RE: [council] NCtelecon 21 September 2000, minutes

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

Hi Elizabeth - a couple of points:
Erica proposed to adopt the Intake Commitee proposal for the next 3 months and 
then review with experience. The motion was seconded and passed with unanimous 
approval of all present and proxies (Philip, Paul, Theresa, YJP, Caroline, 
Axel, Katoh, Erica, Nii, Tony, Hotta, Roger, Dany, Zakaria)

This is not strictly accurate - the proposal was that we adopt the 
recommendations of the Intake Committee and, consistant with thise 
recommendations, review the process after three month.

On another point, I think it would be useful to record items in the minutes in 
the same order in which they were discussed.  I left early and was not present 
for some of the discussion that it listed around the middle of the minutes.

Hope this is helpful.

regards, 
erica




>===== Original Message From Elisabeth Porteneuve 
<Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr> =====
>Please check the attached draft minutes, and provide me any correction.
>Elisabeth
>
>[ from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000921.NCtelecon-minutes.html ]
>
>ICANN/DNSO
>DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 21 September 2000 - minutes
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>21 September 2000.
>
>Proposed agenda and related documents:
>
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000921.NCtelecon-agenda.html
>
>
>List of attendees:
>
>
>   Dennis Jennings         ccTLD          absent
>   Patricio Poblete        ccTLD
>   Nii Quaynor             ccTLD
>   Philip Sheppard         Business
>   Masanobu Katoh          Business       proxy to Theresa
>   Theresa Swinehart       Business
>   Hirofumi Hotta          ISPCP          proxy to Michael or Tony
>   Tony Harris             ISPCP          arrived 14:35
>   Michael Schneider       ISPCP          arrived 14:20
>   Erica Roberts           Registrars     arrived 14:20
>   Ken Stubbs              Registrars     left 15:15
>   Paul Kane               Registrars
>   Roger Cochetti          gTLD           arrived 14:35
>   Caroline Chicoine       IP             arrived 14:35
>   Axel Aus der Muhlen     IP             proxy to Caroline
>   Guillermo Carey         IP             absent
>   Youn Jung Park          NCDNH
>   Dany Vandromme          NCDNH
>   Zakaria Amar            NCDNH          proxy to YJP
>   Louis Touton            ICANN staff
>   Andrew McLaughlin       ICANN staff
>   Elisabeth Porteneuve    DNSO Secretariat
>
>
>
>Chair Ken Stubbs (Registrars) until 15:15, then Caroline Chicoine (IPC)
>Quorum present at 14:20
>
>Minutes of the meeting.
>
>Due to an unusual hour (08:00 New York, 14:00 Paris), several people arrived 
in
>late. Until quorum has been reached (10 persons present at 14:20) a free
>discussion took place.
>
>1.	Los Angeles DNSO Meeting (NC and GA) (Andrew)
>
>   Decision on the webcast
>   DNSO point of contact
>
>Andrew urged the NC to select the DNSO coordinator (all activities: NC, GA, 
WGs
>Committees or Task Forces, liaison between Constituencies secretariats) for 
the
>forthcoming meeting. Paul Kane volunteered to do this work, he shall be 
provided
>input from each Constituency, from the GA Chair, and from the DNSO 
Secretariat
>for liaison meeting.
>
>2.	Financial report from ICANN staff
>
>Louis indicated there were no material change in the financial status. 
Several
>check were received from the NCDNH members, but when bank accounts are in A
>currency and checks drafted in B currency, the banks are charging quite a 
high
>cost for cashing, sometimes above the drafted check value. The Constituencies
>are requested to work out how to accumulate funds, and send out a lump sum to
>the ICANN.
>
>The ISPCP Constituency, which is not formally incorporated, met last week and
>found a mechanism on how to legally collect funding. Michael Scheider 
reported
>the ISPCP will have in the future the budget larger than just for the DNSO 
fees,
>and they will consolidate payments.
>
>3.	Schedule for the new gTLD (Louis)
>
>The information on new gTLDs is not provided to individuals, but rather send 
to
>a public web site, where also questions from the public may be posted. ICANN
>staff started to review applications, and will post significant part of these
>(without confidential parts). Fears on pre-registrations by some companies, 
some
>of them even charging money for it. Two companies raise problems, first being
>registrar, second marketing registrars.
>
>The members of the NC discussed speculations issue, and how to deal with
>irresponsible practices. They are worried for consumers and general users of 
the
>Internet, looking for the way to discourage abuses. Louis reminded that one 
of
>criteria of selection for new gTLDs is "how you will deal with registrations 
on
>startup". Paul and Philip volunteered to draft a press release and pass an
>information to the newspapers and public using ICANN communication channels.
>(On 29 September the Announcement has been posted at
>http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr29sep00.htm and released to the
>press.)
>
>At 14:35 thirteen NC members were attending the telecon, and the agenda 
started.
>
>4.	Proxy vote proposal
>
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000920.NCproxy-vote.v0.html, Version 0, 20
>September 2000
>
>The issue of quorum was discussed, in which situations only physically 
present
>members count and when proxies are counted. Louis assured nothing is 
explicated
>in Bylaws. Paul KaneÕs proposal was considered. It was felt that 4 weeks for 
"in
>communicado" may be a long time, and in the assumption of one NC telecon per
>month, a Constituency may miss a vote for one meeting. Elisabeth stressed out
>that at some point it is assumed the Secretariat is working 24 hours a day. 
It
>was agreed the NC would work with Andrew over next week and provide for 
improved
>version to initial proposal.
>
>5.	Business Constituency dues problem
>
>The ICC manages the Business Constituency finances. The BC Secretariat 
approves
>expenses, and the ICC pays. Due to a mistake, the BC annual fees were paid by
>ICC to ICANN in advance making a negative cache flow, the question was 
whether
>in such a situation ICANN can reimburse or not. It was felt that the common 
rule
>prevails, no matter how much sympathy it raises.
>
>6.	Minutes from August 17th NC teleconference
>
>Unanimous vote of all present.
>
>7.	ICANN staff report for status on independent review panel nominations
>
>ICANN is awaiting two nominees from the DNSO to the Nomination Committee, 
which
>will nominate for an independent review panel (old retired judges, not paid).
>PSO already provided one nominee, ASO will do it on Oct 28 th in Brisbane. A
>nominees persons shall not have any conflict of interest.
>
>8.	Discussion regarding individual outreach and representation
>
>Paul Kane suggested as part of outreach program to encourage people from 
Africa,
>Latin America, and all regions. Patricio noted that a request for retired
>judges, familiar with English langue and American rules is quite irrealistic.
>
>9.	Intake Committee report
>
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/200008.NC-intake.v4.html, Version 4, August 
2000
>
>Philip Sheppard reported on Intake Commity progress and timeline. The topics 
of
>the agenda shall be defined 21 days in advance, the agenda send out 14 days 
in
>advance, and reports 7 days in advance. The Chair has the possibility to add
>last minutes new items.
>
>Theresa expressed concerns that an Intake Committee may became a potential
>gatekeeper for agenda determination, as well as a group controlling the Names
>Council. The good flow between the GA and NC is essential, and Roberto view 
on
>this shall be taken into account.
>
>Roger warned that the IC may prevent an individual NC member to raise 
business
>items. Concerns shared by Nii.
>
>Erica proposed to adopt the Intake Commitee proposal for the next 3 months 
and
>then review with experience. The motion was seconded and passed with 
unanimous
>approval of all present and proxies (Philip, Paul, Theresa, YJP, Caroline, 
Axel,
>Katoh, Erica, Nii, Tony, Hotta, Roger, Dany, Zakaria)
>
>10.	DNSO Review report
>
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000919.NCreview-report.v1.2.html, Version 
1.2,
>19 September 2000
>
>YJP initiated the work with a report from her Constituency. Roberto Gaetano, 
GA
>Chair, used this document as starting point for discussion on ga list. 
Theresa
>prepared a draft summarizing questions and issues. It is not a final 
document,
>not reviewed, open for improvements and feedback from the NC. The NC wants 
some
>guidance from ICANN staff on how specific the report is expected. The degree 
of
>representation is limited by a consensus one can get. The review report shall
>provide an evaluation on what was well done, and less well done, with a
>reasonable consensus on evolution, and proposals the Board should consider.
>
>The question was raised why a Task Force rather than Working Group prepare 
the
>Review report. Such a choice impacts on the issue of Constituency for
>Individuals, awaiting the decision on creation of Working Group. Roberto
>reminded the GAÕs motion presented to and recognized by the NC in Yokohama, 
and
>subsequent decision to merge the issue of Constituency for Individuals into 
DNSO
>review Working Group. Roberto stressed out that not incorporating the issue 
of
>Constituency for Individuals creates an additional delay-making situation 
even
>worst.
>
>YJP stated that the NC is showing hypocrisy. The GA do not believe what the 
NC
>members are doing, they do not see any kind of trust from the NC. The 
activity
>is reduced on only election of ICANN Board Director, nothing else. The NC 
does
>not know what ICANN is doing. The NC members let go.
>
>Whereas some felt the lack of communications was rather an issue of lack of
>public relations, others consider that the DNSO face substantial problems. 
The
>real challenge is that the DNSO must be an organization responsible for 
policy
>recommendations.
>
>The first draft of DNSO Review report is expected for Oct 13 th , the final
>report to ICANN Board shall be ready one week prior to Loas Angeles meetings.
>TheresaÕs work will be completed and reviewed, questions will be prepared, 
then
>comments solicited, and the final summary drafted by the NC and send out to 
the
>ICANN Board. Nii suggested incorporating some quantitative questions as a 
means
>to evaluate a level of change.
>
>11.	Budget Committee update
>
>Budget Commitee have 3 tasks: create a system when voluntary contributions to
>the DNSO may be sollicited, find a way to spend founds, prepare documents 
with
>job description. Work in progress.
>
>12.	Next Names Council Teleconferences
>
>Thursday October 19th