<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Draft minutes from NC telecon, 16 Aug 2001, by Maca Jamin
I have one correction: I believe that decision d6- acceptance of the
search committee's report, was my motion.
If that was the case, (check the audio recording), I would like the
record to reflect that it was my motion. And who was the second of that
motion?
Peter de Blanc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Elisabeth Porteneuve
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:56 PM
To: council@dnso.org
Subject: [council] Draft minutes from NC telecon, 16 Aug 2001, by Maca
Jamin
These are minutes from yesterday call, drafted by Maca Jamin, reviewed
by Philip Sheppard, for the first round of comments.
Both formats: text and Word.
Elisabeth
--
ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Names Council Teleconference 16th August 2001 Minutes
Scribe version amended v.1.(17th August 2001)
Proposed agenda and related documents:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010816telecon-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD
Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD (left at 16:17, proxy
to
E.Porteneuve then P. de Blanc).
Philip Sheppard Business
Marilyn Cade Business
Grant Forsyth Business
Greg Ruth ISPCP
Antonio Harris ISPCP
Tony Holmes ISPCP (absent apologies,
proxy to
T. Harris)
Erica Roberts Registrars
Ken Stubbs Registrars
Paul Kane Registrars
Roger Cochetti gTLD
Richard Tindal gTLD
Cary Karp gTLD
Caroline Chicoine IP
Axel Aus der Muhlen IP
Guillermo Carey IP (left the meeting
earlier,
proxy to C. Chicoine)
Milton Mueller NCDNH (left the meeting and
returned at 15:42)
Youn Jung Park NCDNH (joined the meeting
later)
Vany Martinez NCDNH
Louis Touton ICANN staff
Maca Jamin Scribe
Quorum present at 15:05 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +2:00
during the Summer in the Northern hemisphere)
Agenda item 0: NC Chair position
P. Kane took over chairmanship for this item.
Ph. Sheppard's first term as the NC Chair was from February to July 2001
and NC had to consider this position again according to:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00664.html
P. Kane moved the following motion, seconded by E. Porteneuve to
re-elect Ph. Sheppard: Decision D1: "The NC resolves to re-elect Philip
Sheppard as Chairman for a further term of six months starting from this
meeting."
This motion was unanimously passed.
Ph. Sheppard chaired the rest of the teleconference.
Agenda item 1: Approval of the Agenda
Ph. Sheppard suggested adding the following items under AOB
ICANN Group on Evaluation Process of new TLDs
Recompense for B. Fausset's recording services
Including these changes the agenda was unanimously approved.
Agenda item 2: Approval of summary of 29 June 2001 meeting
http://2ww.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010629.NCtelecon-minutes.html
P. Kane moved a motion to approve the summary of 29th June, seconded by
K
Stubbs:
Decision D2: The Minutes of June 29th 2001 were approved by 20 votes in
favour, no votes against and one abstention (A.. Aus der Muhlen)
Agenda item 3: DNSO Election Timetable
Ph Sheppard opened a discussion by summarising different stages of this
election process:
- there are five candidates currently running for the ICANN
Board
election. Four of them have got the necessary ten endorsements,
- endorsement period will end August 28th 2001,
- remaining question is deciding on a date of the election,
taking
into account two important aspects:
o according to the Bylaws ICANN has to be notified of the result on
September 16th 2001
o the NC is having its next physical meeting in Montevideo in early
September
Ph. Sheppard proposed holding this election between August 29th and
September 1st. E. Porteneuve stated the ccTLD constituency's willingness
to take the opportunity at the Montevideo meeting to meet with the
candidates and therefore expressed her opposition to hold election
before Montevideo. P de Blanc was supportive of E. Porteneuve's
suggestion and added that candidate running for such a position should
be able to make this effort and attend the Montevideo meeting.
M. Mueller left the meeting and gave his proxy to Ph.
Sheppard stating that in case of a vote he was in favour of holding the
election before the Montevideo meeting
M. Cade pointed out several aspects of the problem:
- Due to the robust schedule in Montevideo and important
discussion
topics on the agenda, it is important each NC representative had enough
time to participate actively;
- All representatives would like to consult with their
constituency
between the rounds, a rather time consuming task easier to perform from
the office,
- The election should be fair. Enabling candidates to express
their
views through electronic means of communication gives them all equal
chance to talk to all parties, participate in teleconferences. Not all
of them will be able to make the Montevideo meeting,
- having had the election before Montevideo would give an
opportunity to the elected candidate to participate actively in issues
with the DNSO at Montevideo.
- E. Roberts stressed the practical difficulties related to
travel
arrangements. She opposed the idea of having the election in Montevideo.
- K. Stubbs also expressed his concern about the timeline and
insisted that this situation could have been avoided, if we had made a
more careful planning beforehand.
Ph. Sheppard put forward the motion, seconded by E. Roberts
Decision D3: The NC will hold election of the ICANN Board
director prior to
the Montevideo meeting between 28th August and September
1st 2001.
First round of vote gave the following results:
Ten votes in favour (M. Cade, G. Forsyth, K Stubbs, M. Mueller, E.
Roberts, T. Harris, T. Holmes by proxy to T Harris, G. Ruth, V.
Martinez, Ph.
Sheppard) ;
Nine votes against (C. Chicoine, A. aus der Muhlen, G. Carey, by proxy
to C. Chicoine, Y.J. Park, P. de Blanc, E. Porteneuve, R. Cochetti, R.
Tindall, C.
Karp)
One abstention (O. Robles).
The vote failed.
At 15:48 Y.J. Park had joined the meeting, (she had been untill then a
listen only participant) and took part in the vote. Due to the
closeness of the result P. de Blanc requested to call the question and
take a motion again. Ph. Sheppard asked that two opinions be expressed :
one in favour and one against. P. de Blanc and M. Cade re-iterated their
statements.
Second round result
Ph. Sheppard proceeded to the second round of the vote on the motion.
Decision D4: The NC will hold election of the ICANN Board
director prior to
the Montevideo meeting between 28th August and September
1st 2001 and the following result was obtained: Nine votes in favour (M.
Cade, G. Forsyth, K Stubbs, E. Roberts, T. Harris, T. Holmes by proxy
to T Harris, G. Ruth, C. Chicoine, Ph. Sheppard) Eight votes against
(Y.J Park, V. Martinez, P. de Blanc, E. Porteneuve, O. Robles , R.
Cochetti, R. Tindall, C. Karp) Three abstentions (A. aus der Muhlen,
G.Carey, by proxy to C Chicoine, M.
Mueller)
This motion failed.
L. Touton confirmed the imperative of providing final results to ICANN
not later than September 16th 2001, as requested by the Bylaws: Section
9. SELECTION AND TERM
(b) Prior to October 1 of each year beginning in the year 2000, each
Supporting Organization entitled to select a Director (other than an
Original Director selected by the Supporting Organization under Section
2 of this Article) shall (i) make its selection according to the
procedures specified by Article VI (including Articles VI-A, VI-B, and
VI-C), and (ii) give the Board and the Secretary of the Corporation at
least fifteen days written notice of that selection. The term of such a
Director shall commence on the October 1 after the Secretary's receipt
of such written notice.
Any infringement to this would imply changes of the Bylaws and so
substantial delay.
The NC further discussed various possibilities and dates and it was
commonly agreed to take the opportunity of most NC members being in
Montevideo and start the election there. P. de Blanc moved the motion
Decision D5: the Names Council will hold election of ICANN Board
Director according to the following calendar:
September 8th first round
September 10th second round
September 13th third round
September 14th fourth round, if necessary
September 15th NC teleconference will be
organised to
affirm the result to be communicated to ICANN by September 16th midnight
Los Angeles time. This motion was passed with 19 votes in favour, no
votes against and one abstention (M. Mueller)
Agenda item 4: Report from Budget/Search committees on secretariat
services provision
4.1 Search Committee report
E. Roberts summarised the Search Committee report (annex 1) and the
process of selecting candidates (eight proposals were received) for
provision of secretariat services to DNSO according to transparent
evaluation criteria. On its meeting on August 2nd Search committee:
Noted the report of the Interview Panel that: All three short listed
applicants could be expected to do a good job; Lodger Inc is recommended
for appointment subject to their agreement to contract terms. Noted that
the Lodger Inc proposal involved the provision of Part A and B services.
Part A (Information and Technical Services Manager)to be provided by Ms
Glen Van Oudenhove de Saint Géry and Part B (ISP/web hosting, etc) to
be provided by AFNIC
· Noted that after the closure of the RFP four expressions of
interest had been received from members of the registrars constituency
to provide Part B services (ISP/hosting services) on a sponsorship basis
(at a potential saving to the DNSO of $20-30,000 pa);
· Agreed that expressions of interest for the supply of
ISP/Hosting
services on a sponsored basis should be followed up and that, if
appropriate, the ISP/hosting services should be transitioned to a new
supplier at the conclusion of the proposed 12 month contract with Lodger
Inc. Endorsed the recommendation of the Interview Committee that Lodger
Inc be appointed to provide Part A and Part B services subject to their
agreement to contract terms;
Agreed: that Chuck will prepare initial draft of key terms to be
incorporated into proposed contract by ICANN.
Y.J Park asked about the possibility of communicating the evaluation
table. E. Roberts restated that the whole evaluation process was led
according to widely distributed evaluation criteria.
As far as the contract is concerned, detail is yet to be determined . M.
Cade clarified that this contract will bring the usual guarantees on
quality of services, business performance and means for appeal if not
provided.
Ph. Sheppard proposed the following decision
Decision D6: Accept recommendations stated in a Search Committee report
as to the recommended service suppliers and proceed with further work to
prepare a contract with the chosen candidate. (The NC will approve the
terms of the contract subsequently). This motion passed with 19 votes in
favour, one vote against (V. Martinez against the recommendations) and
one abstention (E. Porteneuve). Ph. Sheppard thanked E. Roberts for a
valuable work she has done.
4.2 Budget Committee Report
R. Cochetti reminded that the full report was sent to the members of the
NC prior to this meeting (see annex 2 ) and drew attention to the need
for approval of changes in cost lines within the DNSO Budget.
The original 2001 DNSO Budget is
Administrative $12,000
Telecommunications $18,100
Travel
$25,500
Web/Listserv Maintenance $30,000
Language Translations $10,000
Professional Services $12,000
Contingency $35,000
The proposed DNSO 2001 Budget is:
Admin (e.g. scribe services) $12,000
Telecom $18,100
Travel $10,000
Technical Services $70,000
Language Translations $5,000
Professional Services (e.g. audit, legal, etc.) $5,000
Contingency $22,500
There was no further request for funds required. In addition to date
$8,000 had been raised by the fund-rising process, which will be
matched, by another $8,000 by VeriSign.
P. de Blanc moved the following motion seconded by K. Stubbs: Decision
D7: The NC adopts the Budget Committee Report and proposes revision of
the spending allocation accordingly to the Committee's recommendations.
This Motion passed with 19 votes in favour, no votes against and two
abstentions (M. Mueller, Y.J Park).
Agenda item 6 & 7 : Reported problems in TLD transfers & Reported
problems in lapsed TLDs renewals Ph. Sheppard invited K. Stubbs to
inform the Council on the subject and actions required. K. Stubbs
mentioned a letter sent by Registrar Constituency to Stuart Lynn (see
annex 3) on existing transfer policy and the restrictions that appear in
these areas causing confusion and registrant's dissatisfaction. G.
Forsyth asked about the contractual aspects of the issue (see the BC
contribution sent by e-mail to the Names Council) C. Chicoine questioned
if the importance of the issue does not require setting up of the group
to adequately address it. L. Touton stressed that this reflects
typically a bottom-up approach : subject launched by the constituency
and spreading for larger input. Ph. Sheppard suggested the
registry-registrar dialogue be carried on and brought up in Montevideo.
K. Stubbs informed that the Registrar Constituency will review a
document and does welcome input from other parties and promised on C.
Chicoine's request, to provide URL containing all useful information. R.
Tindall informed that Registry Constituency has a task force on a
subject. The NC agreed to seek further briefing by Constituencies and
further discussion in Montevideo.
Agenda item 8: Montevideo agenda
Ph. Sheppard asked the Council to provide ideas to be put forward to the
Intake Committee for finalising the Montevideo Agenda. The topics should
enable putting forward DNSO views during the ICANN Public Forum Session
and enable plans for the future action. M. Cade proposed discussion on
the At-Large Study report.
M. Mueller suggested discussing ccSO . C. Chicoine thought the subject
needed to be dealt with separately.
Ph. Sheppard inquired about the ccTLD invitation to the NC to attend
their meeting in Montevideo and the conflicting time with other
Constituencies' meetings. To remedy this situation P. de Blanc invited
the Council members to mail him their time availability and he will try
to make necessary arrangements as ccTLDs are holding two-days meeting
and would like to have other constituencies position on the future of
the ccs.
M. Cade suggested to group several topics under common topic on
re-structuring and reviewing process such as:
- At Large report
- Individuals Constituency
- cc SO
The above suggestions will be noted by the Intake Committee.
Agenda item 9: Updates on business plan task forces
UDRP TF formation update
C. Chicoine, informed that they have received nominees for all
categories and will resolve by e-mail on where there is more then one
candidate. All biographies should be sent by the end of this week. M.
Mueller informed that even though they are running two weeks behind
schedule preliminary results would be ready by Montevideo. IDN TF
formation update Y.J. Park informed the Council that she has stepped
down as a Chair of this TF and that there is currently no activity due
to a lack of leadership. Ph. Sheppard proposed to contact by e-mail all
TF members inviting them to elect the Chair and proceed with their work
Dot org TF formation update M. Mueller informed that the group is still
in its initial stage and still missing some members He had a chance to
have some face-to face meetings with the BC and IPC. There is some
disagreement on a draft and the whole process may take longer than
planned and the report will most probably not be ready for the
Montevideo meeting but for November Annual Meeting. Ph. Sheppard invited
him to report at Montevideo on the areas of agreement. WHO Is survey
update P. Kane informed that 2,800 responses to the WHOIs survey in
different languages had been received. Committee will meet in Montevideo
to propose a process to analyse results. Review TF update Ph. Sheppard
informed that the TF would shortly be circulating a set of guidelines
for DNSO working groups, that the TF was evaluating use of web-based for
a by using one for the work of the TF. Work had started on defining
guidelines for new constituencies, evaluating auto-translations and
seeking a practical definition of consensus.
Agenda item 10: A.O.B.
10.1 ICANN TLD Evaluation Group
L. Touton informed the Council that this group comprises nine members:
six representatives coming from the DNSO, together with IETF, GAC and
PSO representatives. S. Lynn, ICANN CEO is chairman. Initial report is
expected for the Montevideo meeting. The purpose of this group is to
design a process for evaluating the new TLDs.
10.2 Recompense for B. Fausset's recording services. K.
Stubbs recalled that B. Fausset is now providing MPEG recordings of NC
teleconferences. He proposed that all costs incurred by this activity be
reimbursed to B. Fausset. Ph. Sheppard said that his understanding was
that the issue of voluntary services and recompense had already been
referred to the Budget Committee.
C. Chicoine raised the question on 'conflict of interests' and the NC
role concerning this. Ph. Sheppard said that disclosure was the key. M.
Cade agreed adding that the nature of ICANN is that people participating
are those with vested interests. K. Stubbs inquired why there is no
representative from the Registrar Constituency on the ICANN new TLD
Evaluation Group. Ph. Sheppard responded that he has received no
response from the Registrars Constituency even though at least three
requests had been sent.
Close
Ph. Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked R. Tindall and NeuStar for
sponsoring the call. 17:15 end of call.
Next NC meeting will be held on 8 September 2001, in Montevideo,
Uruguay.
________________________________________________________________________
____
______________
Annex 1
SEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
1. Search Committee Task:
To undertake an objective selection process for an entity or entities to
provide DNSO Secretariat information and technical services on a
contractual basis. (Similar such services are currently being provided
by Elisabeth Porteneuve and AFNIC under legacy arrangements).
2. Search Committee Membership:
A sub-committee of the NC Budget Committee;
Members: Erica Roberts (Chair), Chuck Gomes, Vany Martinez, Elisabeth
Porteneuve. Phillip Shepard joined the committee at the beginning of the
evaluation process.
3. Consultant
The Domain Name Supporting Organisation of ICANN Search Committee
engaged Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd on 24 May 2001 to manage a
Request for Proposal process to engage a Information and Technical
Services Manager and optionally Internet Services Provision.
The task, as outlined in the agreement was to manage a request for
proposal process (RFP) for DNSO, including Activation of the bid process
Preparation of documents Preparation of evaluation criteria Handling of
information requests Evaluation of submitted documents Preparation of a
short list Final report to DNSO NC Any recommendations for contractual
conditions, further actions, etc arising from the process. A consultant
(Ian Peter and Associates) was identified and appointed in late May to
manage the RFP selection and evaluation process.
4. Processes
The requirements of DNSO were primarily determined by the Search
Committee before the Consultant was engaged, as were the Selection
Criteria for successful applicants. These were refined and clarified by
the Search Committee with the Consultant, and a document outlining the
RFP requirements was posted on the DNSO web site on 5 June 2001. At the
same time Chairs of all DNSO constituencies were requested to inform
their members and other interested parties that the process was
underway. It was also announced at the Stockholm meeting of DNSO NC
(June 3).
It was agreed before the process began that it was mandatory for
respondents to offer Section A, and that Section B was an option at this
stage which DNSO NC may or may not pursue.
At the close of the evaluation period (extended to 23 June 2001) eight
complete responses had been received.
Five of the eight respondents (Z,Y,W, V, and T) responded to Part A
only. Three respondents (S, R, and Q) responded to both sections.
6. Evaluation
First Round Evaluation: was conducted by the consultant and resulted in
an initial shortlist of five applicants..
Second Round Evaluation:
Conducted during a teleconference including the consultant and the
Search Committee A shortlist of three applicants was agreed. : Of the
three applicants short listed, one offered Part A services, the other
two offered both Part A and Part B services. The fees charged by all
three were comparable for the services offered.
(Apology received from Vany providing late advice she was unable to
attend
teleconf))
Third Round Evaluation:
Conducted by Interview Committee comprising Philip Shepard and Chuck
Gomes. (Elisabeth and Erica withdrew from the evaluation process on the
ground of potential conflict of interests.) Proposals from shortlisted
applicant were forwarded to the Interview Committee. Interview Committee
reported that: All three shortlisted applicants could be expected to do
a good job; Loger Inc recommended for appointment subject to their
agreement to contract terms.
Search Committee Meeting 2 Aug 2001.
Apology received from Vany providing late advice she was unable to
attend teleconf. Committee members present: Noted the report of the
Interview Panel that: All three shortlisted applicants could be expected
to do a good job; Loger Inc is recommended for appointment subject to
their agreement to contract terms. Noted that the Loger Inc proposal
involved the provision of Part A and B services and that these cannot be
separated. Part A (Information and Technical Services Manager)to be
provided by Ms Glen Van Oudenhove de Saint Géry and Part B (ISP/web
hosting, etc) to be provided by AFNIC
· Noted that four expressions of interest had been received from
members of the registrars constituency to provide Part B services
(ISP/hosting services) on a sponsorship basis (at a potential saving to
the DNSO of $20-30,000 pa) after the closure of the RFP;
· Agreed that expressions of interest for the supply of
ISP/Hosting
services on a sponsored basis should be followed up and that, if
appropriate, the ISP/hosting services should be transitioned to a new
supplier at the conclusion of the proposed 12 month contract with Loger
Inc. Endorsed the recommendation of the Interview Committee that Loger
Inc be appointed to provide Part A and Part B services subject to their
agreement to contract terms;
Agreed: that Chuck will prepare initial draft of key terms to be
incorporated into proposed contract.
In discussion following the last meeting of the Search Committee, Vany
has requested that it be noted that she does not support the
recommendation of the Interview Committee to appoint Lodger Inc.
Erica Roberts
Chair, Search Committee
30 May 2001
_____________________________________________________________________
Annex 2
REPORT OF THE NAMES COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE 8 AUGUST 2001
The Names Council Budget Committee met twice since that last Council
meeting and addressed three important topics:
1) The status of dues payments by Constituencies pursuant to the new
procedures adopted by the Council for failures to pay; and
2) The status and outlook of the campaign to generate voluntary
donations to the DNSO; and
3) Revisions to the spending allocations under the DNSO's 2001 budget.
A brief report on each follows.
1. STATUS OF DUES PAYMENTS BY DNSO CONSTITUENCIES
In an effort to improve the payment of DNSO mandatory dues by
Constituencies, on the Committee's recommendation, the Council adopted
the following procedures earlier this year:
NC PROCEDURES FOR CONSTITUENCIES PAYMENT OF DUES
Regarding the procedures of the Budget Committee, the Committee decided
that its meetings should not be routinely open, but rather should be
open to members of the Committee and any member of the Names Council who
would like to observe. The Committee reached this conclusion because:
(1) it often discusses financiallysensitive information;
(2) members felt that the work of the Committee would benefit greatly by
an atmosphere in which innovative ideas could be floated;and most
importantly,
(3) all of the Committee's reports to the Council and actions by the
Council are publicly accessible.
Regarding procedures to address the failure of DNSO Constituencies to
pay their assessed dues, the Committee discussed this matter during
three different meetings and in its January meeting agreed to propose to
the Council the following procedures: From the date that invoices are
mailed/e-mailed to representatives of Constituencies, if payment is not
received by the DNSO or its agent by:
** 30 days, the Constituency is sent a reminder letter and another
invoice
** 60 days, the Constituency is sent a delinquency notice and the
delinquency notice is posted on the DNSO Website
** 90 days, the Constituency is sent a "show cause notice" (in which
they are asked to show cause as to why their voting rights in the Names
Council should not be suspended) and they are charged a 5% late payment
fee to cover the cost to the DNSO of the cost of money. The 5% penalty
is added to that Constituency's dues for the next (not the current) DNSO
budget year.
** 120 days, the Constituency is sent a "final notice to pay" and
charged an additional 5% late payment fee, which is also due as a added
payment for their next year's DNSO dues
** 180 days, the voting rights, but not the right to participate, of
that Constituency's representatives to the Names Council are suspended
until such time as the DNSO or its agent receives all past due amounts
including the various applicable late payment fees.
On July 11th, ICANN management reported the following status of dues
payments by DNSO Constituencies for 2000 and 2001 (The DNSO operates on
a January-to-January, calendar year. So, 1st Call refers to 1999, 2nd
Call to 2000, and 3rd Call to 2001):
Amounts in US$.
Receipts: 1stCall 2nd Call
3rd Call Total Recd
Business Constituency $5,000.00 $13,642.86
$0.00 $18,642.86
ccTLD Constituency $5,000.00 $1,292.59
$0.00 $6,292.59
gTLD Constituency $5,000.00 $13,642.86
$15,371.00 $34,013.86
IP Constituency $5,000.00 $13,642.86
$15,371.00 $34,013.86
ISP Constituency $5,000.00 $0.00
$0.00 $5,000.00
NCDNHC $5,000.00 $0.00
$50.00 $5,050.00
Registrars Constituency $5,000.00 $13,642.86
$16,857.14 $35,500.00
Total Paid $35,000.00 $55,864.03
$47,649.14 $138,513.17
Total Called For $35,000.00 $95,500.00
$107,597.00
Other Donations $9,050.00
Constituency Donations $138,513.17
Total Donations $147,563.17
Earned Interest & (Bank Charges) $1,487.46
Disbursements $(14,008.16)
Total Funds on Hand $135,042.47
In addition, ICANN management reported that invoices for all DNSO
Constituencies, except the Non-Commercial Constituency, had been sent
out on April 18, 2001. (The NCDNHC invoice is being sent out by ICANN
management this week.) According to this report, three Constituencies (
ccTLDs, ISPs, and NC) have failed to pay their dues from 2001 and the
same three Constituencies, along with one more (Business Constituency)
have failed to pay their dues for 2001.Importantly, the Committee took
note of the fact that since the 2001 invoices were sent out on April
18th, the DNSO had failed to send out to Constituencies 30, 60, or 90
day notices as provided in the procedures (There was some confusion with
ICANN management on this matter, which resulted in the failure by the
DNSO to act.) Under these circumstances the Committee addressed two
questions: (1) Did the Council intend that arrearages resulting from
Constituencies' failures to pay dues that were invoiced during 2000
would trigger the new procedures (or do the new procedures only apply to
dues invoiced in 2001 and in later years? ). On this question, the
Committee concluded that the new procedures do not apply to invoices
prior to 2001; and (2) Does the failure by four Constituencies to pay
their 2001 dues trigger any of the actions envisioned in the new plan,
notwithstanding that the DNSO failed to provide the follow-up notices
that were contemplated under the plan. On this question, the Committee
concluded that since the DNSO had failed to provide 30, 60, and 90 day
notices as contemplated under the plan, then Constituencies that were
invoiced on April 18, 2001 should not be held liable under the terms of
the plan. Accordingly, the Committee decided to have the 30 day
notices sent out as soon as possible by ICANN management and recognized
that the 60, 90, 120, and 180 day penalties would kick in over 30 day
increments after the 30 day notices were actually sent.
3. STATUS AND OUTLOOK OF THE CAMPAIGN TO GENERATE VOLUNTARY
DONATIONS
TO THE DNSO
The Committee discussed the state of the current campaign to generate
voluntary donations to the DNSO. (These will be used by the DNSO to
cover the costs of providing professional support for the DNSO and such
donations will be matched by the VeriSign Registry on a
dollar-for-dollar basis up to
$100K.) Unfortunately, no donations had been recorded as of July. The
Committee again encourages each Constituency to request that its members
donate funds to the DNSO to permit it to operate more professionally and
competently. (If each member organization of each Constituency would
donate to the DNSO one tenth of the amount of money that they spend on
travel/entertainment for ICANN meetings, then the Budget Committee's
goal of
raising $60,000 --or $120,000 after the VeriSign Registry match-would
easily be met!!)
The Committee gratefully accepted four volunteers who stepped forward
and agreed to serve as DNSO fundraising chairs: One will focus on
donations from outside of the DNSO and three will focus on donations
from members of the Constituencies. Together, they make up a new
fund-raising work group of the Budget Committee.
4. REVISIONS TO THE SPENDING ALLOCATIONS UNDER THE DNSO'S 2001
BUDGET
The Committee re-examined the spending categories and allocations that
were approved by the Council for the DNSO's 2001 Expense Budget and
recommends several changes to the Council in light of changed
circumstances. (Thus far this year, the DNSO has spent around $37,000,
mostly in charges from AFNIC for the provision of technical management
services) These proposed changes DO NOT CHANGE THE TOTAL DNSO SPENDING
and THEY DO NOT CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF DUES. The proposed changes in the
DNSO's 2001 budget would re-name one spending category ("Web/Listserv
Maintenance" would be re-named "Technical
Services") and they would re-allocate spending among the several
categories (Increase the amount for "Technical Services" and reduce the
amounts for "Contingency", "Travel","Language Services" and
"Professional Services" ).
The original 2001 DNSO Budget is
Administrative $12,000
Telecommunications $18,100
Travel
$25,500
Web/Listserv Maintenance $30,000
Language Translations $10,000
Professional Services $12,000
Contingency $35,000
The proposed DNSO 2001 Budget is:
Admin (e.g. scribe services) $12,000
Telecom $18,100
Travel
$10,000
Technical Services $70,000
Language Translations $5,000
Professional Services (e.g. audit, legal, etc.) $5,000
Contingency $22,500
Essentially, these changes would re-allocate an additional $40,000 to
Technical Services, by reducing spending from these other four
categories. The lower spending in these four categories mainly reflects
the fact that the increase in professional support that was envisioned
for the DNSO has not occurred by mid-year while the increase in spending
for Technical Services reflects an under-estimate of the costs of this
function.
________________________________________________________________________
Annex 3
Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart Lynn
August 16, 2001
Mr. Stuart Lynn
President and Chief Executive Officer
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA
Dear Stuart;
The Registrar Constituency respectfully submits this letter to express
its concerns regarding recent correspondence that Mr. Roger Cochetti,
Senior Vice President of Policy at VeriSign, submitted to you. The
Registrar Constituency (Constituency) believes that these letters do not
accurately convey the underlying issues facing the constituency
involving transfers. Additionally, the approach that VeriSign is
implementing attempts to circumvent the bottom-up effort to develop
consensus solutions to these problems that the Constituency has been
engaged in to date. Existing Transfer Policy The existing transfer
process is documented in Exhibit B (Policy on Transfer of Sponsorship of
Registrations Between Registrars) of the ICANN Registry/Registrar
License and Agreement. The key elements of this process are as follows:
For each instance where a domain name holder wants to change its
Registrar for an existing domain name (i.e., a domain name that appears
in a particular top-level domain zone file), the gaining Registrar
shall: Obtain express authorization from an individual who has the
apparent authority to legally bind the SLD holder (as reflected in the
database of the losing Registrar).
a) The form of the authorization is at the discretion of each gaining
Registrar.
b) The gaining Registrar shall retain a record of reliable evidence of
the authorization. Request, by the transmission of a "transfer" command
as specified in the Registry Registrar Protocol, that the Registry
database be changed to reflect the new Registrar.
a) Transmission of a "transfer" command constitutes a representation on
the part of the gaining Registrar that:
(1) the requisite authorization has been obtained from the domain name
holder listed in the database of the losing Registrar, and
(2) the losing Registrar will be provided with a copy of the
authorization if and when requested. In those instances when the
Registrar of record denies the requested change of Registrar, the
Registrar of record shall notify the prospective gaining Registrar that
the request was denied and the reason for the denial. Instances when the
requested change of sponsoring Registrar may be denied include, but are
not limited to:
1) Situations described in the Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
2) A pending bankruptcy of the domain name Holder
3) Dispute over the identity of the domain name Holder
4) Request to transfer sponsorship occurs within the first 60 days after
the initial registration with the Registrar In all cases, the losing
Registrar shall respond to the e-mail notice regarding the "transfer"
request within five (5) days. Failure to respond will result in a
default "approval" of the "transfer."
Upon receipt of the "transfer" command from the gaining Registrar, the
Registry will transmit an e-mail notification to both Registrars. The
Registry shall complete the "transfer" if either:
1) the losing Registrar expressly "approves" the request, or
2) the Registry does not receive a response from the losing Registrar
within five (5) days. When the Registry's database has been updated to
reflect the change to the gaining Registrar, the Registry will transmit
an email notification to both Registrars.
Problem
A small number of registrars, representing a very large portion of the
total market, have recently adopted procedures to require domain name
registrants to explicitly acknowledge to the losing registrar that the
registrant has authorized a transfer request. These changes are
restricting the ability of a gaining registrar to transfer the domain at
the request of the registrant. More specifically, the procedures
employed by the small number of registrars in question are as follows:
Following the email from the registry to a losing registrar seeking
confirmation of a domain name transfer initiated by the gaining
registrar, the losing registrars are contacting the domain name holder
directly to seek confirmation within the 5 day window set by the
registry. If the domain name holder DOES NOT RESPOND, the losing
registrar is denying the transfer on the grounds that there is a dispute
over the identity of the domain name holder. This is a deviation from
the spirit of the existing policy (note the registry assumes approval if
the losing registrar does not respond within 5 days, and so it would be
reasonable if the losing registrar assumed approval if the domain name
holder does not respond within 5 days). The emails sent by the
registrars who are changing the procedures, are generally confusing to
the domain name holder (and in some cases in the wrong language), and it
is typical for the domain name holder not to respond. The domain name
holders assume that the transfer will go ahead as they have explicitly
approved that action to the gaining registrar, or the domain name holder
has simply not had time to read and respond to the email. Registrar's
Efforts to Date This transfer issue first emerged on the Registrar
Constituency's agenda at the Stockholm meeting in June. Because of the
significant impact that this issue was having on most operational
registrars, an emergency meeting was called on Sunday to further discuss
the issue. During this meeting by a vote of 23 to 2, the registrars in
attendance expressed their strong desire to adopt a procedure that would
automatically acknowledge a transfer when a registrant failed to respond
to a losing registrars inquiry (autoACK). Although most registrars
acknowledged an ambiguity in the current language, it was believed that
relying on the status quo was the most prudent course of action until a
more thorough analysis of the problem could be undertaken. The
registrars agreed to work on solutions as a follow up to Stockholm.
Following the Stockholm meeting, there was a follow-up teleconference
for the benefit of those registrars that were unable to attend the
Stockholm meeting. This meeting further reinforced the consensus that
had been forged in Stockholm. In an attempt to resolve this matter
internally, those registrars advocating an autoNACK policy engaged in
consultations among themselves and with other registrars in an attempt
to seek a compromise position. During these negotiations a straw poll
was conducted among the Constituency to further define the issues. This
vote reaffirmed for the third time the strong support within the
Constituency for an autoACK policy. Although the straw poll supported
moving this issue forward to the Names Council for discussion and
suggested resolution, it was decided that those registrars supporting
the autoNACK policy would be given additional time to resolve this
matter On June 29th, one of the registrars that had been advocating an
autoNACK policy, submitted to the Registrar list a proposed compromise.
Although there was some concern regarding the potential implementation
of this solution voiced by certain registrars, the attempt to
proactively engage in dialog with the Constituency was true to the ICANN
bottom-up consensus building effort. On July 13th, Paul Kane, a
Registrar Constituency Names Council representative posted an email to
the Constituency list inquiring about VeriSign's much anticipated
document so that the Constituency could engage in further consensus
building efforts. Regrettably, rather than responding to this request
from the Registrars, on July 16th, VeriSign instead submitted its first
letter directly to ICANN. Only after public inquiries to the
Constituency list did a VeriSign representative provide any further
explanation to the Registrars. A Registrar meeting was held on July 23,
2001 to discuss the options. The Constituency is concerned that VeriSign
sought to go directly to ICANN on this issue, ignoring the bottom-up
consensus building efforts that had been engaged in for several weeks.
Moreover, there is an important issue that Mr. Cochetti did not make
clear in his July 16th letter, that is significant. During both
Constituency meetings in Stockholm, Dan Halloran, ICANN Registrar
Liaison, stated that he was not aware of any complaints that ICANN had
received about domain name slamming. Mr. Halloran latter qualified this
statement in an email to the Registrar Constituency stating, that ICANN
has received reports of unauthorized transfers but that they were
usually associated with domain name "hijacking" (an issue that the
Registrar Constituency takes seriously and has addressed in the past).
Additionally, Mr. Halloran also indicated that he had been informed of
one other registrar that had raised concerns about transfers deceptively
initiated by resellers or registrars without the registrant's informed
consent. The Registrar Constituency has requested that ICANN provide the
constituency with any and all information they have on this subject, and
looks forward to working with ICANN staff in resolving this matter. The
Registrar Constituency would like to thank VeriSign for making public
its previously private survey on July 26th. Clarification From ICANN The
Constituency universally agrees that protecting a registrant's'
interests is paramount; unfortunately there is a disagreement on how to
best achieve this end result. We are seeking clarification from ICANN:
what are our options in addressing this situation. If ICANN deems this
to be a policy change, we assume that it would require DNSO approval and
that we
should bring it before the DNSO. If ICANN believes this to be a
procedural
interpretation of existing ICANN Policy, we assume that the Constituency
can implement their preferred solution, without full DNSO review. In any
case, the Registrar Constituency would look to ICANN staff for support
in enforcement of any solution arrived at by the parties. As time is of
the essence, the Registrar Constituency would like to move forward down
one of the above two paths within the next couple of weeks. If the
Constituency does not receive guidance from ICANN on this issue during
this time, the Constituency will advise its Names Council
representatives to bring proposed solutions to this issue before the
full Names Council for consideration and action in Montevideo.
Conclusion The Constituency is clearly concerned that certain registrars
are employing new and onerous transfer policies that create confusion
and registrant burdens and dissatisfaction. Further frustrating to the
Constituency is that this argument ignores the very fact that this
radical departure from adopted policy and procedure has created the very
consumer confusion that they claim to be protecting against. The
Constituency eagerly awaits guidance from ICANN on how to proceed in
implementing its consensus-based solution, and, if necessary, stands
willing to participate with the other DNSO constituencies in resolving
this problem. Best regards, Michael Palage, Registrar Constituency
Chairperson
Cc: Louis Touton
ICANN DNSO Names Council
Rodger Cochetti
Information from:© DNSO Names Council
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|