<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] NC teleconference summary May 29, 2002
[To: council@dnso.org]
Dear Council Members,
Please find the summary of the last Names Council teleconference below.
If you have comments or would like things changed, please let me know.
Thank you,
Glen
DNSO Secretariat
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 29 May 2002 - minutes
29 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 absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles
Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD
Philip Sheppard Business
Marilyn Cade Business
Grant Forsyth Business absent, apologies
Greg Ruth ISPCP
Antonio Harris ISPCP
Tony Holmes ISPCP
Philipp Grabensee Registrars absent, apologies,
Ken Stubbs Registrars
Bruce Tonkin Registrars
Roger Cochetti gTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Cary Karp
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,
13 Names Council Members
Thomas Roessler GA Chair
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/mp3/20020529.NCteleconf.mp3
Quorum present at 16:10 (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/20020529.NCteleconf-agenda.html
The agenda was approved.
Item 1. Summary of last meetings:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020514.NCteleconf-minutes.html
Cary Karp moved the adoption of the summaries.
The motion was carried unanimously. The summary of the last meeting was
adopted
Motion adopted.
Agenda item 4. Report on Wait List Service (WLS) - Marilyn Cade
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020524.TFSummary-deletes-WLS.html
This agenda item was discussed first.
Marilyn Cade reported that the Wait list Service had been referred to the
Names
Council by the Board to be guided by input from the Transfer Task Force. The
Transfer Task Force had two open teleconferences, widely announced to all
constituencies, with 19 people on each call. Marilyn Cade, Task Force chair,
prepared a summary and said that there would be a status report for the next
Names Council meeting.
The assignment was to examine the:
- Deletion issue,
- Possible solutions
- Verisign Wait Listing Service proposal
The report will comment on the:
- the status of deletions,
- possible steps for ICANN to take on the redemption policy
- options to ameliorate harm done to Registrants
- ways of lessening the load on Registries
- the Wait Listing Service proposal from Verisign.
Discussion showed that there was limited support for the Wait Listing
Service;
the time frame for the redemption period needed further discussion; and a
statement should be issued giving the parameters and thinking around this.
The
importance of getting the Task Force recommendations out for discussion
before
the Board meeting was emphasized.
AOB: Board Retreat
An informal report from at-large director, Andy Mueller-Maughan, was
referred to
which Harold Feld said he would send to the Names Council list. Care should
be
taken on the accuracy of the report. Thomas Roessler agreed with Ken Stubbs
who
said that where personnel matters were concerned, such statements needed
reconfirmation. Marilyn Cade noted that the Board was not inclined to have
an At
Large election, and strong support had been shown for a Nominating
Committee.
Documentation on the meeting could be expected by the end of the week.
Later,
Thomas Roessler quoted from a mail sent by Joe Sims to the GA list
confirming
that there would be:" Committee's production of recommendations to the Board
and
the community, which hopefully will be published later this week."
Agenda Item 2. Discussion and adoption of recommendations 26-33 (from
version
10) http://www.dnso.org/temp/20020529.NCinterimrepv10.html .
Philip Sheppard said that the section looked at the nature of Policy
Development
Bodies and a number of options that if adopted would start to shape Board
composition.
Recommendation 26 was a reaction to the possible merging of the addressing
and
protocol bodies. Discussion showed that there was broad support for two
separate
bodies from the Business constituency (BC) and the Internet Service
Providers
and Connectivity Providers constituency (ISPCP). Input from the technical
community is useful at the constituency level and at the Board level.
Marilyn
Cade noted that there should be an effective process of consultation across
the
supporting organisations.
New wording:
Recommendation 26 - technical bodies
There should be separate policy development bodies for addressing and
protocols.
There needs to be an effective mechanism for cross-policy development bodies
consultation.
Recommendation 26 Accepted by all
Recommendation 27.
Tony Holmes pointed out that the GAC concept is supported from outside but
that
it is not working well.
It lacks in terms of outreach and there is no coordination with ICANN and
the
DNSO. Ken Stubbs said the benefits of a consultation process and increased
communications with Government bodies should be acknowledged but he did not
believe the Names Council should say how they should be organized. Marilyn
Cade
commented on the importance of a consultation process across the supporting
organisations and the Government Advisory Committee should be part of these
consultations.
New wording:
Recommendation 27 - Government
There should be a Government advisory body. There needs to be an improved
flow
of communication and better cooperation with the ICANN policy development
bodies.
Recommendation 27: Accepted by all
Recommendation 28
Ph. Sheppard explained that this was linked to policy development bodies and
on
who would give technical advice to the Board. Tony Holmes expressed concern
that
a technical advisory committee challenges what has been said in
recommendation
26, as a technical advisory body embraces a much broader concept than
protocols
and address bodies. Bruce Tonkin made a distinction made between giving
technical advice and making policy on technical issues. It was felt that it
could be a standing committee but should not replace the protocol supporting
organisation. Discussion followed on whether there should be board
representation, voting or non voting, observer status. Arguments showed
support
for a neutral technical advisory committee available to the Board for
expertise
and consultative purposes to enhance communication. Technical expertise and
advice should be in the interests of ICANN and not specific constituencies.
New wording:
Recommendation 28 - technical
There should be ad hoc technical advisory committees providing neutral
technical
advice and convened by the ICANN Board. There is no need for a standing
technical advisory body with Board representation.
Recommendation 28: Accepted by all
Recommendation 29.
Philip Sheppard introduced the recommendation dealing with Government
Advisory
Committee (GAC) representation on the Board and said that there were three
options:
- voting representation
- non-voting representation (observer)
- liaison
Discussion was in favour of a liaison role. Harold Feld pointed out that
even a
non voting Board seat is significant as it provides many levels of contact
and
participation. Ken Stubbs believed that a non voting observer has to bound
by
the same conditions as a voting participant, especially with regard to
confidentiality. This was echoed by Thomas Roessler who said that a GAC
member
acting as a voting member could have a conflict of interest, but that this
would
not apply in a liaison position. Bruce Tonkin said that the Registrars
constituency emphasized good communication and coordination which could be
achieved by liaison. Marilyn Cade said the Business Constituency supported
non
voting representation. Tony Holmes agreed that the ISPC constituency could
accept this, while Laurence Djolakian said the IP constituency also gave
consideration to expertise liasion but didn't specifically refer to the GAC.
New wording:
Recommendation 29 - Board seats for Advisory bodies.
The GAC Chair or designee should provide a permanent liaison to the ICANN
Board.
Recommendation 29: Accepted by all.
Recommendation 30
Due to a leaving NC member quorum was then lost. Philip Sheppard invited
discussion on "equal representation". Should the number of Board seats
elected
by the Policy Development Bodies be the same?
Ken Stubbs felt that there should be responsibility for financial support
for
ICANN based on Board representation. Objection to buying ones way onto the
Board
was expressed by Harold Feld and this was clarified by Ken Stubbs saying
that
Board members should be obliged to support and follow Board decisions. He
believed a situation should not be created, as for the ccTLDs, where a group
seeks involvement but then chooses to not be subject to the policy created.
Harold Feld believed that there could be reasons why a group, taking part in
policy creation would decide not to be subject to it, but would not want to
give
up their opportunity of participating as their input is important. Tony
Harris
agreed with Ken Stubbs. Marilyn Cade's opinion was that there should be a
set of
standards for all entities to adhere to.
Thomas Roessler pointed out that there was logic to first discuss
recommendations 30 through 32 and that these points of principle would lead
to
certain conclusions on board composition (recommendation 33).
No vote could be taken because there was no quorum and it was decided to add
fresh wording based on the discussion. Essentially there was no opposition
to an
equal number of Board members elected by each policy development body.
Recommendations 31 and 32 The concept of a Nominating committee, its
existence
and possible composition.
Philip Sheppard asked if there was space on the Board after the seats from
the
Policy Development Bodies, should it be filled via a Nominating Committee?
Should the seats selected by that committee be equal, less or more than the
representation from Policy Development Bodies? Could the At Large be
included
and how should a nominating committee be composed?
Harold Feld stated the NCDNHC position on At Large which calls for direct
elections. He believed that unless there is a mechanism to make a nominating
committee open, an oligarchy will be perpetuated. Bruce Tonkin said that the
Registrars support the election of a nominating committee with
representation
from the Registrars, Registries, non-commercials users, commercial users and
individual users. Marilyn Cade said that the Business Constituency supported
an
At Large process that would lead to elections. A nominating committee should
control too many Board votes . There should be a method for the At Large to
participate in the Nominating committee, for example by designating 6 seats
to
the At Large. Tony Holmes said that there was no support for a nominating
committee among the ISPCP constituency.
Thomas Roessler said that the GA prefers direct elections for At Large and
there
was not support for a nominating committee. He warned against a nominating
committee electing a number of Board seats close to the number of members of
the
nominating committee itself. He believed this would effectively replicate
the
committee's composition in its choice of Board members. He believed a
nominating
committee should be forced to compromise and so should be larger than the
number
of seats that it has to fill.
Conclusions
Philip Sheppard concluded saying that opinions were divided over
recommendations
30 to 32.He would draft a report as edited on this call. He mentioned that
it
would be useful to have perspectives on the ccTLD structure from Elisabeth
Porteneuve and Oscar Robles on recommendations 18 to 24. He confirmed the
next
teleconference on June 6, 2002. Thomas Roessler promised e-mail input
recommendations 18, 19, 23, 24, 25. Marilyn Cade said that in view of a
possible
document from the Evolution Reform Committee, the Names Council should focus
on
comparing its recommendations to the committee's.
A status report would be forthcoming from the transfer committee and
constituencies are encouraged to consult with their members on the report.
The teleconference ended at 17:20
Next NC teleconference June 6 at 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
>>>
|