried that we are not complying with the bylaws and vulnerable to loss of rights within the NC.
KC advised the meeting that the APTLD region was unanimous in deciding that the geo diversity clause should be reintroduced to the constituency principles. BS said he agreed with the LACTLD position and OR outlined that they feel that the rules were published in Berlin without objection, we should ask ICANN to accept the results this time. New rules can be made for future elections. He worries that their region will lose its representative, who won fairly, if new elections are called. The option of having a by-election for one seat should ICANN continue to refuse would suit better.
Rob Hall to draft for a approval of Adcom a letter to ICANN formally setting out the geo diversity of the electorate, the circumstances in which the existing rules were agreed by the constituency in Berlin and presented to ICANN with no comment received despite AvC's emails asking ICANN what changes had to be made to the principles submitted to attain recognition. Acceptance of the election results to be requested with a assurance that new procedures would be out in place for the next elections. (Written response to be requested)
KC reminded the meeting that the deadline for submitting changes to constituency proposals is 15/9. RH agreed to have the paper ready for approval by am of 14/9
7 Decision on regional diversity in relation to NC elections
Taken in conjunction with item 6 above.
8. ccTLD Constituency Budget and Fund raising
All were agreed that the budget in respect of the constituency related to
secretariat facilities(admin support for constituency/Adcom)
It was also agreed that some funding options needed to be identified and put to the constituency (for example funding via individual registries versus funding from the regional and interest groups represented in the Adcom)
9. Secretarial/Administrative support for the Adcom/ccTLD constituency
Having most experience of providing what service is currently given, FH gave details of time involved. During the run up to the elections 50-75% of her time was devoted to the constituency, liaising with ERBS, Returning officer and IANA and individual registries to ensure the correct Admin contact information for balloting purposes. Normally less time involved but a secretariat would take on extra duties not currently being performed and do much of the work for which voluntary effort is required which, it was agreed, should not be relied upon.
One full time person was judged to be appropriate and funding wages and travel of that person agreed to be the main cost. BS added that an office and connectivity would be required though it was felt that a related organisation might donate this in the form of co-location. It was also pointed out that it would be fairer if the secretariat funded the Adcom teleconferences.
FH & PdeB to work on a joint paper. FH setting out the duties and man hours required and PdeB setting out funding models.
10 Necessity for new elections to Names Council
Addressed under item 6 above.
11. New election methodology to guarantee regionally diverse outcome
Suggested was the possibility of regional heats to ensure one candidate from each region goes forward to the final ballot but refinements would need to be made at the final stage as the regions with least registries could be disadvantaged.
ACTION : DJ to begin a paper addressing new election procedures to be circulated for comment and consensus building.
2 items requested by KC:
i ICANN Schedule for November meeting in LA.
KC pointed out that a half day had again been requested for the DNSO GA which had proved inadequate last time. He asked DJ what the Names Council views on this were. DJ advised that the majority of NC members favoured a half day but if this had to be, he was pressing fro the Working Groups to have a separate half day.
ii Election of ICANN Board members from the DNSO.
KC asked what was happening in the Names Council on this issue. DJ advised
that he was concerned at the urgency with which some in the Names Council
were trying to push set this up and that insufficient time was being
allowed for consultation with the constituencies (though some NC members
felt they were not required to consult their constituencies)
Nominations are to open next week for 4 weeks and the GA of the DNSO can nominate anyone provided there are 10 supporters. Geo diversity not fully addressed and DJ pressing for a rule that stipulates no two of the three elected to come from the same geographical region. He is continuing to press for good electoral procedures and has asked FH to consult with the ERBS.
The issue of ccTLD candidates was also discussed and it was felt that there
is a need to identify ccTLD candidates and the best strategy to ensure a
Adcom to work by email to identify suitable candidates from the ccTLD constituency for ICANN board elections and to look into whether strategy required to ensure success.
FH to host next teleconference, date of which to be agreed by email.