<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] NCtelecon, 8 February, minutes for validation by the NC
Thanks you - it is good to see the draft produced in a timely fashion.
In order to facilitate amendments, I have moved the minutes into a word
document and put on the 'track changes' instruction so that the changes I
propose can be clearly seen (see attached).
I have reviewed the draft and have proposed amendments to:
* clarify the sense
* delete emotive phrasing
regards,
erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Cc: <Maca.Jamin@wanadoo.fr>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:29 AM
Subject: [council] NCtelecon, 8 February, minutes for validation by the NC
>
> Colleagues,
>
> These are minutes from the NC held on 8 February, as drafted by Maca Jamin
> and reviewed by the NC Chair, Philip Sheppard.
>
> You have up to 7 days to make comments, until 22 February,
> if no comments received in 7 days, the Minutes are deemed approved.
>
> DNSO Secretariat
> --
>
> [cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/a20010208.NCtelecon-minutes.html]
>
>
> ICANN/DNSO
>
> DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 24 January 2001- Minutes
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> revised version February 12th
>
> Proposed agenda and related documents:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000802.NCtelecon-agenda.html
>
> List of attendees:
>
> Peter de Blanc ccTLD
> Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD
> Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD
> Philip Sheppard Business
> Theresa Swinehart Business (left before the end, proxy to Ph.
Shepaprsd)
> Grant Forsyth Business
> Hirofumi Hotta ISPCP absent (apology, proxy to M. Schneider)
> Tony Harris ISPCP absent (apology, proxy to M. Schneider)
> Michael Schneider ISPCP absent
> Erica Roberts Registrars
> Ken Stubbs Registrars
> Paul Kane Registrars
> Roger Cochetti gTLD absent by intervals (proxy to Ph.
Sheppard, if a vote took place during his absence)
> Caroline Chicoine IP
> Axel Aus der Muhlen IP absent (apology, proxy to C Chicoine)
> Guillermo Carey IP
> Youn Jung Park NCDNH
> Dany Vandromme NCDNH absent (apology, proxy to Y.J. Park)
> Zakaria Amar NCDNH absent
> Louis Touton ICANN staff absent (apology, participation in public
hearing)
> Maca Jamin Scribe
>
>
>
>
>
> <b>Quorum present at 14:06</b> (all times reported are CET, which is UTC
+1:00
> during the winter in the North hemisphere)
>
>
> <b>Opening of the Meeting</b>
>
> Ph. Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference, which tackled items remaining
> from the 24 January call.
>
>
> K. Stubbs proposed to add under A.O.B.: organising a NC dinner during
ICANN
> meetings in Melbourne
>
>
> Proxies received: R. Cochetti forced to leave a call several times, left a
> proxy to the Chair. Proxies for H. Hotta and T. Harris given to M.
Schneider
> - but M. Schneider was absent also.
>
>
>
> <b>Agenda item 1:</b> Budget Committee - revisiting the recommendation on
2001
> budget and constituency contributions
>
>
>
> o Status of Constituencies Contributions to the DNSO for 1999 and
2000
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001206.ICANN-DNSO-budget.html
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard clarified that the NC had agreed on the January to the
> settlement of the AFNIC payment. Remaining items, this call should be
> deciding on, concern 2001 budget and revenues. The Budget Committee will
> review options for enforcement of constituencies? dues and provide
> information to the NC for the next meeting. Within the budget two sides
are
> to be considered: costs and revenues. The NC was in favour of the costs
side
> of the budget $227,600 ($107,600 plus the assumption of *120,000 coming
from
> voluntary contributions).
>
> R Cochetti confirmed that spending based on voluntary contributions would
> depend on amounts the NC will be able to raise.
>
>
>
> Ph Sheppard inquired on any funds left from the year 2000 budget.
>
>
>
> R. Cochetti responded that a substantive sum left as a reserve would
provide
> a flexibility to the NC. All categories are based on assumptions for 2001:
> targets, spending classified by categories (budget Committee suggested
that
> funds left from 2000 of $35000 be left in miscellaneous category).
>
>
>
> K. Stubbs asked if there is a specific place where a pro-forma budget
could
> be found and clearly see what items will fall into which category,
mandated
> spending etc.
>
>
>
> R. Cochetti said that the Budget report is on the list serve where the
> following general categories and corresponding amounts are listed:
>
> -Administrative $12,000
> -Telecommunications $18,100
> -Travel $25,500
> -Web/Listserv/Maintenance $30,000
> -Webcasting $0
> -LanguageTranslations $10,000
> -Professional Services $12,000
>
>
>
>
>
> Voluntary funding will cover professional support only.
>
>
>
> Th. Swinehart made a more general remark requesting that all links are
> regularly posted before the meetings, to facilitate the NC members search
> when preparing the meetings.
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard assured this was current practice.
>
>
>
> P. Kane remarked that some expenditure amounts look rather high and
pointed
> out a difficulty in managing the voluntary part of the budget dedicated to
> employment of professional staff. The main difficulty lies in planning and
> forecasting.
>
>
>
> R. Cochetti agreed that we do not know the level of voluntary
contributions
> yet. Verisign will renew its offer to match $1 invested with $1 up to
> $100,000. Ph. Sheppard summarised: the NC support to a cautious approach
in
> setting its budget. Any available surplus will be put into reserves. The
Non
> Comm. and ISP Constituencies? confirmed their promise to settle
outstanding
> 1999 and 2000 dues soon and at the latest by the end of March.
>
>
>
> P. de Blanc informed on ccTLDs situation. ccTLDs are making no payments
> before the contract with ICANN has been defined. He will make an attempt
and
> propose to the constituency to separate DNSO contribution from overall
> discussion with ICANN. and ccTLDs, trying to come to an agreement to pay
> their fee by March.
>
>
>
> R Cochetti insisted on a conservative approach, spending only ?money in
> hand?. Surplus could be allocated to a number of spending such as reducing
> constituencies? dues for 2002, hire of other professional service or
keeping
> the money without allocating those funds.
>
>
>
> P. Kane agreed to this concept, which ensures good contingency funds.
>
>
>
> C. Chicoine insisted that we should start paying for some services in a
> cautious way.
>
>
>
> K. Stubbs recalled a simple rule where any activity relies on a certain
> budget mechanism . We, therefore, need to ensure people?s commitment and
put
> in place rather professional way of working ensuring basic working
> structure.
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard agreed and stated that enforcement is being seen on various
> sides as necessary and as such is on the agenda of the Budget committee
>
>
>
> Th. Swinehart was in favour of taking a cautious approach and supported
> suggestions made by C. Chicoine and R. Cochetti.
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard invited the NC to take a decision on DNSO budget as follows
(K
> Stubbs second):
>
>
>
> <b>Decision D1:</b> The Names Council adopts a Budget Report submitted on
January
> 24th comprising categories of spending, allocations of dues and the
> recommendation that due per Constituency for 2001 will amount to $15,371.
>
> Decision was accepted by 12 votes in favour: P. de Blanc, E. Porteneuve
> (hesitated because of the ccTLDs current situation), O. Robles Garay, Ph.
> Sheppard, Th. Swinehart (calling for a establishing a management methods),
> E. Roberts, K. Stubbs, P. Kane, R Cochetti, C Chicoine, A. Aus des Mühlen
> (by proxy to CC), G Carey.
>
> Three abstentions: Y.J Park, D Vandromme (by proxy to YJ Park), and G.
> Forsyth. No votes against.
>
>
>
>
>
> <b>Agenda item 2:</b> Review Process.
>
> o NC Review Task Force update and timetable
>
> o Working Group - clarification on deadlines, clarification of terms
of
> reference)
>
> Documents referenced in
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/wgreview-history.html
>
>
>
> Th. Swinehart recalled current status: the Interim report was posted for
> public comment on January 8th (closing date February 11th). All comments
> received will be incorporated and a report sent to ICANN Board. Current
> wording is a selection of analysis made and comments received. Next step
> will comprise a prioritisation process of items to be returned to the NC
and
> be considered as a part of the DNSO Business Plan. A timetable will be
> re-circulated.
>
> The process was that the Board would look at the recommendations, and
> respond to the NC for implementation.
>
> At this point Y.J. Park was invited by the Chair to speak on the WG review
> and the way it will most efficiently fit into the whole process.
>
>
>
> Y.J. Park said that the WG is constructively organising discussions. Some
> input expected by February 11th, but more time is still needed. She asked
> the secretariat who is going to deal with the comments received after that
> deadline.
>
>
>
> E. Porteneuve informed that all comments sent to the list are recorded.
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard added that all comments received in time would be reviewed.
>
>
>
> Y.J. Park asked about the transfer process of the recommendations coming
out
> of the Review Process into DNSO Business Plan.
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard clarified: he will be presenting the Business Plan to the NC
at
> a future meeting. Review implementation is a part of the Business Plan.
>
> Ph. Sheppard reminded the participants that the Review Task Force is
> composed of representatives of each Constituency: A. Aus der Muhlen, R
> Cochetti, H. Hotta, P. KaneY.J. Park, E. Porteneuve, Th. Swinehart and GA
> Chair R. Gaetano.
>
> After some discussion it was agreed that Review implementation would be
led
> by a new task force with new Terms of Reference.
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard asked Y.J Park, if she does not see a difficulty in
two-stream
> process:
>
> - Report send to ICANN by NC,
>
> - Continuing of the WG activities.
>
> As we are in presence of parallel activities addressing the same questions
> that could diminish impact of the message we want to pass
>
>
>
> Y.J. Park suggested that a convergent process could consist in WG Chair
> providing recommendations to the Board at the same time as the Task Force
> Chair at the Melbourne meeting.
>
>
>
> Th. Swinehart pointed out that there is going to be an overall open ICANN
> comment period and she suggested using that channel for further input.
>
>
>
> E. Roberts insisted that we have to stick to the process, as defined
> otherwise we could cause some confusion.
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard suggested that all WG comments received after February 11th
> deadline, should be a part of the ICANN public comment process.
>
>
>
> Y.J. Park said that more chance should be given to come up with more
> recommendations and reach a compromise.
>
>
>
> E. Roberts thought that more effective for the WG would be to contribute
> subsequently and send the input before the Board takes in the comments.
>
>
>
> C. Chicoine expressed another concern about the WG mandate, based on
> experience of previous WG activity. It should be made clear that this WG
> activity is not mandated by the NC and that no frustration should be felt
if
> the impact of the WG conclusions is not as high as wished by its
> participants.
>
>
>
> Decision D2 : proposed by Ph. Sheppard, Seconded Th. Swinehart:
>
> It was agreed that Th. Swinehart with Y.J. Park and the NC Chair would
draft
> a communication to the WG to confirm the present timetable and that WG
> Review input NOT received by the DNSO by Feb 11 would form a part of the
> ICANN public comment period and that would complete the work of WG Review.
>
>
>
>
>
> Agenda item 3 : Establishment of an NC task force on WhoIs? Policy issues
>
> P. Kane proposed setting up a task force to consider DNSO policy issues
> arising from the forthcoming ICANN WHOis report .
>
>
>
> At14h56 R. Cochetti left a call hoping to rejoin a call later. He left a
> proxy to Ph. Sheppard and stated that in case of vote he was in favour of
> ccTLD constituency remaining a part of the DNSO.
>
>
>
> E. Roberts wanted clear Terms of Reference for such a task force.
>
>
>
> P. Kane suggested ICANN might be asked to develop a website to publish the
> report and to be a focus for comments. He felt that any task force should
> comprise at least one representative per constituency.
>
>
>
> E. Porteneuve questioned the approach. To have a substantial work done on
> WHOis issue, we need a substantial material first such as the ICANN report
> and an analysis of the legal issues. She said she did not understand a
> procedure in recommending to ICANN to develop a website while WG
procedures
> we have are quite clear.
>
>
>
> P. Kane repeated he was proposing:
>
> -establishing a NC committee on Whois,
>
> - the committee would first establish Terms of Reference for the future
work
> of an NC task force,
>
> - seek NC validation to those terms .
>
>
>
> E. Porteneuve recalled that WG A used a similar approach by having a
> preliminary work done by WIPO.
>
>
>
> C. Chicoine agreed that a bottom-up approach is needed but she also point
> out the necessity of involving experts in areas such as legal issues.
>
> Ph. Sheppard asked Should members of each constituency belong to a
> preliminary team?
>
>
>
> P. Kane responded:
>
> this decision should be left to the constituency itself.
>
>
>
> 15:08 R Cochetti rejoined the meeting.
>
>
>
> E. Porteneuve underlined that we are facing an important preliminary work
in
> setting up the Terms of Reference. As to a data protection issue we should
> make all the effort to allow participation from different countries.
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard proposed P. Kane chair a committee and launches a call for
> nominations from the Constituency of its members.
>
>
>
> G. Carey insisted we should be integrating more people with expertise.
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard suggested that the committee comes up with some
recommendations
> on that subject.
>
>
>
> Th. Swinehart proposed to send to P. Kane literature on data protection
> issue.
>
>
>
> Y.J. Park informed about the interest expressed by a group of people
within
> Non-Commercial Constituency on December 13th to take part in such a
> committee work.
>
>
>
> P. Kane stressed that at this preliminary stage only NC will participate
and
> comments will later be requested from larger circles.
>
>
>
> The following motion moved by K. Stubbs (seconded by Th. Swinehart and E.
> Porteneuve)
>
> Decision D3: 1. NC requests from ICANN a copy of the report on WHOis
issues.
> 2. The NC will set up a Whois committee to propose Terms of Reference for
a
> future Who Is task force.
>
> This decision was unanimously adopted. No abstentions and no votes
against.
>
>
>
> Agenda item 4: ccTLD relations
>
>
>
> o Is the DNSO channel an adequate place for ccTLD ?
>
> o Shall ccTLD build up a separate organization within ICANN, such as
an
> SO?
>
> o Shall ccTLD build up a separate organization outside of ICANN, such
> as an Advisory Group?
>
>
>
> P. de Blanc proposed to take an informal straw poll on a few questions, on
> ccTLDs, communicated to the NC members shortly before the meeting. A
meeting
> between ICANN (M. Roberts, L. Touton) and the ccTLDs, recently held in
> Hawaii, brought up issues such as: funding, support to ICANN, relationship
> ICANN - ccTLDs, participation within ICANN Board (one third of ICANN
budget
> paid by ccTLDs) a possibility of changing a current structure. It would
> therefore, be valuable to have simple opinions of the NC members.
>
>
>
> R. Cochetti said that he would be happy to answer those questions, if this
> does not imply NC action
>
>
>
> C. Chicoine said she was uncomfortable with the procedure itself. She felt
> that constituency representatives are not so familiar with budgetary
details
> and would need to be educated on these matters.
>
>
>
> Th. Swinehart agreed that more information is needed on the issue She
> suggested a short summary could be drafted outlining the issues to
> enable the NC to make more relevant response.
>
>
>
> E. Roberts questioned the use of a straw poll because: opinion is minuted.
>
>
>
> K. Stubbs recognised the value in moving the subject from private
> discussions to public. An open discussion is needed in this confusing
> situation. He recalled that in the past the ccTLDs were not inclined to
> discuss those issues, impact of which is significant not only on a budget
> but also on relationship with registrars. We have to foster discussion
now.
>
>
>
> R. Cochetti said that a casual conversation is acceptable and mentioned
the
> possibility of creating a committee to tackle the issue.
>
>
>
> P. Kane felt uncomfortable in answering such questions while DNSO review
> process is going on. He therefore, urged the ccTLDs to submit their
comments
> for inclusion for a review by the Board and enable us to move forward
>
>
>
> At 15:32 Th. Swinehart left the call (proxy to Ph Sheppard)
>
>
>
> P. de Blanc emphasised the informal aspect of the discussion. ccTLDs will
> meet in Geneva on 19th February and in Melbourne, the day before ICANN
> meetings in March. There is a willingness to get the issues on the table
and
> explore alternatives to $1,5 million contribution, a 30% of the $5M ICANN
> budget. Different levels of the ccTLDs contributions and the overall
ccTLDs
> contributions, smaller or bigger, to the ICANN budget should also be
> considered..
>
>
>
> Y.J. Park pointed out that we have to highlight DNSO / ccTLD relationship,
> but need to learn more about the issue. We have to accommodate our agenda
to
> ccTLDs issue, as this item has not been on the NC agenda before. Not
> tackling it might look irresponsible.
>
>
>
> K. Stubbs inquired if the Geneva meeting is only for ccTLDs administrators
> or also open to observers, as this would help a personal understanding of
> the ccTLD process and with discussions within ones own constituency.
>
>
>
> P. de Blanc informed that ICANN staff would have to decide on allowing
> observers in a meeting or not. The main subjects are presentations, made
by
> ICANN and ccTLDs, aimed at finding a common ground and favouring
> participation of all parties, producing a position paper. Hopefully, we
will
> have observers at that meeting and he suggested consulting M. Roberts on
> that.
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard summed up by thanking P. de Blanc for raising the issue and
> inviting him to send a proposal for a future agenda item to the Intake
> Committee. He asked for concise background information in advance of
future
> discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
> Agenda item 5: New TLDs
>
> o Update on negotiations on new TLDs and explanation of means of
> charter enforcement
>
>
>
> As L.Touton could not attend this call due to his business commitments
> (public hearing), this item was deferred to the next meeting
>
>
>
>
>
> Agenda item 6: Non-commercial constituency - results and implications of
the
> constituency vote on four resolutions made at the constituency's Marina
del
> Rey meeting.
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00618.html (2-UDRP)
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00619.html (4-new TLDs)
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00620.html (5-sunrise)
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00621.html (7-freedom of
> speech)
>
>
>
> D. Vandromme could not attend this call and the item was deferred to the
> next meeting
>
>
>
>
>
> Agenda item 7: Request from GA for NC to consider an Individuals
> Constituency
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00527.html Ken Stubbs note
.
>
>
>
> K. Stubbs clarified that the substance of the document referenced above
(and
> described as a supporting document) was not in ?support? of the request.
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard recalled that a discussion took place within the Review Task
> Force and WG to address this issue.
>
>
>
>
>
> At 15:45 K Stubbs had to go to another meeting and left a call
>
>
>
> Y.J. Park suggested forming a WG on the formation of new constituencies.
>
>
>
> E. Roberts expressed concern about the process and suggested the NC
consider
> first:
>
>
>
> - the need,
>
> - a process to avoid a case-by-case approach,
>
> - the level of support and commitment to pay fees,
>
> - the issue of representation .
>
>
>
>
>
> C. Chicoine mentioned other concerns about the WG where everybody is
making
> the best effort, but the problem faced is effectiveness representativeness
> ness. Consensus based view is expressed solely by those having time to
work.
> We need to focus on WGD final report.
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard stressed a need in defining clear objectives and a process
for
> achieving them.
>
>
>
> P. Kane also objected a multiplying WG process, insisting that people who
do
> not contribute get no voice in the process. He also proposed to wait until
> the review process comes up with some conclusions.
>
>
>
> Y.J. Park expressed her understanding of all those concerns, and suggested
> to wait for the WGD recommendations.
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard stressed that broader view is needed (B. Fausett is helping
> with this process). He hoped the NC could come up with the decision
quickly
> .
>
>
>
>
>
> Agenda item 8: A.O.B.
>
>
>
> 8.1 On behalf of the NC, Ph Sheppard welcomed Grant Forsyth a new
> representative of the Business Constituency, replacing Masanobu Katoh.
>
>
>
> 8.2 Ph Sheppard forwarded K. Stubbs proposal to organise a NC dinner in
> Melbourne
>
>
>
> E. Porteneuve informed that three receptions are already kindly organised
by
> local hosts on 9th, 10th and 11th March.
>
>
>
> E. Roberts volunteered to make necessary arrangements for NC dinner to
take
> place on the eve of the NC meeting and co-ordinate timing and venue with
the
> relevant reception.
>
>
>
> Y.J. Park came back to a WGD issue: a report will go for public comment
> before final version is issued. This will cause delays in setting up a new
> individuals constituency. She therefore requested putting in place a fast
> track procedure.
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard said he would ensure WG D was on the agenda of the next
meeting
>
>
>
> P. Kane invited all NC members to forward to the Intake Committee
proposals
> for agenda items of the next meeting as soon as possible.
>
>
>
> Ph Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked the NC members for their
> participation.
>
>
>
>
>
> Next NC teleconference will be held on 26 February 2001 at 22:00 (CET)
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Information from:© DNSO Names Council
>
>
>
>
Jan minutes.doc
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|