<<<
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
Peter, my memory (away of my office) recalls this motion as yours,
seconded by Ken Stubbs. The audio will be checked, and I am sure Maca will
include appropriate corrections.
Elisabeth
>
> -----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
>>>
|