RE: [council] NCtelecon 21 September 2000, minutes

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

I sympathise with the points made by Ken and suggest we review the form in 
which we require minutes to be kept at our next meeting.
To avoid the problems Ken has identified, I suggest our minutes be confined to 
a record of the decisions we make and do not atttempt to rehash who siad what 
in the course of discussion leading up to NC decisions.

r,
erica

>===== Original Message From "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@corenic.org> =====
>fellow members...
>as i reviewed the presentation here by elizabeth i noted som items of
>concern i would like to put before you .
>
>personally, i feel that any opinions expressed by any member need to be more
>explicitly attributed  ( particularly for example  those made by YJ when she
>referred to hypocracy).  if those are her opinions then they need to be
>attributed to her in a way such as "yj stated that she felt ...xxxx.
>
>in the same area a comment was made "the names council let go"  what does
>this mean ? it is an expression i have never heard before.
>
>i would also like to say that i do not believe that YJ speaks for the entire
>GA as a whole but rather for a specific segment. the broad allusions that
>she makes do not necessarily represent those of  many ga members. yj seems
>to forget that members of all constituancies are also members of the ga. she
>may or may not reflect the views of her constituancy but she certainly does
>not reflect the views of all the ga.
>
> there are numerous people who do not subscribe to the various ga list (for
>varying reasons including noise etc) so when yj says the ga feels this or
>that she is only reflecting a very small part of the total universe and i
>feel that this needs to be pointed out so that when yj goes " on the record"
>we as well as the readers know just exactly "who" she is going on the record
>for.
>
>based on the comments i made above i personally cannot vote to accept the
>minutes as presented without the specific reservations quoted above.
>
>respectfully
>
>ken stubbs
>speaking for himself  and as a member of the council, the registrar
>constituancy and a member of the ga)
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
>To: <council@dnso.org>
>Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 7:13 PM
>Subject: [council] NCtelecon 21 September 2000, minutes
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>