<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] DRAFT minutes, NCtelecon 26 Feb, for validation
Thanks again for this timely distribution of the minutes!
Again, I have moved them into WORD format so that I can use the 'track
changes' facility.
I have reviewed the minutes and suggested changes for accuracy and
clarification - see attached.
Regards,
erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Cc: <Maca.Jamin@wanadoo.fr>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 8:40 PM
Subject: [council] DRAFT minutes, NCtelecon 26 Feb, for validation
>
> Council,
>
> These are DRAFT minutes by Maca Jamin for first round of comments.
> Philip has seen it and his comments have been incorporated.
>
> DNSO Secretariat
>
> --
>
> ICANN/DNSO
>
> DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 26th February 2001- Minutes
>
>
> Draft version 3.0 (February 28th 2001)
>
> Proposed agenda and related documents:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001026.NCtelecon-agenda.html
>
> List of attendees:
>
> Peter de Blanc ccTLD
> Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD
> Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD
> Philip Sheppard Business
> Theresa Swinehart Business
> Grant Forsyth Business
> Hirofumi Hotta ISPCP absent (apology, proxy to M.
Schneider)
> Tony Harris ISPCP
> Michael Schneider ISPCP
> Erica Roberts Registrars
> Ken Stubbs Registrars absent(apology , proxy to P.
Kane)
> Paul Kane Registrars
> Roger Cochetti gTLD
> Caroline Chicoine IP
> Axel Aus der Muhlen IP
> Guillermo Carey IP absent (apology, proxy to C.
Chicoine)
> Milton Mueller NCDNH left call at 23:00
> Youn Jung Park NCDNH
> Vany Martinez NCDNH joined later
> Louis Touton ICANN staff
> Maca Jamin Scribe
>
>
>
>
>
> Quorum present at 22:10 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +1:00
> during the winter in the North hemisphere)
>
> Opening of the Meeting
> Ph. Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference, and welcomed newly elected NC
> members: Grant Forsyth ( BC), Vany Martinez and Milton Mueller (NCDNH).
>
> Agenda item 0: Approval of the Agenda
>
>
> L. Touton asked a preliminary question on the proxies received and the
> consistency with the NC rules
>
> Ph. Sheppard confirmed that the process was compliant to the rules and
> informed that three proxies were received:
> Hirofumi Hotter gave his proxy to Michael Schneider, Ken Stubbs to
> Paul Kane and Guillermo Carey to Caroline Chicoine
>
> One item was added to the agenda under A.O.B
> 12.1NC dinner in Melbourne
> Two other items were mentioned and resolved before the meeting:
> Finalisation of the Business Plan (discussed under item 5 - final version
> will be adopted in Melbourne)
> and A Calendar of the NC meetings in 2001 (Ph. Sheppard will send an
> e-mail message to all NC members to confirm dates).
>
> Including the above amendments the agenda was approved.
>
>
> Agenda item 1: Approval of Minutes of 24th January and 8th February 2001
>
> 24th January
> o http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010124.NCtelecon-minutes.html
>
> As requested by Y.J. Park the following wording of Decision D6 was changed
FROM:
>
> Subsequent to the meeting Y.J. Park has sent her apologies and
> asked to withdraw this last observation.
>
> TO:
>
> Subsequent to the meeting Y.J. Park has sent apologies as to
> personal comments made and has asked they be withdrawn.
>
>
> Decision D1: The minutes of January 24th Meeting, including the
> above amendment, were approved by 13 votes in favour, no votes
> against and 3 abstentions (M. Schneider - not present at that
meeting,
> M. Mueller and G. Forsyth - not members of the NC at the time)
>
> 8th February
>
> o http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010208.NCtelecon-minutes.html
>
> Ph. Sheppard raised a question related to the decision D2, taken by the NC
at the February 8th meeting:
>
> ?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.?
>
> A draft was prepared by Th. Swinehart and Ph. Sheppard but not accepted by
> Y.J. Park. A holding message was sent to the WG Review. He suggested and,
> in consistency with the NC decision, to communicate this
> decision immediately to the members of the WG Review .
> Th. Swinehart agreed and stressed that the language of the draft was
> consistent with the NC decision.
> Y.J. Park suggested incorporating WGR comments.
> C. Chicoine invited the group to move forward, if it is a question of
> semantics, and circulate a text to the NC members by e-mail asking for
> NC approval.
> Subsequent to the meeting Ph. Shepard sent a text to all NC
> members which was approved by the majority of the NC within the
> deadline (annex 1).
>
>
> Y.J. Park expressed her concern about the future of the Review Process
Task
> Force
>
> Ph. Sheppard recalled the NC decision on the submission of the report to
> ICANN and the ending of this Review Task Force activity dedicated to
> a production of the later. new task forces or other groups will
> be formed to lead the implementation process.
>
> Motion to approve the Minutes of February 8th meeting was moved by
> C. Chicoine (seconded by E Roberts):
>
> Decision D2: The Minutes of February 8th meeting were approved
> by 13 votes in favour, no votes against and 3 abstentions
> (M Schneider -not present, M. Mueller and G. Forsyth - not members
> of the NC at the time).
>
>
>
> Agenda item 2: Consolidating existing NC procedures into one document -
> NC Rules of Procedure
>
> DECISION TO approve NC Rules of Procedure
> o http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010220.NCprocedures-v2.0.html
>
> Ph. Sheppard presented a document, sent in advance; a consolidation
> of different decisions the NC has taken over a number of months.
> The aim is having a document consistent with the Bylaws ensuring proper
> functioning of the NC. The document contains mlinor editorial changes
> for clarity and is consistent with the decisions taken by the NC.
> E. Roberts congratulated Philip for this excellent initiative.
> L. Touton inquired about the expiration of the trial period of the
> previous procedures.
> Ph. Sheppard informed that all trial periods have expired
> P. Kane recalled procedures on proxies to be included in a text.
> M. Mueller asked about the rotation process of the NC chair position.
> M. Schneider intervened by reminding the early days and efforts made
> to keep rotating chairs, the principle that did not prove its
> efficiency in the past. He also pointed out an important load of work
> for the NC Chair as such and was not in favour of eligibility limit.
> C. Chicoine reminded that there exists a list of past chairs. She
> underlined her understanding of M. Schneider?s concern, especially
> related to a difficulty in even meeting NC member commitments during a
> 2-year term the representatives are elected for.
> E. Porteneuve offered to send information, statistics available,
> as an indication of the past chairs.
> E. Roberts suggested posting ?NC Rules of Procedure ? to the NC members,
> thus enabling them to inform their Constituencies of the procedures
>
> L.Touton proposed the following:
> ?The trials of the proxy and Intake Committee Procedures are
> deemed satisfactory and the attached
> <insert URL> is recognized as an accurate restatement of the
> Names Council's Procedures, subject
> to revision by future Names Council action."
>
> Decision D3: The motion, moved by E. Roberts (seconded by
> P.de Blanc), was accepted by 16 votes in favour no votes
> against and one abstention (M. Mueller).
>
>
> Agenda item 3: Procedure regarding prolonged absences from NC meetings
>
>
> E. Porteneuve briefly explained the problems encountered:
>
> - Elections and replacement of representatives,
>
> - Long absence from the meetings without notice.
>
> The problem is twofold: the workload cannot be shared fairly among
> NC members and constituencies are not properly represented or informed.
>
> Th. Swinehart recalled that this questions was raised within the
> DNSO Review Process
>
> Steps to be taken to inform the constituencies were discussed and
> E. Roberts stressed that it is not the NC role to direct Constituency
decisions.
>
>
>
> The following was decided as an addition to the NC rules of procedures:
>
>
>
> Decision D4: When a names council member fails to participate
> in two regular consecutive NC meetings without notification
> of absence to the DNSO secretariat or NC chair or Council list,
> the DNSO secretariat will notify the constituency and ask
> for a response.
>
>
>
> At this point M. Mueller indicated he had to leave the meeting
> shortly and requested taking agenda item 7 before item 5. This point
> of order was accepted.
>
>
>
> Agenda item 7: Non-commercial constituency - results and implications
> of the constituency vote on four resolutions made at the Constituency's
> Marina del Rey meeting. (
>
> o http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00618.html (2-UDRP)
>
> o http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00619.html
(4-newTLDs)
>
> o http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00620.html
(5-sunrise)
>
> o http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00621.html (7-freedom
of speech)
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard recalled that this item was put on the agenda as requested by
> D. Vandromme who is no longer an NC member. Y.J. Park thought that this
> was raised to show decisions made by non-commercial constituency,
> aimed at finding out about the decision process in place within
> other constituencies
>
> M. Mueller informed that there had been questions raised about
> the legitimacy of the process for these decisions and that he
> believed the purpose of the agenda item was to state to the NC that
> the process had indeed been legitimate.
>
> M .Mueller left the meeting at 22:35
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard asked participants to avoid putting on the NC agenda
> internal constituency issues.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Agenda item 4: Melbourne Meeting Agenda
>
>
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard recalled that the Melbourne meeting is a public meeting.
> He proposed that the main item on the agenda would be the DNSO Business
> Plan and presentations will be made on its components. The Business
> Plan objectives had been posted to constituencies and a good feedback
> received. A new draft incorporating this feedback and adding strategies
> will be circulated in a few days to the NC.
>
> C. Chicoine informed the Committee, as she is not going to attend
> Melbourne meeting, that she will be posting her comments prior to the
meeting.
>
> Y.J. Park inquired on the members of the Task force.
>
> Ph. Sheppard replied: G. Carey, E. Roberts, P. de Blanc, H. Hotta,
> R. Cochetti, D. Vandromme and Ph. Sheppard.
>
> Y.J. Park said that due to the D. Vandromme?s leaving the NC she would
> like to replace him as a member of the Business Plan Task Force.
> Ph. Sheppard asked her to consult with her the constituency reps and
> inform the NC of the replacement for D. Vandromme.
>
>
>
> E. Roberts underlined that the discussion on budget should be
> discussed in Melbourne as well. R. Cochetti informed that a progress
> report on fund raising, on professional support and enforcement
> of constituency dues, would be provided in Melbourne.
>
>
>
> P. Kane asked the NC members to submit as soon as possible any other
> issue they would like to see on the agenda of the Melbourne meeting
>
>
>
> C. Chicoine inquired on further developments of WHOIS report.
>
> P. Kane informed that we are awaiting ICANN report. As to the NC task
> force to be formed, the ISP Constituency and Registrars have not
> designated their representative yet and are kindly asked to do so.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Agenda item 5: DECISION of NC to invite the GA to manage an election
> process to select a nominee for appointment by the NC to the position
> of Chair of the GA
>
>
>
> E. Porteneuve described the previous process and confirmed that the
> practice of the NC, in order to comply with the by-laws, was to
> ask the GA to propose nominations to the NC for approval.
>
> E. Roberts expressed her concern, as to a general view expressed
> at the last GA meeting, to invite GA to nominate the GA Chair by
> election leaving to the NC to appoint a chosen person only.
> She also stressed that according to the ongoing discussion on the
> GA list serve, Roberto Gaetano has resigned which implies the
> GA will not have a chairperson for the upcoming meeting in Melbourne.
>
> E. Porteneuve reassured the participants that R. Gaetano would remain
> as chair until after the Melbourne meeting.
>
> E. Roberts suggested to invite GA to nominate a person and that a
> clear description of a process in place be communicated.
>
> E. Porteneuve informed that the DNSO Secretariat initiated the
> process in the past and she proposed to manage it again this time.
>
> L. Touton recalled that there was a procedure in place used for the
> last election: nomination of a candidate by GA, endorsement by
> 10 members required, 2 candidates presented to the NC for election.
>
> E. Porteneuve inquired if the previous procedures should be followed:
>
> - Call for nominations
>
> - Call for endorsements
>
> - Election by the NC
>
>
>
> Decision D5: Ph. Sheppard proposed to proceed as
> last year, without changing the Bylaws: E. Porteneuve
> will send an e-mail to GA mailing list and move the
> process forward.
>
> This was unanimously approved with no votes against and no abstentions
>
> Agenda item 6: New TLDs
>
>
>
>
>
> o Update on negotiations on new TLDs and explanation
> of means of charter enforcement
>
>
>
> L. Touton recalled the ICANN Board decision allowing General
> Counsellor and ICANN CEO to carry on further negotiations with the
> applicants chosen at November meeting in LA. Due to the limited ICANN
> resources and a time consuming process, the current negotiations
> focused on four applicants for non-sponsored TLDs Negotiations
> will be completed in 24 hours and achieved agreements posted.
> There is a uniform agreement, restrictions being specified in
> appendices. Most of the appendices will also be posted before the
> Melbourne meeting.
>
> Discussions on sponsored/chartered TLDs are still in a preliminary
> phase. Agreement structure is different and it is not certain that
> they will be posted before Melbourne.
>
> Ph. Sheppard questioned about the earliest and the latest possible
> launching dates
>
> L.Touton admitted that it is difficult to give a satisfactory answer,
> as all four non -sponsored will proceed by several stages:
>
> - Public announcement, expected as early as May time frame,
>
> - Setting up a registry service, at the latest in summer.
>
>
>
> C. Chicoine inquired if the purpose of publishing of reports is
> only for information or is it also intended for public comment process.
>
> L.Touton responded that public discussions would be possible during
> public forum meeting in Melbourne and on-line of course.
>
> E. Roberts inquired on reporting process on a proof of concept.
>
> L. Touton reminded that a reporting on a proof of concept was
> included in each proposal right from the beginning. In order to take
> into account relevant elements of each concept, most of the reports
> will be made available, except for some strictly competitive
> information that will be kept confidential. Reports will not be
> available during the first four months.
>
> Ph. Sheppard questioned on differences from UDRP needed for
> different TLDs, eg dotBIZ .
>
> L.Touton agreed that some enforcement mechanism is included in
> initial proposals.
>
> C. Chicoine asked if the enforcement mechanism means a revision
> of the UDRP and would there be a uniform process applied to
> chartered TLDs as well?
>
> L.Touton underlined diversity as one of the goals. He said that
> his understanding is that restrictive enforcement mechanism will be
> handled according to what is proposed. DNSO will be given
> particular responsibilities in this area.
>
> E. Roberts asked for more information as to the NC role in the process.
>
> L.Touton explained that the NC could set up a group to examine
> proof-of-concept, thus providing additional instructions for
> further evaluations.
>
> Ph. Sheppard recalled that the Business Plan incorporates evaluation
> of new TLDs and additional candidates, and is going to be discussed
> in Melbourne
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Agenda item 8: ccTLDs - report on issues arising from the 2001
> Hawaii and Geneva meetings
>
>
>
> E. Porteneuve reported on recent ccTLDs meetings held in Hawaii and
Geneva.
>
> 244 ccTLDs operate worldwide (set-up according to the ISO 31-11 codes)
> while 98 (40%) contribute to the ICANN process. In voting procedures for
NC,
> 95 ccTLDs took part, representing approximately the same percentage.
> Last meeting in Geneva was very well attended, 70 ccTLDs were represented
>
> The topics discussed concerned
>
> - Discussions with ICANN,
>
> - Agreement with ICANN + GAC,
>
> - Financial contribution to ICANN (ccTLDs contribute 30% of overall
ICANN budget).
>
> It was strongly felt that the ccTLDs have little chance to have a
> representative elected to the ICANN Board and are therefore, seeking
> new ways to get Board representation. This does not preclude their
> participation within DNSO. The same topics will be discussed in
> Melbourne to fulfil ccTLDs goal to outreach to a largest possible
> number of ccTLDs in different regions of the world.
>
> P. de Blanc added that the Geneva meeting was a significant success
> and attracted ccTLDs from African countries, which was rather positive.
> The ccTLDs want to support ICANN process and are very much interested
> in NSI contract and discussions on gTLDs. But they would like ICANN
> to move away from US centric and gTLD issues and have more resources
> dedicated to ccTLDs matters.
>
> Th. Swinehart asked about those ccTLDs who market themselves
> non-geographically and those who do not, and how this difference is
> being handled.
>
> P.de Blanc assured that the percentage of commercial ccTLDs is
> insignificant. Some are operating as gTLDs and are not subject to the
UDRP.
>
> O. Garay said that the current situation is caused by a lack of formal
> agreement with ICANN. This should be achieved.
>
> Y.J. Park asked what is the status now with the 244 ccTLDs.
>
> P. de Blanc responded that the status quo would remain. Priorities
> will come up for economic reasons: smaller ccTLDs will have to do
> some outreach.
>
> Y.J Park said that many of them do not know what is in the ICANN contract.
>
> P.de Blanc informed that 20 or 30 contracts would be in hand by the
> time the contract with US government will be extended. ccTLDs
> recommended to ICANN to start with draft contracts instead of
> coming with a new contract as most ccTLDs would certainly agree to sign.
>
>
>
>
>
> Agenda item 9: Streamlining - DECISION on closure of working groups
> that have completed their task (A, B, C) and use of their e-mail lists
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard proposed that in preparation of a new Business Plan and
> of setting up of a new Secretariat, the NC take a decision to
> formally close WG A, B &C. One question arising is therefore use of
> the subscribers? list database. He therefore proposed to close
> WG A, B & C, transfer the e-mail addresses to the GA announce
> list in order to maintain optimal outreach.
>
> P.de Blanc agreed adding opt out instructions should be provided and
> a thank you for contributions.
>
> Th. Swinehart suggested also providing a link to the DNSO site,
> which will be the easiest source of information for participation
> in future, DNSO groups.
>
> The following motion was moved by Ph. Sheppard (seconded by P. de Blanc):
>
>
>
> Decision D6: The NC closes WG A, B &C, moves all subscribers
> to the GA announce, and will inform the groups where to find
> information for future participation. This motion was unanimously
> passed with no votes against and no abstentions.
>
>
>
>
>
> Agenda item 10: WG D - final report, use for Review process and next
> steps and agenda item 11: WG E - next steps with final report were
> differed to the Melbourne meeting, where they will be included
> within the Business Plan discussions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Agenda item 12: Budget Committee update
>
>
>
> In absence of R. Cochetti, E. Roberts, a member of the Budget
> Committee, informed that current discussions are about a suitable
> process to recover constituencies? dues and put in place penalties
> for those who do not pay. A several stage process is envisaged such
> as loss of voting rights, but nothing definite has been decided yet.
> A more detailed report will be provided in Melbourne.
>
>
>
>
>
> Agenda item 13: A.O.B.
>
>
>
> 13.1 NC dinner in Melbourne
>
> E. Roberts informed the Council on dinner arrangements made for
> the evening of 10th March 2000. Following a timing conflict the
> time was changed to 8:30 p.m. instead of 7:30 originally planned.
>
> To enable her to choose appropriate venue, she urged the NC
> members to confirm their participation (accompanying persons are welcome),
>
> NC members will make transportation arrangements individually.
>
> Ph. Sheppard thanked Erica for kindly taking care of the NC dinner
arrangements.
>
>
>
>
> 13.2 Multilingual domain issue
>
>
>
>
>
> Y.J. Park asked L. Touton if ICANN is planning a session on
> multilingual domain issue, as M. Katoh made believe at the recent
> meeting in Kuala Lumpur
>
> L. Touton said that subject is not currently scheduled and mentioned
> listed topics scheduled for public forum:
>
> - New gTLDs
>
> - ccTLDs
>
> - DNSO review
>
> -At Large Study Committee Report
>
>
>
> Subsequently to the meeting L.Touton informed the Council
> ? Following up on Y.J. Park's question, the topic of
> internationalized domain names has been added to the
> agenda of the Public Forum to be held 12 March 2001 in
> Melbourne. A topic paper consisting of a series of
> questions designed to prompt public comment has been posted
> at http://www.icann.org/melbourne/idn-topic.htm>
> and an associated web-based public comment forum has been
> established.?
>
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard mentioned that multilingual domain names will be a
> part of the NC discussions in Melbourne.
>
>
>
>
>
> Close
>
>
>
> Ph. Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked all participants for
> their participation
>
>
>
> 24:15 end of call
>
>
>
>
>
> Next public NC meeting will be held on 11 March 2001, in Melbourne
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Annex 1
>
>
> IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR WORKING GROUP REVIEW
>
>
>
> Future timetable for the groups input
>
> Status
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. The DNSO comment period on the draft DNSO Review Report v. 2.0a
> ended Februaryary 11th.
>
>
>
> Next steps
>
>
>
> 2. Comments submitted from WG Review and others have been
> incorporated asappropriate by the chair of the Names Council Review
> Task Force (NCRTF) into a draft version 3. NCRTF comprises one
> representative from each of the seven NC constituencies.
> Version 3 has been validated by remaining members of the NCRTF
>
>
>
> 3. DNSO Review Report version 3 was received 18 February by the
> ICANN Board. This is in preparation for the Board's meeting in March
> in Melbourne and to allow full time for an ICANN public comment period.
>
>
>
>
>
> 4. As was mandated, the task of the Names Council Review Task Force,
> including a DNSO public comment period, is now complete.
>
>
>
>
>
> 5. In order to ensure coherent input to the ICANN Board, all
> further comments from WG Review should be directed to the ICANN
> public comment website, when the ICANN public comment period begins.
>
>
>
>
> 6. At the closure of the ICANN public comment period the task of
> WG Review will be complete.
>
>
>
>
>
> Implementation
>
>
>
>
>
> 7. The Names Council will be reviewing both the input from the
> final WG D report and from the Review process to develop a new
> process to implement the recommendations of the Review process.
> Full participation in this implementation phase is envisaged.
> It is understood that the structure of participation will be
> an improvement on the present structure of DNSO working groups!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Theresa Swinehart, Chair, DNSO Review Task Force
>
>
>
> Philip Sheppard, NC Chair
>
>
> Information from:© DNSO Names Council
>
>
>
feb minutes.doc
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|