Re: [council] NCtelecon 21 September 2000, minutes

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

> 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.

OK with me.:-)

> 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.

In principle, Roberto represents GA and I do non-commercial constituency.
However, all the comments made by myself was as a member of review
committee who has to cover not only his/her specific interest group but also
across the constituencies and its related organizations.

I don't think it was beyond the scope.
That's within the scope of the review committee.

Otherwise, how can you review the whole DNSO process?

>  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.

In this sense, icann itself still represents a very small part of the total
universe, too.
The people we are represent are not the whole WORLD at all.

> based on the comments i made above i personally cannot vote to accept the
> minutes as presented without the specific reservations quoted above.

I think your reservation can be removed.

YJ

> 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
> >
> >
> >
>