<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] NC minutes teleconf. June 6, 2002
[To: council@dnso.org]
Dear Council Members,
Please find the minutes of the last teleconference below.
If you would anything changed or added, please let me know.
Thank you,
Glen
DNSO Secretariat
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 6 June 2002 - minutes
------------------------------------------------
10 June 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/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
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,
Ken Stubbs Registrars
Bruce Tonkin Registrars
Roger Cochetti gTLD
Richard Tindal gTLD absent,
Cary Karp gTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Roger Cochetti,
Richard Tindall
Ellen Shankman IP
Laurence Djolakian IP
J. Scott Evans IP
Harold Feld NCDNH absent,
Chun Eung Hwi NCDNH absent,
Erick Iriate NCDNH absent,
13 Names Council Members
Thomas Roessler GA Chair
Alexander Svensson GA Alternate Chair
Glen de Saint Géry NC Secretary
Alix Guillard MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020606.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/notes/20020514.NCteleconf-agenda.html
An additional item was added to the agenda:
Status report regarding Deletions, Solutions, and WLS.
Prepared by Marilyn Cade, Chair
Transfer Task Force
The agenda was approved.
Item 1: Transfer Task Force status report.
Council was asked by the Board in a resolution to transfer to the
Transfer Task Force a request for assessment on deletions, solutions and
wait listing service. The Status report gives the background and the
summary of documents gathered so far. Comments were submitted by the
Intellectual Property Constituency, the Business Constituency, the
General Assembly, individuals and two open conference calls and a public
forum published by ICANN. On June 10 a version will be set up for public
comment and Council members should send the report to their
constituencies for comment. The Names Council should vote on it in
Bucharest. The actual recommendations will be put forward to the Board
at the Bucharest meeting on Thursday 27 June, 2002.
Item 2 - Discussion on Nominating Committee proposals from ICANN
evolution committee and others.
Philip Sheppard set out the process to be followed: He proposed the
Chair draft a formal response to the last paper from the ICANN
evolution and reform committee. The Names Council's work to date allows
a response to many issues in the document . It was agreed the Chair will
write a draft for e-mail comment and subsequent approval during the next
teleconference on June 17.
In comparing the NC recommendations to the Committee's paper, Philip
Sheppard said that the fundamental difference was a top-down approach
recommended by the evolution committee and the continuation of a
bottom-up approach in the Names Council recommendations. The main
categories in which the top down approach is happening are threefold:
1. The composition of the Board
1.1 Today the policy development bodies (like the old DNSO) elect 9
board seats. In the proposal they elect none. Instead a nominating
committee (nomcomm) choose 3 board representatives to represent the
policy development bodies.
1.2 In addition the nominating committee appoints some or all other
Board members.
1.3 There maybe some board seats available for advisory bodies such as
the Security Advisory Body (SAC). But the SAC rep on the Board will be a
Board appointee.
2. Composition of the nominating committee (a circular endorsement
process)
2.1 There is a suggestion that the Board "ratify" the people proposed to
form the nominating committee who in turn appoint the Board.
3. Control of the policy development organisations
3.1. The Board appoints the chair of each of the policy development
organisations who is then also a Board member.
3.2 The steering committee of the policy development organisations (such
as the old Names Council) will also have "an appropriate number" of
nomcomm appointed members.
Discussion followed on the concept, scope and composition of a
nominating committee.
J. Scott Evans addressed the issue of the steering committee chair
appointment who would also be on the Board of Directors and felt that it
was an overload for one person on a volunteer basis to act effectively
even with staff assistance.
Roger Cochetti compared a top-down versus a bottom-up process. The
benefits of a top-down process are
efficiency and speed but the drawbacks are lack of accountability and
legitimacy. A bottom-up process can be messy and time consuming, but it
forces accountability and legitimacy. He preferred the latter approach.
Bruce Tonkin said that the Registrars community support a nominating
committee but in fact it should be called a selection committee. The
Constituency wanted the generic supporting organisation to be able to
select voting members of the Board. The Registrars want an elected
nominating committee. They believe it would be acceptable for the
nominating committee to select some members of the new Names Council.
Grant Forsyth echoed what Roger Cochetti said, and was in favour of a
nominating committee for some board seats only.
Ken Stubbs felt that the persons delegated to represent the Generic Name
Supporting Organisation (GNSO) should be elected by that body.
J. Scott Evans's concern was with control, circular appointments and
funding. He understood that the reason behind the proposal was to
divorce policy development from Board seats. He thought that a
nominating committee should not be electing the steering committee
chairs or members but that the SOs should elect their own board members.
Philip Sheppard questioned the reasoning behind an objective to divorce
policy development from Board seats. This maybe a theory that the Names
Council had an incentive to resist new NC constituencies because this
would dilute the 1 in 7 influence the Constituencies have in electing
three board seats. He said this seemed absurd. Conversely, if this was
the incentive, constituencies should be actively seeking allies to join
as new constituencies and so expand their slim chance of a board seat.
Marilyn Cade noted that there was no evidence of a learning process
reflected in the committee documents. Most of the people who built ICANN
are not involved in the reform process. She stressed the importance of
an evolutionary approach that was focused. The right approach was more
staff, better procedures and tight timelines. She added that the
At-Large effort meets the public interest concerns of governments.
Elisabeth Porteneuve agreed with Marilyn Cade and added that ICANN had
never given any help to the DNSO. ICANN was set up for gTLD issues.
Although the ccTLDs never had a strong voice, they contributed expertise
at national level. They are in favour of evolution, and at the moment
are working on ICANN's mission and looking at the common denominators in
the various regions. They are seeking to identify those functions that
cannot be replaced by another structure (such as the IANA functions).
Thomas Roessler agreed with the previous viewpoints but added that
precision was lacking in the reform proposals. The areas that were
particularly vague or problematic were:
- ICANN mission statement
- Steering group members, what kind, their role?
- Volunteers with special backgrounds were heavily relied on but not
funded.
- Advisory committees with a chair with a vote on the board is not a
good idea.
- Advisory bodies with ex officio board seats would be a disincentive to
create future advisory bodies and so deprive the board of expertise.
Ken Stubbs echoed a concern expressed by Joe Sims that from the
consumer's perspective there was a blurring with regard to websites
which were geographic ccTLDs and those that acted as generic TLDs. He
called for a methodology in bringing about uniformity. Elisabeth
Porteneuve responded adding that concern was expressed about registrars'
resellers who were anonymous.
Philip Sheppard proposed the following recommendations:
1. There should be consistent criteria for participation in ICANN policy
development bodies. Among such criteria there should be the obligation
to abide by ICANN policies.
This proposal was not acceptable to the ccTLDs except on a technical
level. It was decided to defer debate for the time being.
2. Board members for Policy development bodies
The four policy development bodies, ccTLD, gTLD, addressing and protocol
should elect an equal number of board members.
Recommendation accepted by all.
3. A nominating committee should select a quota of board seats which
will be less than or equal to that number elected from the policy
development bodies.
Voting was as follows:7 In favour, 4 Against, 2 Abstentions.
The recommendation was carried.
The ISPCPC wishes their derogation to be recorded, the ccTLDs are not in
favour of a nominating committee.
The council then discussed the possible composition of a nominating
committee. Bruce Tonkin addressed the Registrars proposal. There should
be 15 Members of the nominating committee made up as follows:
5 from the At-Large group
5 from the User groups
5 from the suppliers
Thomas Roessler raised the concern that it would be a duplication of the
board and an extension of the Names Council structure. He stated that
there should be different mechanisms for board election, and no
mechanism determining more than half of the board seats. Asked by Philip
Sheppard what the constructive role of the nominating committee would
be, he replied that the DNSO/GNSO would not have strong user, consumer
and public interest and it would be the task of the nominating committee
to balance this.
In answer to the question: "Would the GA be happy with a number of seats
that could at a future point be taken away and eventually be given to
the At-Large?" Thomas replied that the GA would want elections now and
later clarified his view by e-mail.
Laurence commented that the IP consistency was in favour of the
nominating committee but that there should be a charter detailing
criteria for membership and its selections.
Ken Stubbs reminded Council that ICANN will only work in the future if
there is supporting personnel. All problems up to now are related to
resources. Council agreed and the chair agreed to emphasise this point
in future communications.
Philip Sheppard agreed to enquire of the ICANN Budget Committee why the
$170 000 proposed by ICANN staff had not gone forward in the budget
recommended for Board adoption in Bucharest.
Thomas Roessler commented on the committee's proposed arbitration
process, saying that although he supported this, a mechanism was needed
to ensure low-funded groups could use arbitration. Council agreed. Bruce
Tonkin proposed that the office of the ombudsman should have a budget
for this. Council agreed to revisit Recommendation 15 in light of the
preferred proposals for arbitration and an expanded role for the
ombudsman.
Philip Sheppard concluded by saying that he would draft a reply to the
ICANN committee that should be commented on by e-mail and be adopted
during the next teleconference to which he would invite the evaluation
committee.
The teleconference ended at 16:50
Next NC teleconference June 17 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
>>>
|