ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] DRAFT minutes, NCtelecon 26 Feb, for validation


With respect to the comment "She underlined her understanding of M.
Schneider?s concern[ THIS IS OKAY], especially related to a difficulty in
even meeting NC member commitments during a
2-year term the representatives are elected for."  The last half did not
make sense to me.  I was trying to say, However, the terms of NC members are
limited (in the case of IPC it is only a two year term], and thus I did not
see it as being as big a problem trying to get new people every 6 months.


-----Original Message-----
From: DNSO Secretariat [mailto:DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 2:41 PM
To: council@dnso.org
Cc: Maca.Jamin@wanadoo.fr
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




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>