IEEE Working Group P1622 Meeting

1. IEEE Working GroupP1622 Meeting February 24-25, 2013 National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD

2. Exits and Facilities • Building 222 has two long hallways, A and B, with connecting corridors in-between and at both ends • You are on the A hallway • Exits are at either ends and in the middle (we are closest to the exit where you entered) • Mens/Womens restrooms are at either ends of central corridor (Womens on A, Mens on B)

3. Introduction • Welcome: John Wack, Arthur Keller • Agenda overview: John Wack • IEEE call for patents: Arthur Keller

4. NIST support for P1622 • Organizing and hosting meetings • Building membership • Technical editor of standard • Technical support • Schema development • Data models • Standard development • Website re-vamp

5. Meeting Agenda – Day 1 All times given are in Eastern Time, GMT -5. 1pm – 1:15pm - Introduction • Welcomes: John Wack, Arthur Keller • Agenda overview: John Wack • IEEE call for patents: Arthur Keller 1:15pm – 2pm - Policies and Procedures revisions • Revision to policies and procedures for membership criteria: Arthur Keller • Policies and procedures updates for sponsoring committee for P1622: Arthur Keller 2pm – 2:30pm - Election Assistance Commission • Increasing participation in P1622: Brian Hancock • Conformance testing versus interoperability testing: Brian Hancock, Mark Skall 2:30pm – 2:45pm – Break 2:45pm – 4:30pm - Election results reporting standard • Overview of standard: John Wack • EML 520 schema discussion: John Wack, Kim Brace, David Webber 4:30pm – 4:45pm – Break 4:45pm – 6pm - Election results reporting standard – continued 6pm - Wrap-up and Adjourn

6. Meeting Agenda – Day 2 All times given are in Eastern Time, GMT -5. 8:30am – 9am - P1622 membership and elections • New member announcements: Arthur Keller • P1622 officer elections: Paul Eastman 9am – 10:30am - Continuation of election results reporting standard • Review of day one discussions: John Wack • Comparison with Associated Press reporting formats: Don Rehill • Vote to incorporate changes and prepare draft for balloting: P1622 chair 10:30am – 10:45am – Break 10:45am – 12:15pm -Event logging standard • Overview of recent event logging work in SC: Duncan Buell • Discussion on forming a PAR for an event logging standard: Duncan Buell 12:15pm – 1:30pm - Lunch – NIST cafeteria suggested 1:30pm – 3pm - Open Source Digital Voting • Modifications to EML 310, 330: Anne O'Flaherty 3pm – 3:15pm – Break 3:15pm – 4pm - NIST Election data model development • Creation of comprehensive UML data model: John Wack 4pm – 5pm - Other business • Cast vote record audit discussion: Neal McBurnett 5pm - Wrap-up – Adjourn

7. Instructions for the WG Chair The IEEE-SA strongly recommends that at each WG meeting the chair or a designee: • Show slides #1 through #4 of this presentation • Advise the WG attendees that: • The IEEE’s patent policy is described in Clause 6 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws; • Early identification of patent claims which may be essential for the use of standards under development is strongly encouraged; • There may be Essential Patent Claims of which the IEEE is not aware. Additionally, neither the IEEE, the WG, nor the WG chair can ensure the accuracy or completeness of any assurance or whether any such assurance is, in fact, of a Patent Claim that is essential for the use of the standard under development. • Instruct the WG Secretary to record in the minutes of the relevant WG meeting: • That the foregoing information was provided and that slides 1 through 4 (and this slide 0, if applicable) were shown; • That the chair or designee provided an opportunity for participants to identify patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) of which the participant is personally aware and that may be essential for the use of that standard • Any responses that were given, specifically the patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of the patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that were identified (if any) and by whom. • The WG Chair shall ensure that a request is made to any identified holders of potential essential patent claim(s) to complete and submit a Letter of Assurance. • It is recommended that the WG chair review the guidance in IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual 6.3.5 and in FAQs 12 and 12a on inclusion of potential Essential Patent Claims by incorporation or by reference. Note: WG includes Working Groups, Task Groups, and other standards-developing committees with a PAR approved by the IEEE-SA Standards Board. (Optional to be shown)

8. Participants, Patents, and Duty to Inform All participants in this meeting have certain obligations under the IEEE-SA Patent Policy. • Participants [Note: Quoted text excerpted from IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws subclause 6.2]: • “Shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of each “holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are personally aware” if the claims are owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents • “Personal awareness” means that the participant “is personally aware that the holder may have a potential Essential Patent Claim,” even if the participant is not personally aware of the specific patents or patent claims • “Should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of “any other holders of such potential Essential Patent Claims” (that is, third parties that are not affiliated with the participant, with the participant’s employer, or with anyone else that the participant is from or otherwise represents) • The above does not apply if the patent claim is already the subject of an Accepted Letter of Assurance that applies to the proposed standard(s) under consideration by this group • Early identification of holders of potential Essential Patent Claims is strongly encouraged • No duty to perform a patent search Slide #1

9. Patent Related Links All participants should be familiar with their obligations under the IEEE-SA Policies & Procedures for standards development. Patent Policy is stated in these sources: IEEE-SA Standards Boards Bylaws http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6 IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect6.html#6.3 Material about the patent policy is available at http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/materials.html If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at patcom@ieee.org or visit http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/index.html This slide set is available at https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/slideset.ppt Slide #2

10. Call for Potentially Essential Patents • If anyone in this meeting is personally aware of the holder of any patent claims that are potentially essential to implementation of the proposed standard(s) under consideration by this group and that are not already the subject of an Accepted Letter of Assurance: • Either speak up now or • Provide the chair of this group with the identity of the holder(s) of any and all such claims as soon as possible or • Cause an LOA to be submitted Slide #3

11. Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings • All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws. • Don’t discuss the interpretation, validity, or essentiality of patents/patent claims. • Don’t discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions. • Relative costs, including licensing costs of essential patent claims, of different technical approaches may be discussed in standards development meetings. • Technical considerations remain primary focus • Don’t discuss or engage in the fixing of product prices, allocation of customers, or division of sales markets. • Don’t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation. • Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed … do formally object. --------------------------------------------------------------- See IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause 5.3.10 and “Promoting Competition and Innovation: What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy” for more details. Slide #4

12. Policies and Procedures revisions • Revision to policies and procedures for membership criteria: Arthur Keller • Policies and procedures updates for sponsoring committee for P1622: Arthur Keller

13. Election Assistance Commission • Increasing participation in P1622: Brian Hancock • Conformance testing versus interoperability testing: Brian Hancock, Mark Skall

14. Break • 2:30pm – 2:45pm

15. Election results reporting standard • Overview: John Wack • Districting and its complications: Kim Brace • EML 520 schema discussion: David Webber • Next steps discussion: John Wack

16. Task force members Kim Brace – EDS Joseph Hagerty – SOS, CA Justin Hankins – ESS Matt Masterson – SOS, OH Neal McBurnett – Election Audits, CO John McCarthy – Verified Voting Jan van Oort Ian Piper – Dominion Paul Stenbjorn– ESS Beth Ann Surber – SOS, WV John P Wack – NIST Webber, David RR - Oracle Sarah Whitt – SOS, WI Additional: Don Rehill, David Stonehill – AP

17. 1622-2 PAR - Scope This standard defines common data interchange formats for information reported about election results. Electionresults information is based on data from vote capture devices and resultant tabulation data or other information about theelection from election management systems. This standard focuses on the OASIS EML version 7 schemas 510, 520, and 530,which contain data elements and structures for contest totals and associated counts used for reconciliations and audits.

18. 1622-2 PAR - Purpose This standard facilitates the import and export, in a common format, of election results data that is typically reported from distributed voting places to central offices of local jurisdictions, from local jurisdictions to state election systems, and from local and state election offices to news media and the general public. It can also facilitate post-election auditing ofelection results.

19. Use cases supported • A state/county reporting outward to the public/media on election day using an EML 520 file – very simple aggregated counts, possibly broken down by reporting unit • A county or similar reporting unit reporting upward to a central elections office on election day using an EML 520 file –simple aggregated counts or more detailed counts as available • Post-election reporting in more detail or certified results or election archive using an EML 520 file - more detailed counts, broken down by reporting unit • Note: Use case 3 is almost identical to use case 2 in that reporting election results in detail on election day ends up being mostly the same as a post-election election archive.

20. Optional counts and tags • Counts include • ballots cast, • ballots read, • ballots counted, • contest vote totals, and • overvotes/undervotes. • Capability to "tag" counts with the manner of voting, e.g., absentee, in person, etc. • Capability to tag counts with voting technology, e.g., op scan, DRE, manual count paper, etc. This includes tagging overvotes/undervoteswith voting technology if possible. • Note: most counts and tags are the result of requirements analysis of EAC’s VVSG

21. Additional capabilities added • Reduce file sizes by associating contest and candidate and reporting unit names with IDs • First send of the file contains the mapping • Subsequent files use only IDs • Be able to report on virtually any level of district breakdown • First send of file identifies district breakdowns and their associated IDs

22. Districting is complicated…

23. Basic Election Administration:A Summary of Findings By Kimball Brace, President Election Data Services, Inc. February, 2013

24. Basic Election Administration Facts • Diversity is the underpinning of Elections. 50 States 3,140 Counties 1,620 NE Townships 5,312 Midwest Townships 10,072 Election Jurisdictions

25. Basic Election Administration Facts • Size is important to remember • Question: What is the mean size of jurisdictions in nation in terms of registration? • 1,492 registered voters • Over 1/3rd of nations’ counties have fewer than 10,000 registered voters in them • Half of the nation’s counties have less than 16,000 registered voters • Only 343 jurisdictions have more than 100,000 registered voters • Only 14 counties have more than 1 million voters • Smallest County: Loving County, Texas: 136 voters • Largest County: Los Angeles, CA: 3.9 million voters • Take 930 smallest counties to reach LA’s total.

26. Basic Election Administration Facts

27. Basic Election Administration Facts

28. Census Geography

29. Hierarchy of Census Geographic Entities

30. Census Geography Overview

31. State is composed of Counties

32. Counties are composed of Precincts (VTDs)

33. Precincts are composed of Census Blocks

34. Census Block Level

35. Address Points within Blocks

36. Thank you Kimball Brace President Election Data Services, Inc. 6171 Emerywood Court Manassas, VA 20112 (703-580-7267 or 202-789-2004) KBrace@electiondataservices.com or KBrace@aol.com www.electiondataservices.com

37. Current status • Several revisions of schema, current version implements most but not all optional counts • Starting to examine and compare with other schemas and formats to ensure completeness • Discussions with AP have been fruitful • AP focused more on election night reporting • Would opt for as much standardization as possible, include IDs for contest/candidates/districts

38. Open questions • Has schema gotten too complicated for use in all three use cases • Should a simplified schema be used for election night (does it matter if multiple schemas)? • Should the standard be divided into two standards so as to make faster progress? • Should this be a brand-new schema?

39. Next steps • Complete a simple data model and ensure that schema implements the model • The model should respond to requirements, thus requirements above/beyond VVSG must be documented • A need to study other reporting formats being used (AP, other states, etc) to ensure completeness

40. Break • 4:30pm – 4:45pm

41. Election results reporting standard – continued

42. Wrap-up and Adjourn

43. Meeting Agenda – Day 2 All times given are in Eastern Time, GMT -5. 8:30am – 9am - P1622 membership and elections • New member announcements: Arthur Keller • P1622 officer elections: Paul Eastman 9am – 10:30am - Continuation of election results reporting standard • Review of day one discussions: John Wack • Comparison with Associated Press reporting formats: Don Rehill • Vote to incorporate changes and prepare draft for balloting: P1622 chair 10:30am – 10:45am – Break 10:45am – 12:15pm -Event logging standard • Overview of recent event logging work in SC: Duncan Buell • Discussion on forming a PAR for an event logging standard: Duncan Buell 12:15pm – 1:30pm - Lunch – NIST cafeteria suggested 1:30pm – 3pm - Open Source Digital Voting • Modifications to EML 310, 330: Anne O'Flaherty 3pm – 3:15pm – Break 3:15pm – 4pm - NIST Election data model development • Creation of comprehensive UML data model: John Wack 4pm – 5pm - Other business • Cast vote record audit discussion: Neal McBurnett 5pm - Wrap-up – Adjourn

44. P1622 membership and elections • New member announcements: Arthur Keller • P1622 officer elections: Paul Eastman

45. Continuation of election results reporting standard • Review of day one discussions: John Wack • Comparison with Associated Press reporting formats: Don Rehill • Vote to incorporate changes and prepare draft for balloting: P1622 chair

46. Break • 10:30am – 10:45am

47. Event logging standard • Overview of recent event logging work in SC: Duncan Buell • Discussion on forming a PAR for an event logging standard: Duncan Buell

48. Lunch – NIST cafeteria suggested • Resume at 1:30pm

49. Open Source Digital Voting • Modifications to EML 310, 330: Anne O'Flaherty

50. Bringing Transparency to Voter Registration and Absentee Voting: OSDV/VA-SBE Use of CDFs in 2012 NIST CDF Workshop 2013