<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] NC teleconf minutes May 14, 2002
[To: council@dnso.org]
Dear Council Members,
Please find below, the minutes of the last Names Council teleconference May
14, 2002.
If you have any changes or modifications to the minutes you would like made,
please let me know before I publish them.
Thank you,
Glen
DNSO Secretariat
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 14 May 2002 - minutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 May 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020502.NCteleconf-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles/
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Elisabeth
Porteneuve
Philip Sheppard Business
Marilyn Cade Business
Grant Forsyth Business
Greg Ruth ISPCP
Antonio Harris ISPCP
Tony Holmes ISPCP absent, apologies proxy to Tony Harris
Philipp Grabensee Registrars absent, apologies, proxy to Ken Stubbs
Ken Stubbs Registrars
Bruce Tonkin Registrars
Roger Cochetti gTLD
Richard Tindal gTLD absent, apologies,
Cary Karp gTLD
Ellen Shankman IP
Laurence Djolakian IP
J. Scott Evans IP
Harold Feld NCDNH
Chun Eung Hwi NCDNH absent, apologies,
Erick Iriate NCDNH absent, apologies,
14 Names Council Members
Glen de Saint Géry NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020514.NCteleconf.mp3
Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summer time in the northern hemisphere).
Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.
Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020514.NCteleconf-agenda.html
Ken Stubbs proposed sending get well wishes to Peter de Blanc on behalf of
the Names Council. Agreed.
Ken Stubbs suggested that timely arrangements should be made for an archived
recording of the Names Council meeting in Bucharest. A call for attendance
at the Bucharest meeting revealed that there would be at least 12 NC members
present.
The agenda was approved.
Item 1. Summary of last meetings:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020418.NCteleconf-minutes.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.NC-minutesrevised.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020502.NCteleconf-minutes.html
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the summaries, seconded by Cary Karp.
The motion was carried unanimously
Decision 1: Motion adopted.
J. Scott Evans, on behalf of the Intellectual Property Constituency,
requested that a footnote be added under the heading:
Policy Development Bodies
As in the the IPC submission:
http://www.dnso.org/temp/20020429.IPCsubmission-Reform.htmlC.htm
the IPC prefers the term Issue Identification Bodies. Agreed.
Elisabeth Porteneuve proposed a clarification for the wording in:
Recommendation 3 - Functions
New wording:
ICANN's functions should not be extended at this time beyond what is
outlined in the note "What ICANN Does", subject to the distinct roles of
IANA and ICANN being maintained.
Adopted unanimously.
She commented that IANA functions have a separate Memorandum of
Understanding between the US. Government and ICANN.
Agenda item 2: NC Recommendations18 - 24 in v9.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020503.Response-Reform-v9.html
Recommendation18.
Roger Cochetti reminded the group that the gTLD Registry Constituency is on
record as not supporting this recommendation. They believe in separate
policy development bodies for suppliers and users.
In discussion the following points were made:
- there are similarities and differences with ccTLDs and gTLDs. ccTLDs that
take on the character of gTLDs may need treatment in a way more comparable
to gTLDs.
- Issues are similar but policies are different.
- the common interests of ccTLDs and gTLDs should be identified.
- ICANN cannot develop policy that is binding on ccTLDs.
- "Non- commercial organisations" is better phrasing than "non-commercial
interests".
- The ISPs requested revised wording "Internet service and connectivity
providers" .
Concern was expressed that the Names Council position was not recommending
anything beyond the status quo. However, it was argued that there should be
no great surprise that the current stakeholders should remain at the table
and that the main task is to improve the efficency of the policy development
process.
New wording:
The stakeholders in the gTLD policy development body should be at minimum
the following constituencies: Business users, intellectual property
interests, gTLD Registries, Registrars, non-commercial organisations,
internet service and connectivity providers.
Adopted with a derogation from the gTLD Registrar constituency.
Recommendation 19
Ph. Sheppard proposed an addition to the draft text: "Other stakeholders,
such as individual domain name holders". He explained the rest of the
recommendation is existing NC policy regarding the procedure for starting a
new constituency.
New wording:
Other stakeholders, such as individual domain name holders, could be added
subject to the requirements of the Names Council "Criteria for establishing
new DNSO constituencies" as set out in the NC rules of procedure at
www.dnso.org.
Adopted unanimously.
Recommendation 20
In discussion,
- Thomas Roessler had suggested being explicit and proposed 3
representatives per stakeholder/ constituency .
- Marilyn Cade felt that the structure of the body should be dealt with
first.
- Ken Stubbs said that guidelines for electing this body should be
considered before a specific number.
- Roger Cochetti commented that this recommendation appeared to suggest a
Names Council similar to the existing one. However, the Chair commented that
the difference was to be found in function and process. In particular if the
policy development is supported by professional staff, then a key impediment
to progress will be lifted.
- Tony Harris reminded the group that the ISCPC supports a model on the
lines of the current DNSO and supports the creating of Supporting
Organisations for the ccTLD and the At-Large.
- Ken Stubbs supported the concept of the policy development body being a
place that brought together both, groups with common interest, as well as
groups affected by the policies developed by that body.
Recommendation 20 - structure The stakeholders in the gTLD policy
development body should elect representatives to a Council or similar body.
Adopted unanimously.
Recommendation 21 - Public Consultation
Deferred to the end to be discussed with the GA.
Recommendation 22
Ph. Sheppard addressed this stating that the wording also captured some of
the concerns earlier expressed by Ken Stubbs. The present Task Forces have
merit, outside expertise could be called upon and the groups would thus vary
in size depending on the issue.
Marilyn Cade suggested that calling in outside expertise or specific help
should be emphasied, which was echoed by Harold Feld who added that there
should be a formal consultation process with the constituencies at an early
stage.
Further discussion pointed out the following issues:
- the importance of staff support for such working groups,
- the need for a small team of policy drafters (maybe the working groups
chair and the staff)
- prior to submitting the report to the NC, the Task Forces should consult
with and take input from the individual constituencies.
- the need for endorsed strict timelines.
New wording:
Recommendation 22 - working practice
The gTLD policy development body should operate by establishing small,
specialist working groups with realistic timelines. These working groups may
vary in size and composition depending on the issue and could include
outside expertise. The working groups would consult with
constituencies/stakeholders and then make final recommendations to the
Council or similar body of the gTLD policy development body.
Adopted unanimously.
Recommendation 23 - Board Liaison
Ph. Sheppard said that Board involvement in each of these bodies was an idea
that came from the last meeting. J. Scott Evans who initiated the idea,
elaborated by saying that Board Members should be assigned to liaise with
the various policy developing bodies, monitor the process and guide the
Board in understanding how the policy was developed but he saw no need for
direct membership of any specific working group.
New wording:
Recommendation 23 - Board liaison
To ensure Board level engagement in the policy development process one or
more Board members should be assigned as a liaison to each policy
development body.
Adopted unanimously.
Recommendation 24
Philip Sheppard introduced the recommendation by saying it tried to capture
the idea of an interim decision when time is critical. Thomas Roessler had
earlier suggested defining "interim" by a maximum of 6 months.
The Redemption paper was given as an example of where a quick decision had
to be made. In time critical situations, the Board should be able to direct
staff to make a recommendation, test out the recommendation with the Policy
Development Body (PDB), rather than expecting the PDB to do the work.
New wording:
Recommendation 24 - extremis
Ordinarily all policy development should be via the policy development
bodies and subject to recommendation 10 in terms of obligation on the Board.
In extremis when externalities dictate, the Board should be able to direct
ICANN staff to draft a policy for fast-track consideration (not to exceed 60
days) by the policy development bodies.
Adopted unanimously.
Recommendation 25 and Recommendation 21
Philip Sheppard addressed these linked recommendations, adding Thomas
Roessler's earlier contributions.
A distinction is made between stakeholders who should be directly involved
in the policy development body and others such as individuals and parties
not fitting into the stakeholders/ constituency scheme and how thay should
participate in policy-making. Once that distinction is made, and
stakeholders are part of the PDB, then the General Assembly logically
becomes a genuine assembly of just those stakeholders. For anyone else,
better public consultation needs to be organised and funded.
The General Assembly:
The gTLD policy development body should have a general assembly whose prime
role is to provide a forum for broad inter-constituency exchange.
Consequently membership should be limited to the agreed stakeholders who are
represented in the policy development body.
Adopted unanimously.
Discussion on public consultation pointed out that:
- Public consultation should be clearly defined, it is always costly and can
be fundamental as it educates people.
- care should be taken that public consultation does not become a dumping
ground for personal issues that detract from the real issue.
- A time limit is important.
New wording:
Recommendation 21 - Public Consultation:
There should be public consultation on proposed new policy within strict
time limits, typically not to exceed 30 days. Such consultation should serve
as the channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the
stakeholders/ constituency scheme participate in policy-making. Fora of
self-declared interested parties should be specifically requested for input
during such consultation. The necessary financial and human resources will
need to be made available for public consultation.
Adopted unanimously..
Philip Sheppard concluded saying that he would formally submit a report as
edited on this call. Certain recommendations would be re-numbered. And some
new recommendations would be drafted for e-mail debate before the next
meeting.
AOB - next meeting
The Chair confirmed the next teleconference was May 29, 2002 at 15:00 Paris
time with the following proposed agenda items:
1.NC comments on evolution and Reform Committee working paper on ICANN's
structure and the nominating committee concept:
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/working-paper-structure-09may02.
html
2. Report on Wait List Service (WLS) - Marilyn Cade
The teleconference ended at 17:15
Next NC teleconference May 29 at 15:00 Paris time, 13:00 UTC.
See all past agendas and minutes at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2002calendardnso.html
and calendar of the NC meetings at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information from: © DNSO Names Council
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|