<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] NCtelecon 10 April 2001, minutes
These are minutes drafted by Maca Jamin, incorporating your corrections,
and now transformed to the usual homogenous HTML format.
According to the NC procedures,
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010220.NCprocedures-v2.0.html
Within 10 days of the meeting, the Chair will approve the draft
and request the Secretariat to circulate the draft summary to
NC members for comment and approval. If no comment is received
within seven days, the minutes will be deemed to have been
approved for posting.
The deadline for any additional comment is 28 April 2001,
when the minutes will be posted to the DNSO mailling lists.
At this stage (HTML format ready), please provide any additional comment
in plain text only.
DNSO Secretariat
--
ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 10 April 2001 - minutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 April 2001
Proposed agenda and related documents:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010410.NCtelecon-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD
Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD (absent, apology - proxy to P.de Blanc
and in his absence to E. Porteneuve)
Philip Sheppard Business
Theresa Swinehart Business (absent, apology - proxy to G. Forsyth)
Grant Forsyth Business
Hirofumi Hotta ISPCP (absent)
Tony Harris ISPCP
Michael Schneider ISPCP
Erica Roberts Registrars
Ken Stubbs Registrars (absent, apology - proxy to P. Kane
and in his absence to E. Roberts)
Paul Kane Registrars (left the meeting earlier, proxy to E.
Roberts)
Roger Cochetti gTLD (left the meeting at 16:40)
Caroline Chicoine IP (absent)
Axel Aus der Muhlen IP (absent, apology, proxy to C. Chicoine
and in her absence to G. Carey)
Guillermo Carey IP
Milton Mueller NCDNH (absent, apology, proxy to YJ. Park)
Youn Jung Park NCDNH
Vany Martinez NCDNH (absent, apology, proxy to YJ. Park)
Louis Touton ICANN staff
Maca Jamin Scribe
Roberto Gaetano GA Chair (join at 16:30)
Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +2:00
during the summer in the Northern hemisphere)
Opening of the Meeting
Ph. Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference
Agenda item 1: Approval of the Agenda
Two additional items were added to the Agenda under AOB:
- 12.1 Sponsoring of Stockholm meeting web casting
- 12.2 Alternative technical means for NC teleconferences (proposal made by
Vany Martinez)
Including the above amendments the agenda was approved.
Agenda item 2: Approval of Summary of NC Meeting of 26th February 20001
* http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010226.NCtelecon-minutes.html
A change was made in the wording of the agenda item 1 of the NC meeting
Summary 26th February 2001:
Y.J. Park expressed her concern about the validation process of Version 3
of the DNSO Review report by the Names Council Review Task Force.
Decision D1: The minutes of February 26h Meeting, including the above
amendment, were approved unanimously by 17 votes in favour, no votes
against and no abstentions.
Agenda item 3: Approval of Chair's Summary of NC Meeting 11 March 2001
* http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010311.NCmelbourne-minutes.html
Decision D2: The report of the meeting March 11th 2001, prepared by Ph
Sheppard was unanimously approved by 17 votes in favour, no votes against
and no abstentions.
E. Porteneuve thanked Philip for this excellent initiative.
Agenda item 4: Feedback from NC Communication to the Board on VeriSing
Agreement
Ph Sheppard invited participants to comment on a follow-up of the NC input
reflected in recent correspondence between ICANN and VeriSign.
M. Schneider observed that contrary to advice received in Melbourne, events
had shown that amendments to the revised agreement where clearly possible.
It would have been more productive and resulted in more input if this had
been made clear from the very beginning. This experience should be kept in
mind for future issues.
R. Cochetti pointed out that there was no logical inconsistency and that
substantial changes to plan B will be extended by ICANN to all new
registries and validation of registry/registrars organisational conflict of
interest applied.
E. Roberts expressed registrars' concern (draft letter communicated to the
NC prior to the meeting), about both process and substantive issues.
Registrars will be seeking better and earlier consultation processes. The
registrars are looking to strengthen certain provisions and will be pleased
to see NC support on the substantive changes they will propose.
M. Schneider re-iterated discomfort with the process itself.
Ph. Sheppard asked for specific detail of three items proposed in the NC
resolution and reflected in the subsequent letter from Vint Cerf:
1. The exact proportion intended of the $200 million commitment to R&D
related to a universal WHOIS service,
2. The nature of firewall protections and structural separation to
prevent misuse of data for marketing purposes,
3. The dollar value of proposed monetary sanctions for violations of the
separation between registries and registrars.
Other concerns expressed during the meeting were:
* Market advantage of VeriSign registry/registrar bearing the same
name, belonging to the same corporation, thus providing to customers access
to both companies on the website,
* Use of the WHOIS database for marketing purposes,
* Application of monetary sanctions to new registry agreements,
* Transfer fee in the event of a merger or purchase of the entity by
another one,
* Cross-subsidisation: sponsorship of registrar by registry.
In his response L. Touton underlined that general provisions contained in
Appendix F prevent inappropriate exchange of information between registry
and registrars, require protective firewalls and require separate accounts
to prevent or expose cross-subsidisation.
He informed that the responses to these questions could be found in the
wording of Organisational Conflict of Interest Compliance Plan of the
Agreement, notably in:
* Paragraphe I where "NSI Organisational Structure" clearly requires a
separation of Registry and Registrar functions
* Paragraphe II "Financial Separation ":
"The Registry business accounts for its own costs, revenues, cash flow, etc
as a separate P&L center, using separate and distinct systems and
accounting functions. Reasonable and independently auditable internal
accounting controls are in place to ensure the adequacy of these systems
and functions. The individual financial statements of each P&L center are
then consolidated at the corporate level for tax and SEC reporting."
He also mentioned other paragraphs such as: VI "Information Control", VII
"Training", full text of which could be found in appendix F of ICANN-NSI
Registry Agreement http://www.icann.org/nsi/nsi-registry-agreement-appf-
04nov99.htm
He confirmed that precise detail on questions 1 and 3 raised by the Chair
are under negotiation and will form a part of the revised agreement which
will be sent to the US DOC.
Agenda item 5: Statement on ICANN Consultation Periods and Request for
Matching Funds
E. Roberts introduced the issue. She highlighted the gap between the
responsibilities NC has in fulfilling its mission:
The DNSO is a Supporting Organisation of ICANN (Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers). It advises the ICANN Board with respect to
policy issues relating to the Domain Name System.
and the means available to build a consensus. The hiring a professional
staff is vital in enabling DNSO to provide input on substantive matters.
The proposed motion looks at two aspects:
* Reasonable time to be allowed for input,
* Financial support needed for the NC to work professionally.
The motion is asking only for an amount representing just 25% of the
funding for the at-large study. This would enable DNSO to set up a
professional secretariat rapidly and plan future actions.
Following the e-mail discussions, Ph. Sheppard invited participants to
comment.
R. Cochetti said that the spirit of the voluntary funds was to demonstrate
community support for the DNSO.
T. Harris noted the difficult economic situation many companies are facing
now and expressed a concern on the ability of companies to provide funds.
P. Kane felt uncomfortable with asking ICANN for funding of DNSO work. He
was in favour of a call for sponsorship. Asking ICANN for loan may be
better.
G. Forsyth suggested the NC should do both: donations and ICANN subsidies.
R. Cochetti wondered what the impact would be on the ASO and PSO.
Ph. Sheppard stressed the broader nature of the DNSO.
E. Roberts was concerned about the time frame. The DNSO has to input on
major issues and has to have professional staff helping the NC to do so. We
should not delay and come up with a solution for the DNSO rapidly.
E. Porteneuve stressed the importance of the DNSO GA, and the legitimacy it
gives to the ICANN process.
L. Touton mentioned that both ASO and PSO have open GAs.
P. de Blanc was in favour of asking for a loan for start-up services.
E. Porteneuve stressed the need for long-term financial support to the
DNSO.
An amended motion was moved by E. Roberts and P. de Blanc and seconded by
T. Harris and voted in two parts as follows:
Whereas, There have been occasions where ICANN Staff publishes documents
while constituents are in transit on the way to meetings.
Whereas, this practice does not allow proper time for consultation and
comment, particularly for non-native English speakers.
Whereas, there has been criticism from some Board members of the lack of
input from the DNSO on issues of substance,
Whereas, the NC can understand that the urgencies of the moment do not
always allow for long lead times but nevertheless DNSO input is actively
sort by the Board,
Whereas, the 'bottom up' process of ICANN is substantially dependent on the
effective operation of the DNSO/NC, and the effective operation of the
DNSO/NC requires professional staff support,
Whereas, the NC will be able to react quicker to tight Board deadlines with
professional staff support,
Whereas, It is essential that the DNSO and the NC has the resources
required to facilitate consensus building and provide well considered
advice to the Board and to do this the support of professional and
dedicated staff is critical to ensuring that the NC is able to do its job.
Whereas, VerSign has offered matching funding of $100,000 to allow the NC
to hire such professional staff,
Decision D3: "The NC encourages the Board and ICANN staff to ensure that
reasonable time is allowed in future for constituencies to consider issues
and to resolve differences".
Motion voted by 16 votes in favour, no votes against and one abstention (R.
Cochetti).
Decision D4: The NC requests the Board to provide a $100,000 start-up fund
for DNSO secretariat support.
Motion passed with ten votes in favour (P. de Blanc, E. Porteneuve, O.
Robles Garay by proxy to P. de Blanc, Ph. Sheppard, G. Forsyth, Th.
Swinehart by proxy to G. Forsyth, T. Harris, E. Roberts, K. Stubbs by proxy
to P. Kane, V. Martinez by proxy to YJ. Park), three votes against (YJ.
Park, M. Mueller by proxy to YJ Park, P. Kane). And four abstentions (R.
Cochetti, M. Schneider, G. Carey, Aus der Muhlen by proxy to G. Carey).
Agenda item 9: Budget Committee (advanced in order)
Based on the report communicated to the NC prior to the meeting R. Cochetti
addressed two items:
1. Proposal on entity to administer voluntary funds
The Budget Committee has formally asked ICANN to administer DNSO voluntary
contributions. ICANN have five days to reply favourably (Note: ICANN have
done so April 13) otherwise the NC will establish an independent entity in
France. Voluntary funds will be separately accounted from the constituency-
fee based funds also administered by ICANN. Establishment of a collection
point for voluntary funds allows the Budget Committee to immediately call
for sponsors and to activate the recruitment process for professional
staff.
2. Proposal on enforcement
The Budget Committee proposed a mechanism for the enforcement of
Constituency fees: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010409.NCbusiness-
report.html
Ph. Sheppard mentioned M. Mueller's e-mail on the legitimacy of the NC
removing voting rights.
R. Cochetti pointed out that the Bylaws are quoted in the report and that
the Budget Committee felt comfortable as to the compliance of its proposal.
Y.J. Park inquired if D. Vandromme's request, as a former member of the
Budget Committee, for a 50% reduction of the NCDNHC fee for 2001, had been
discussed. R. Cochetti informed that D. Vandromme had put in no formal
proposal, even though he had mentioned this idea during working sessions.
E. Porteneuve stressed the importance of the consequence of any budgetary
decision as this implies a strong responsibility regarding employment of
professional staff. P. de Blanc added that diminishing the amount of one
constituency fee would automatically raise dues of the 6 others. There was
not agreement from the other constituencies they will support such
additional cost.
R. Cochetti said that in the proposal no sanctions are retroactive. They
are proposed for adoption for year 2001 and beyond.
Decision D5: Motion, moved by R. Cochetti, seconded by P. Kane, to accept
Budget Committee report, passed by 14 votes in favour (P. de Blanc, E.
Porteneuve, O. Robles Garay by proxy to P. de Blanc, Ph. Sheppard, G
Forsyth, Th. Swinehart by proxy to G. Forsyth, T. Harris, E. Roberts, K.
Stubbs by proxy to P. Kane, P. Kane, R. Cochetti, M. Schneider, G. Carey,
Aus der Muhlen by proxy to G. Carey), no votes against and three
abstentions (YJ. Park, M. Mueller by proxy to YJ. Park, V. Martinez by
proxy to YJ. Park).
It was also decided that the Chair would inform ICANN on this resolution
and seek clarification on compliance with Bylaws.
R. Cochetti left the meeting at 16:40
E. Roberts discussed the third part of the report:
3. Update on hiring of recruitment consultant
AFNIC will continue to provide services until 30 June 2001. The Search
Committee will hire a recruitment consultant (maximum sum of $5000), to
assist in the formulation of selection criteria, draft job description and
manage selection process. An advertisement will be put on the DNSO website
and sent by e-mail to all constituencies. A recruitment consultant will
communicate a short list of eligible candidates to the Search Committee.
The latter will make recommendations to the NC. The type of a person the
DNSO is looking for is more an information manager than an infrastructure &
technical support provider. The process is expected to be completed by the
ICANN Stockholm meetings but the timeframe is tight. If necessary the
Budget Committee will ask the NC to consider extending AFNIC's provision of
services beyond June 30.
Agenda item 6: New Registry Contracts - Means of Enforcement Contingency
for failure
L. Touton said that ICANN is continuing discussions with the four non-
sponsored gTLDs and hopes to provide a new status report soon. Discussions
continue with sponsored TLDs as well. No final date has been envisaged yet
for signature of agreements.
Agenda item 7: Business Plan- update on membership and first meetings of
the new interim committees, formal closure of existing NC Task force
(Outreach, review, Business Plan)
Ph. Sheppard asked for information on planned Business Plan interim
committee meetings:
* Review: has not set up a meeting date (Chair to ask Th. Swinehart),
* UDRP: no report in absence of chair.
* WhoIs?: P. Kane informed that the committee is just starting its
activity by exchanging e-mails on establishing process for gathering
comments. He also asked the NC to allow the committee to invite the GA
Chair to join them. NC was in favour of this initiative
* Internationalisation of Domain Names: Y.J. Park informed the group
would soon come up with the ToR. To help with this, questions may be
circulated to the NC.
The Chair will contact each interim committee chair to accelerate the
completion of the first phase of work (terms of reference for the relevant
part of the business plan).
The NC agreed to the formal closure of the following NC task forces which
have now completed their tasks as a result of the implementation phase of
the business plan: Outreach, Review, Business Plan.
Agenda item 8: Reports from WG D, E and formal closure of WG D, E and
Review
The NC thanked the participants of WG D for the final version of the WG D
report, together with Chair's notes received prior to the meeting. This
report, together with the reports of WG E, WG Review and any last minute
ideas from WG Review will be forwarded to the Interim Committee developing
strategies to implement the business plan and this committee will take
particular care over the proposals within these reports.
The NC agreed to the following motion (proposed by Ph. Sheppard):
Decision D6: The NC formally closes WG D and E (immediately), notes the
closure of WG Review that will take place on 16 April 2001 (end of ICANN
public comment period) and instructs that the reports of WG D, E, and
Review are forwarded to the NC Review Interim Committee.
Motion passed with 14 votes in favour, no votes against and three
abstentions (Y.J. Park, M. Mueller by proxy to YJ Park, V. Martinez by
proxy to YJ Park).
Y.J. Park inquired if the NC is going to take any action following
recommendations given in the reports, in particularly regarding the WG D
recommendations. Ph. Sheppard confirmed that this report together with the
reports of WG E and Review are the prime input for the work of the new NC
review interim committee. This is the start of phase 2 of the review
process: the implementation phase.
E. Porteneuve reminded that initially WG A, B and C were set up to provide
answers to the ICANN Board and WG D and E were intended to respond to
internal DNSO questions.
Agenda item 10: GA Chair Election Update
R. Gaetano, GA Chair, joined the meeting for discussion on this item. H.
Alverstand could not attend the NC call. E. Porteneuve thanked them both
for the tremendous work they have done in making the GA work and providing
useful input to the NC.
As a result of a ranking vote by the GA
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-ranking.html two
candidates are proposed:
* - Danny Younger for Chair
* - Patrick Corliss for alternate Chair
The Bylaws require the NC to elect the GA Chair. Following previous
practice, the NC asked the GA to hold preference elections and to recommend
candidates to the NC for formal election.
Ph. Sheppard invited R. Gaetano to confirm he was satisfied with the GA
election process and to comment on a question raised by e-mail by Th.
Swinehart on concern expressed on the GA lists about a conflict of interest
of the second nominee.
R. Gaetano said that the election was lead in a fair and transparent way,
using the same election system used for the ICANN at-large election. More
than 100 people took part in the vote. As to the conflict of interest, he
thought that involvement of the candidate in some association work should
not be an obstacle to his appointment. Besides, the alternate chair works
under the authority of the chair.
P. de Blanc felt that NC should not make political selection.
L. Touton asked if the possible conflict of interest had been disclosed in
a due time.
R. Gaetano clarified that information had circulated on the GA list before
the start of voting. Action could be taken in the future if the conflict of
interest becomes an obstacle.
Y.J. Park reminded that the NC in one of its previous meetings decided to
ratify GA choice and invited participants not to change that principle, in
particular when all the information was known prior to the election.
E. Porteneuve, as AFNIC and ccTLD member, expressed her concern about
alternative roots versus a one-root-system (the essence of the alleged
conflict of interest).
E. Roberts pointed out that this a different problem and the decision here
concerned endorsing GA choice of alternate Chair of DNSO GA. She also found
R. Gaetano's arguments on existing mechanism for GA Chair to control
alternate chair actions convincing, and said the NC has sound reasons to
endorse GA candidates.
E. Porteneuve supported R Gaetano's arguments too, and invited the NC to
support a unique root system.
At this point Ph. Sheppard proposed to proceed with the vote to endorse the
GA recommendations but as only eight NC members were still physically
present, the vote was deferred to an e-mail vote, which will be organised
by the Secretariat.
Agenda item 11: Timetable for expansion of membership in the gTLD
constituency
In absence of M. Mueller this item was deferred to the next meeting.
Agenda item 12: Any Other Business
* 12.1 Sponsoring of Stockholm meeting web casting
Ph Sheppard drew the NC's attention to e-mail message he has sent asking
for help in seeking a sponsor for the web casting of the forthcoming
Stockholm meeting.
* 12.2 Alternative technical means for NC teleconferences (proposal
made by Vany Martinez)
Ph Sheppard found V. Martinez' proposal interesting and volunteered to test
it together with E. Roberts.
* 12.3 Appeal for sponsorship
E. Roberts reminded P. Kane's proposal to write a press release calling for
sponsors and offering a possibility of publicising sponsors' logos on DNSO
site. Ph. Sheppard offered to help in carrying out this action.
Close
Ph. Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked Michael Schneider for
sponsoring the call.
17:35 end of call
Next NC teleconference will be held on 9 May 2001 at 15:00 (Paris time)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information from:© DNSO Names Council
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|