RE: [council] Preliminary Report on 25 September ICANN Board Meeting

["erica.roberts" <erica.roberts@telstra.com>]

I support YJs comments.  And, picking up on this, I feel it is appropriate now 
to for the Names Council to consider developing a business plan for the coming 
year.  A plan which identifies our objectives for the next year and the 
strategies we propose to adopt to achieve those objectives would be very 
valuable.  It would assist us to clearly focus on key objectives and 
priorities and monitor progress.  At the same time, it would provide a useful 
framework for our proposed secretariat and help us develop a sense of 
direction and purpose.

Although I have not formally canvassed the Registrars constituency on this 
subject, I know that at least some registrars would be support this approach 
and would be keen to assist the Names Council develop key objectives for the 
next 12 months.  The next ICANN meeting presents a good opportunity for all of 
us to work with our respective constituencies to develop key objectives for 
inclusion in a NC/DNSO business plan and in this way ensure we become a more 
effective and consultative body.

I would like to put this issue forward for consideration by the intake 
committee and inclusion on the agenda of our next meeting.

erica



provide a framework reflect on the effectivness of the Names Council.  Getting 
a professional secretariat to assist in management, policy and coordination 
will be very helpful but it seems to me that it is also be appropriate now for 
us to consider developing a business plan which sets out our key objectives 
for the coming 12 months and the strategies we propose to adopt to ensure 
those objectives are achieved.

>===== Original Message From "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com> =====
>Thanks, Andrew.
>
>We definitely needed this kind of mutual communications between Board
>and Names Council and at this moment ICANN staff can do it since you
>are involved with both teleconferences.:-)
>
>Hope we can find the right direction to do it such as having a liaison nc
>during the Board teleconference or vice versa.
>
>After reading the Board's actions, I realised the Board is more proactive
>than Names Council and that's why we really have to think of what NC
>can do in the dnso structure.
>
>If we cannot define NC properly or function properly as defined,
>it will be hard to ask constituency as well as dnso in general to support
>NC.
>
>YJ
>
>> To the Names Council:
>>
>> I thought it might be useful to send you a quick summary of the actions
>> taken by the ICANN Board at its teleconference on Monday, 25 September.
>> The preliminary report is posted at
>> <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-25sep00.htm>.  The Board
>> acted on these matters:
>>
>>    o ccTLD Delegations
>>
>> As you may know, ICANN recently received a query from the European
>> Commission regarding the delegation of the "eu" alpha-2 code as a
>> ccTLD.
>> <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/liikanen-letter-06jul00.htm>  Under
>> existing ICANN/IANA policy <http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-1.htm>, ccTLD
>> assignments are made on the basis of codes on the ISO 3166-1 list.
>> While the "eu" code does not appear on that list, the ISO 3166
>> Maintenance Agency has designated the "eu" code as approved for "all
>> uses."  Confronted with this situation, the IANA staff asked the Board
>> for guidance.  The Board's answer was that the code should be regarded
>> as available for delegation under existing policy, and furthermore that
>> no new TLDs should be established without a completed registry agreement
>> between ICANN and the registry operator.  See
>> <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-25sep00.htm#00.74> for the
>> detailed resolutions.
>>
>>    o Amendment to ASO MoU
>>
>> The Board authorized amendment of the ASO MoU to align the terms of
>> Address Council members so that new members from the three RIR regions
>> join simultaneously on January 1.  The amendment appears at
>> <http://www.icann.org/aso/aso-mou-amend1-25sep00.htm>.
>>
>>    o Multilingual Domain Names - Verisign Registry Testbed
>>
>> In response to Verisign Global Registry's recent announcement about its
>> multilingual domain name testbed, the Board called on Verisign to
>> "consult closely with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the
>> Internet Architecture Board concerning the design and implementation of
>> the testbed, with the goal that the testbed should promote, rather than
>> complicate, technical standardization efforts in this area."  The Board
>> also:  called on Verisign to provide equivalent testbed access to all
>> accredited registrars; called on the participating registrars to protect
>> the interests and expectations of domain-name holders and affected third
>> parties; and asked the ICANN staff to consider what measures might be
>> needed "to facilitate the operation of the testbed in a manner that
>> protects those interests and expectations, including provisions that
>> facilitate evolution of the testbed to match evolving standardization
>> efforts within the IETF."
>>
>>    o March 2001 Meetings - Melbourne
>>
>> Finally, the Board agreed with the staff's decision to accept a
>> well-supported proposal from local hosts to hold the Spring 2001 ICANN
>> Board meetings in Melbourne, Australia, from 10-13 March.  As always,
>> the SOs are invited to hold a meeting (if you wish) in conjunction with
>> the ICANN Board meetings.
>>
>> --Andrew
>>