DNSO Names Council Teleconference on October 18th, 1999 - results
October 18, 1999.
Dennis Jennings (ccTLD) Patricio Poblete (ccTLD) Nigel Roberts (ccTLD) Chuck Gomes (gTLD) Tony Harris (ISPCP) Hirofumi Hotta (ISPCP) Michael Schneider (ISPCP) Theresa Swinehart (Business) Masanobu Katoh (Business) Philip Sheppard (Business) Ken Stubbs (Registrar) Richard Lindsay (Registrar) Erica Roberts (Registrar) Ted Shapiro (IPC) Caroline Chicoine (IPC) Victoria Carrington (IPC) Raul Echeberria (NCDNH) Kathryn Kleiman (NCDNH) Youn Jung Park (NCDNH) Andrew McLaughlin (ICANN lawyer) Joe Sims (ICANN legal adviser) Elisabeth Porteneuve (DNSO secretariat)
After the very complete debate concerning the miscounted vote in ballot b08 occured on Friday October 15th, during the election for 1 year term at the ICANN Board, the NC resolved to vote on the following motion:
Do you agree that the DNSO secretariat asks by email the Names Council members to confirm that their ballot b08 as cast was true and correct. It is expected that eighteen (18) members will confirm true and correct ballots, and the nighteenth will state that his vote is not true and not correct, and provide the correction.
This is the record of answers received during the NC telecon:
Dennis Jennings (ccTLD) - agree Patricio Poblete (ccTLD) - agree Nigel Roberts (ccTLD) - abstention Chuck Gomes (gTLD) - agree Tony Harris (ISPCP) - absent at time of vote Hirofumi Hotta (ISPCP) - agree Michael Schneider (ISPCP) - agree (*) Theresa Swinehart (Business) - agree Masanobu Katoh (Business) - abstention Philip Sheppard (Business) - agree Ken Stubbs (Registrar) - agree Richard Lindsay (Registrar) - agree (Ken Stubbs, proxy) Erica Roberts (Registrar) - agree Ted Shapiro (IPC) - agree Caroline Chicoine (IPC) - agree Victoria Carrington (IPC) - agree Raul Echeberria (NCDNH) - absent at time of vote Kathryn Kleiman (NCDNH) - oppose (**) Youn Jung Park (NCDNH) - abstention (*) "The background to this: up to now I was assuming that the second message had the purpose of voting whereby the wrong candidate was marked. If this had been the case I would have considered it a valid vote and would not have agreed to a repetition. The way Dennis presented it however the second message was only meant to be a reply for Elisabeth which never had the purpose of voting. The NC-member concerned has also confirmed this version. In light of the facts as described I share the opinion that this is a miscounting rather than a selection fault which justifies recounting and repeating the election as of the relevant round of voting." (Michael Schneider) (**) "It is my position that we should return to the beginning of Election 3 and conduct it with independent scrutiny so that the public will see it as we see it -- above board and clearly verifiable." (Kathryn Kleiman)
The Names Council resolved to adopt the motion.
After the NC telecon, within the next half an hour, the secretariat will email to the NC members the b08 ballot for clarification. The NC members are expected to answer within 3 hours, before 21:00 CET.
If all 19 answers are received, the secretariat will calculate the results of b08 modified by one member, and send this results to firstname.lastname@example.org list. Then the secretariat will prepare the next ballot, b11 (the numbers b09 and b10 will not be reused to avoid any confusion). The NC will have 17 hours approximately until Oct 19th, 14:00 CET, to vote. The secretariat will calculate b11 and give results before the NC telecon starts at 15:00 CET. Every ballot b11 will be aknowledged with a full copy to a voting member. The vote will continue during the NC telecon on Tuesday Oct 19th, 15:00 CET, the same phone number and passcode.
If all 19 answers are not received at 21:00 CET, the secretariat will send a reminder to the email@example.com list, and it is expected that within a short time the missing replies will arrive. All 19 answers are necessary to proceed.
||© DNSO Names Council