<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Notes from yesterday's DNSO conference call.
- To: ga@dnso.org, council@dnso.org
- Subject: [council] Notes from yesterday's DNSO conference call.
- From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:25:16 +0200
- Cc: Stuart Lynn <lynn@icann.org>, Louis Touton <touton@icann.org>, Alejandro Pisanty <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>, Joe Sims <jsims@jonesday.com>
- Mail-Followup-To: ga@dnso.org, council@dnso.org,Stuart Lynn <lynn@icann.org>, Louis Touton <touton@icann.org>,Alejandro Pisanty <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>,Joe Sims <jsims@JonesDay.com>
- Sender: owner-council@dnso.org
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.0i
Forwarded on behalf of Alexander Svensson: "These are not
word-for-word transcriptions, but notes. They reflect what I
understood, not necessarily what has been said. I would ask all
participants who feel that their remarks have been misrepresented to
comment on the notes."
[14:03:44] ltouton: board thinks that wls should be considered within broader
framework. resolution not intended to restricted nc approach.
[14:18:31] recommendation 9 discussion.
mcade: strong disagreement with limiting participation of stakeholders once
defined as stakeholders.
hfeld: perception that icann wedded more to private interests. individual and
noncommercial users should have formalized role.
rcochetti: no exclusion of stakeholders, but consensus process led by most
affected. sole difference between text and gtld registry position: not in who
gets to participate. difference in expectation of leadership of consensus
process. e.g. in cctld issues, cctld registries should have leadership role.
could add sentence to recommendation 9.
[14:24:25] kstubbs: stakeholder: who has a specific interest; who is a
beneficiary or affected. agree with rcochetti: those who should be most
proactive in policy creation are those most significantly impacted by those
policies.
btonkin: support concept; need to make recommendations that make a difference,
not describe status quo. consensus process itself needs to be clearly defined.
if we have a clear process, we'll work much more efficiently.
[14:29:54] mcade: bc could support clear process based on consensus. cannot
support document that says we can discern who are the most affected parties.
troessler: "leading" can mean secretarial function. this would be best provided
by neutral party. "leading" can also mean who leads the discussion, makes most
important points: self-evident that those most affected should drive it
forward. agree with last point, but not manage.
hfeld: emphasize need for more formalizing individual and noncommercial
participation.
[14:36:34] rcochetti: word that has been used: "manage the consensus process"
to develop. leadership clearly means leading the management process. cannot
imagine anyone wrt own organisation, that consensus development should be done
by parties with no interest in it. cannot be done by random or political or
whatever process. document is high-level collection of principles.
kstubbs: to understand legislation, lawyers look back to legislation process -
sad that stuart and others invited not present at the moment. in the past,
constituencies have attributed impacts on themselves purely to create alliance
on issues they care about.
jsevans: imperative that board manages process. whether they serve as chair of
the committee… staffed with staff liaisons… they need to be more active.
tholmes: struggle with words rcochetti proposes. without mechanism to judge who
is most affected, not helpful.
mcade: cannot support "led by those most affected". move on, discuss how
policy-making can be done.
jsevans: in no way suggesting that policy made on the board level. should be
handled, managed. problem with recommendation 9: same mantra heard all along;
nothing new added.
mcade: not agreeing with status quo, but cannot get to detailed suggestions on
policy development in this call.
[14:50:37] discussion of "coordinated" vs. "led"
rcochetti: would abstain
hfeld: comfortable if policy development will be addressed and that "managed by
the board" does not mean elevating policy formulation to the board.
mcade: if clear that "managed" has ministerial meaning, okay.
btonkin: want clearly defined process.
[coordinated stricken; second phrase added.]
[14:55:19] Recommendation 12 on ccTLDs.
hfeld: comfortable if policy development will be addressed.
rcochetti: link between 12 and 13 important from gtld registries view. strike
second part of recommendation 13; symmetry. dnso enormously complicated
institution with enormous difficulties and some strengths. we would have to get
down to what we are endorsing.
eporteneuve: there is de facto no symmetry at all. each cctld operates in its
own country, currently has own national icann where policy is developed. cannot
see symmetry today. maybe there will be convergence.
mcade: don't consider it politically feasible to treat cctlds and gtlds in the
same way. governments have little interest to change their relationship with
their cctld in the way proposed by gtld registries constituency. disparity,
different obligations. want positive relationship with cctlds.
kstubbs: there are country codes resembling gtlds hiding under the cctld cloak,
e.g. .cc or .nu.
[15:07:59]
[Recommendation 12 - ccTLDs. Create a new advisory body for the ccTLDs. This
would need means of collaborative decision making with the gTLD advisory body
on relevant areas of policy.
Recommendation 13 - gTLDs. Create a new advisory body for the gTLDs. This would
need means of collaborative decision making with the ccTLD advisory body on
relevant areas of policy.]
accepted
[15:11:42]
psheppard, asvensson, aharris, btonkin, eporteneuve, eshankman, eiriarte,
gdestgery, gforsyth, hfeld, jsevans, gruth, mcade, kstubbs, orobles, rcochetti,
troessler, tholmes, slynn, jsims, apisanty
slynn: appreciate time. hope that it is clear by now that reform document was
intended as starting point of the discussion to move on reasonably rapidly.
most of the community told me that problems are correctly identified. we will
listen carefully. if it sounds like I'm critical of process, I'm not critical
of participants. each of you invents lots of volunteer time; this should be
less devoted to issues of process. concern wrt names council: brings together
very different constituencies, even within constituencies. need to see more
coming through the process. difficult for organizations to change themselves.
impressed by thoughtful dialogue.
apisanty: have read drafts and constituency positions. interested in points
where there is agreement and disagreement.
mcade: by now; have received feedback on areas with much and little support?
slynn: so difficult to answer, some come in privately, some publicly. some
aspects of uniformity across the organization criticized. most criticism and
misunderstanding about government representatives (actually nominees). how to
ensure that public interest reflected? notion of government funding - was sort
of a challenge: if not government funding, what else.
hfeld: ncdnhc discussion along two separate lines: first, interest in board
delineating where its authority does not run. secondly, positive response to
itu letter.
slynn: try to arrive at process that works. if we are sure that we can be
careful that change over time is anticipated, should consider. e.g. taxation,
content. challenge is to find realistic and sufficiently flexible area of icann
should do. many want thin icann, thin around the issues they care.
mcade: see very little interest on part of most stakeholders in stronger
government support. most people familiar with itu see that its balkanized, old-
world telecommunications-driven org that's trying to change. feedback on itu?
slynn: do not believe that have received support for itu proposal.
tholmes: no support from isp/cp for itu involvement in this environment.
[15:32:20]
psheppard: all i can say from own experience: icann fast and efficient compared
to intergovernmental organization. should not look to igos for best practice.
tholmes: we see gac as group that has to be involved. would like to see it
functioning in a way where there could be meaningful dialogue with other parts
of icann.
eporteneuve: appreciate positive comments, but icann has not been acting fast
as international forum, wrt to cctlds. issues are probably much more difficult
and request executive decisions (which takes long time on an international
level). itu working as international forum. after three years and something
still no contract between cctlds and icann.
psheppard. special role or interaction with gac in ccso?
eporteneuve: work in progress. in europe, we are permanently in contact with
gac.
mcade: support isp statement. changes in how gac interacts with other parts of
icann. within usa, governments talks with private sector when there is a
crisis, not on an ongoing basis. governments should be supportive of icann;
e.g. ex officio position on the board.
eshankman: nominating committee. defer to later.
jsevans: ipc cannot support itu taking over; have not heard support from
governments for government nominations.
tharris: concerned about comments that governments represent public interest.
not in all countries.
slynn: hope for specific suggestions for improving relationship with gac. if we
like it or not, question is not whether government are involved, but what is
the best way. think through how recommendations provide solutions to these
problems. work in international environment is difficult, cctld constituency
itself has had problems to arrive at positions.
[15:46:27]
eiriarte: are governments needed only for political and financial issues?
slynn: complex issue re the public interest. important that we encourage not
only one at large entity, but lots of entities through which end users can come
under the tent, e.g. consumer organizations.
hfeld: ncdnhc concern that noncommercial and individual interest are perceived
to be underrepresented in the formal process. interest in itu proposal reflects
this perception. inspire confidence by the community at large.
btonkin: auda experience. board positions for different groups, some voted on
by representative groups like telecom users, consumer associations etc. so
often people claim to speak on behalf of community, but don't refer it back to
their wider group.
tholmes: april 29 deadline. where do we move forward afterwards? set one of
more options at the bucharest meeting? could you comment on level of
alternatives?
slynn: april 29 deadline so that there can be something on the table for
bucharest.
apisanty: trying our best to deliver proposal that is as extensive and concrete
as possible for bucharest. reactions against some aspects, but insufficient
thought about whole. e.g. itu participation, funding. e.g. idea that either
public or stakeholders should fund must be detailed much more. to hfeld: when
we say that icann should not reach in certain areas, that requires wise
community input. if we get away from so model and direct elections by so, how
can rich experience of dnso be reflected in this new structure.
eshankman: ipc looking at many of the issues. curious about role of nominating
committee vs. the board.
slynn: nominating committee intended to focus on problem that we want to make
sure that icann is seen as effective and credible organization. nominating
committee is one way of dealing with this; many have pointed to the problem of
accountability of the nominating committee, can be improved.
[16:01:43]
slynn: about btonkins' point: when we talk about representative models, to what
extent are we really talking about representativeness: we may end up with
enormous amount of process or individuals by necessity talking more on behalf
of themselves. universities are hardly involved in ncdnhc. how to combine
appointed persons and representatives.
tharris: committee has not received a clear presentation on where funding
should come from? have proposed fees per gtld.
apisanty: how implemented? what amount of opposition?
slynn: funding not the priority, just a priority.
[16:05:38]
psheppard: see also recommendation 5 and posting by eporteneuve on conference
fees.
hfeld: some nonprofits don't see the reason or value of participation in the
icann process. for some, right to participate is as important as participation
as safety measure.
slynn: important point. some don't get involved because of the icann process. I
hear a lot of concern that the icann process is putting people off.
mcade: as important as icann is, most users choose to delegate policy issues to
others they trust and empower. need to keep balance in mind between how people
complain vs. people who really want to devote their time regarding the issues.
not go overboard that everyone should devote all their time to policy-making.
btonkin: echo what mcade said. domain names for many users is just a small
part. if the dns just works, it doesn't need massive participation by end
users.
mcade: businesses also often delegate participation to associations.
kstubbs: wrt to those who want to get involved: many users from cctld
perspective. they should go to the right place for their issues. from a
practical standpoint, such users should get involved nationally. if you have a
policy problem with an .mx domain, you should go to the national level. re
domain tax, we were victims of public relations campaign. was spun in a way
that it sounds like a user tax.
[16:16:09]
hfeld: may turn out to be the only working funding mechanism, but have to be
cautious about this. registrars can hide it and pass it on to customers.
psheppard: one of the discussion points - workable size of the board?
hfeld: considerable feeling within ncdnhc for an elected board that reflects
user and noncommercial representation. feeling that if anything is cut, that
will be our interests.
tharris: concerned about reducing the number of board members despite
initiatives to found an ccso and an at large so; in addition, regional
representation might be complicated.
apisanty: wrt to excom: any input welcome. responding to tharris and hfeld:
looking at advantages of forum approach. example of norbert klein who has very
specific concerns (about internationalization) which would be drowned in a
broader organization, e.g. an asia/pacific forum. there must be several
approaches; the forum approach definitely seems to be a very good. even in the
ncdnhc, there have been thoughts about having separate organization
slynn: forums should be much more flexible.
jsims: notion is that today we have a finite and fixed number of
constituencies. under forum approach no fixed number of fora.
tharris: what is the general assembly:
apisanty: ga was intended to be the cross-constituency forum, widespread
perception. working better now than it has before, but still not the cross-
constituency forum.
psheppard: how would changing number of forums assist decision-making beyond
public comment periods?
apisanty: not something that has been decided! advantages: you get to hear
different voices. if you don't read the constituency list, you don't see all
the valuable points. e.g. a north american business forum, e.g. a
geographically diverse small business forum. still mechanics to work out.
jsims: forums would provide input to policy councils in stuart lynn proposal.
psheppard: who is missing?
jsims: e.g. individual domain holders, small businesses.
slynn: do you think the current process is working fine?
psheppard: I don't, but not because of the constituencies.
[16:30:14]
mcade: skeptic that small group wave their hands and create a sustainable
forum; if they can provide meaningful participation, fine. forums feeding into
policy-development process is fine, but structure must be defined.
tholmes: agree that structure must be defined. without structure, you have
splinter groups; when they feel disenfranchised, they turn to the structure
above. cannot see that working.
btonkin: support general dynamic concept, don't see need for permanent forums
that stay around forever. key thing is defining what the process is. e.g. ietf:
well-defined process, bird-of-feather sessions, working groups, steering
committees etc. very well-defined, but flexible and true bottom-up consensus.
hfeld: need for formal structure. what is difference between comment period
where like-minded groups can submit comments and the world described in the
paper?
jsevans: in certain aspects, icann worked great; in some areas, needs
improvement. don't see any greater efficiency in forum approach; exchange one
set of problems for another. ultimately, some policy council has to discern
some minority view and people will complain that they are left out; need to
define structure that grows out of the lessons learned.
troessler: ga currently a vehicle for individuals which would be muted in
larger constituencies; which can get some, even unusual views, into the
process. asvensson proposal: gtld core community of
registrars/registries/registrants on the council level: functional
stakeholders; forum level: special interests/advocacy groups.
apisanty: asvensson+troessler proposal naïve at this point, but will look at
it.
slynn: has been very interesting.
[16:42:13]
jsims: what's different: voices not represented in the names council must make
their voices heard through the ga or to the board after council has acted. ga
as currently constructed: "all others".
[16:43:56]
Referral from Board on WLS.
ltouton: verisign request for registry agreement amendment. board has heard
increasing concerns about the area of deletes. board looks for assurance that
wls recommendation by names council is done in the broader context of domain
deletions. nc work status report by 10 june.
psheppard: options: ignore, form task force, existing task force, nc as a
whole. recommend to refer it to nc-transfers for a recommendation to the nc.
btonkin: q to ltouton: about grace period?
ltouton: this specific proposal gets forward, but still other issues. e.g.
failure of registrars to delete names that are expired, transfers in the
context of expired names.
btonkin: don't want to see basic transfer issue delayed.
psheppard: ack. about .org request for proposals. within that, there is a
request for dnso commens on rfp. recommend to reactivate .org task force, with
extra re-nominations.
[16:52:13]
ltouton: comments back by 13 may.
eporteneuve temporary chair/facilitator of reactivated .org task force.
mcade: propose work session on policy development.
scheduled for 2 may
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|