<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] NC minutes, 08 September 2001, minutes
[ To: council@dnso.org ]
[ To: ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org ]
[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010908.NCmontevideo-minutes.html ]
ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Names Council Meeting in Montevideo on 8 September 2001 - minutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 September 2001.
The DNSO Names Council meeting in Montevideo held on Saturday 8 September
2001, 14:00 - 17:00, [@ Ballroom] .
(10:00 LA, 13:00 New York, 17:00 UTC, 19:00 Paris, 02:00 Japan/Korea next day)
------------------------------------------------------------
Local time between April and end October, SUMMER in the NORTH hemisphere
------------------------------------------------------------
Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 17:00
------------------------------------------------------------
California, USA UTC-8+1DST 10:00
Missouri, USA UTC-6+1DST 12:00
Monterrey, Mexico UTC-6+1DST 12:00 since 6 May
Panama, Panama UTC-5+0DST 12:00
Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 13:00
St.Thomas, Virgin Islands UTC-4+0DST 13:00
Santiago, Chile UTC-4+0DST 13:00 since 11 Mar
Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 14:00
London, United Kingdom UTC+0+1DST 18:00
Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+1DST 19:00
Barcelona, Spain (CET) UTC+1+1DST 19:00
Frankfurt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 19:00
Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 19:00
Seoul, Korea UTC+9+0DST 2:00 next day
Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 2:00 next day
Melbourne, Australia UTC+10+0DST 3:00 next day
Auckland, New Zealand UTC+12+0DST 5:00 next day
------------------------------------------------------------
The DST ends/starts on last Sunday of October (with some exceptions)
------------------------------------------------------------
For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/
Agenda http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010908.NCmontevideo-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD
Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD
Philip Sheppard Business
Marilyn Cade Business Proxy for Grant Forsyth
Antonio Harris ISPCP
Greg Ruth ISPCP
Tony Holmes ISPCP
Ken Stubbs Registrars
Paul Kane Registrars
Erica Roberts Registrars
Roger Cochetti gTLD
Cary Kamp gTLD
Richard Tindal gTLD
Axel Aus der Muhlen IP
Guillermo Carey IP Proxy for Caroline Chicoine
Youn Jung Park NCDNH
Vany Martinez NCDNH
Milton Mueller NCDNNH
Glen de Saint G?ry
List of absentees:
Grant Forsyth Business (Grant Forsyth was present online)
Caroline Chicoine IP
Quorum (11) present at 14:00 Montevideo time (UTC 17:00)
Ph. Sheppard chaired the NC meeting.
1. ICANN Board elections:
o The voting procedure for the ICANN board member for a 3 term of
office was explained by Elisabeth Porteneuve.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/electionrules.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010908.DNSO-vote-2001.ppt
Voting starts on September 8 and ends on September 15 using
convention style voting. Voting is by secret ballot but once the
results are confirmed by ICANN Board after a NC meeting or
teleconf., the full list with how people voted is public.
Proxy votes are as stated above in the attendance list.
o Update on GA session with candidates.
Presentation by 4 candidates. Audio and video archives available.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010908.GAmontevideo-scribe.html
2. Re-structuring and review process:
At Large report and reactions received: Carl Bildt
http://www.atlargestudy.org/draft_final.shtml
Concern was expressed that decisions had to be made before November. It
was generally agreed that the At Large involvement is important to
underlie the legitimacy of ICANN decisions. There remains debate as to
the optimal number of At Large directors on the board. The ALSC accepts
that its current proposal for an SO is not intended to replicate the
existing policy role of SOs but was chosen more as a symbol of
equality. There are some problems in defining At Large members as
domain name holders. People with multiple domain names could be
considered having multiple votes. There has been a lot of outreach in
the ALSC and the ALSC draws a distinction between those who should be
able to vote and those who can participate. The report sets out ways of
participation facilitating mailing lists, physical meetings, financial
and structural independence in each region. The ALSC will now draft a
final report based on comments received.
3. Future of Dot org (Item 5 on the agenda):
Milton Mueller reported that the TF consisted of GA representatives
plus all the constituencies except the ISPs.
The basic points put forward were that dot Org should be sponsored but
unrestricted, defining the community its seeks to serve, have focused,
efficient and reliable marketing, with services in all feasible time
zones and languages. No evictions should be made from dot Org because
of this change. Administration must be consistent with ICANN process
policies, including the UDRP and WHOIS. The technical functions have
not been worked out yet and it has not been decided if these are
technical or policy decisions. The main objective is to move dot Org
away from Verisign to a new registry.
A report will be ready in October and will be voted on at the Marina
del Rey meeting in November.
All documents are published on the dnso.org website.
4. UDRP Review (Item 6 b on the agenda):
Milton Mueller reported that the UDRP review TF consisted of
representatives of each dispute resolution provider ( panellists and
administrators) as well as respondents, complainants and independent
experts. The task force had discretion in the selection of nominees for
respondents, complainants, and independent experts. The result was 14
North Americans and 4 people from other regions, which questions the
geographic representation of TFs in the future.
Decision 1. It was decided to add 2 non-North Americans - Erik
Iriarte Ahon (LAC) and Ramesh Kumar Nadarajah (AP) - who are
qualified and were previously nominated rather than redefine the
TF. As the above names were not available at the meeting it was
agreed to do a formal vote by e-mail. Action: Milton Mueller.
Agreed: unanimously.
There is a month and a half delay in getting out the report so it will
not be ready for Marina del Rey meeting. Questions will be posted in
October.
5. Equitable Allocation of SRS Resources (Item 3 on Agenda):
The registrar constituency has been working to identify the problem and
make sure that Verisign and Registrars agree on the nature of the
problem.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010908.GAmontevideo-scribe.html#verisign-srs
Chuck Gomes reported that there had been an increase in the "rush" for
deleted names since January 2001 resulting in restrictions on registrar
bandwidth (max of 256kbps per registrar) and simultaneous connections
(max of 250). Effects on registrar performance were enforced and small
registrars were most affected.
"The problem": A few registrars used many system resources to perform a
few domain registrations. Some registrars execute the same command 1000
times per minute. Sometimes, 100000 check commands for each name
successfully registered. Only a limited number of registrars did so.
These are not just speculative registrations but also legitimate
business activity and the small registrars are the most affected. There
is a sincere desire to get the issues resolved. Agreement has been
reached to return to the established system but with some additional
safeguards for users. Chuck Gomes will present a report at the next NC
teleconference.
6. Restructuring and Review Process Ð ccSO and implications for DNSO (Item
2b on Agenda):
Presentation delivered by Peter de Blanc Ð Inter-relationship in
matching policies is a key question. Cross SO work makes sense and is
necessary.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/cctld-nc.html
At the moment all the other constituencies know too little to actually
comment but it is noted that a proliferation of SOs is not supported
and that the DNSO, as a forum for suppliers and users should remain.
The ccTLD constituency is currently thinking to leave and so stop
paying the DNSO at the end of the year. A formal proposal from the
ccTLDs is forthcoming.
7. DNSO Review (Half Item 6 and half Item 2b on Agenda):
Individual constituency and DNSO review.
The existing Review task force will issue an interim report shortly
after Montevideo. This will cover items relevant to the existing
structure of the DNSO: guidelines for working groups, translations,
alternatives to email, elections of GA chair, definition of consensus.
After the TFÕs final report its work will be complete.
There is also a need to have a task force considering matters which
impact of the structure of ICANN and the DNSO such as At-Large and ccSO
on DNSO.
Decision 2: To establish a task force. Philip Sheppard will
propose terms of reference and the TF will work to a tight
timeline consistent with the ALSC and ccTLD proposals. Agreed:
unanimously.
8. WhoIs survey:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/whois.html
was presented by Paul Kane. An interim report will come out in April
2002 and there will be an updated report in Marina del Rey.
9. Budget Committee:
Roger Cochetti reported that there had been both under-spending and
under-collecting so the situation is satisfactory. Some constituencies
had not paid dues for 2000 and/or 2001. The clock had started ticking
for the NC sanctions procedure for 2001 defaulters.
Voluntary fundraising remains low but there are pledges of $8000
(before Verisign matching).
10. Other business:
There was a call for greater public transparency in the selection of
secretariat but it was accepted that there are limits to what can be
made public where issues of personnel and personal privacy are
concerned. The search committee in now in discussion, with ICANN staff
to draw up a contract and the relevant details of this will be made
available to the NC.
11. Public comments:
Jef Neuman of dot biz expressed concern that gTLDs had contracts with
ICANN while some ccTLDs that were being marketed as gTLDs did not have
the same contracts. The speaker felt that there should be consistency
in contracts to assure consistency in end user experience. ccTLDs have
similar contracts with their governments via consumer protection and
related guidelines in various countries.
In discussion individual NC members commented that:
o 30 to 40% of registrations are in ccTLDs and that there is a
faster rate of growth than in gTLDs.
o It is a dangerous game to look at numbers in ccTLDs: Germany and
the United Kingdom have a large number of registrations but do not
use their ccTLDs as gTLDs.
The meeting ended at 17.45. Montevideo time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information from: © DNSO Names Council
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|