[council] NC teleconf minutes, 3 October 2002

["DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>]

[To: council@dnso.org]

Dear Council Members,

Please find below the mintes of the DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 3
October 2002.
Please inform me if you would like any changes made to the minutes.

Thank you,
DNSO Secretariat

4 October 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021003.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:

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
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars absent
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan        gTLD
Cary Karp              gTLD
Ellen Shankman         IP
Laurence Djolakian     IP absent
J. Scott Evans         IP
Harold Feld            NCDNH
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH  absent,
Erick Iriate           NCDNH absent, apologies


15 Names Council Members


Alexander Svensson         GA Alternate 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/mp3/20021003.NCteleconf.mp3

Quorum present at 15:05 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summer time in the northern hemisphere).

Bruce Tonkin chaired this NC teleconference.

Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
/notes/200201003.NCteleconf-agenda.html/notes/200201003.NCteleconf-agenda.ht
mlB
ruce Tonkin explained his approach in setting out the agenda saying, the
focus
was on domain name policy work and to offer some guidance on ICANN
structural
issues, rather than replace policy development by discussions on structure.
The
constituencies and Names Council members have other avenues besides the
Names
Council to comment on the work of the Evolmution and Reform Committee (ERC)
and
the ICANN reform process.

Marilyn Cade asked whether the resolutions (sent for email vote on Tuesday 1
October 2002) should be put on hold until the final report of the Evolution
and
Reform Committee (ERC) had been read by all. Agreed to discuss under item
3.1 of
the agenda.

Item 2. Summaries of last meetings:

/notes/20020912.NCteleconf-minutes.html

Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Cary Karp.
The motion was carried unanimously.

Decision 1: Motion adopted.

Item 3: Issues arising from the teleconference of 12 Sept 2002
3.1 Update on Resolutions discussed in teleconferences of 12 Sept and 26
Sept
[10 mins]- currently out for email voting for 14 day period
- decide whether this period should be shortened

Bruce Tonkin introduced the subject reminding Council that the resolutions
decided upon at the Names Council teleconference on 26 September were up for
an
e-mail vote which started on 1 October 2002. Marilyn Cade asked whether
there
should be any changes in the light of the ERC report. Philip Sheppard said
that
there was no change in the issues. Bruce Tonkin asked for discussion on the
length of the voting period, extended or shortened. Cary Karp pointed out
that
the vote had to be in on October 15 or when all 20 ballots have been
received,
whichever occurs first so by timely voting the period would be shortened.
Elisabeth Porteneuve was of the opinion that the period should be shortened
because of the urgent situation relating to remaining delays in getting
nameserver changes in the root zonefile resulting from the change at
KPNQwest
and waiting two weeks would not have the desired effect, to which Bruce
Tonkin
said ICANN staff performing the IANA function and the Security Committee
were
aware of the situation. J. Scott Evans noted that the Names Council cannot
direct ICANN staff performing the IANA functions at the operational level
and
can only make policy recommendations that need to be acted upon by the ICANN
Board.

Decision 2: To follow the Names Council Rules of Procedure
/notes/20020418.NCprocedures-v7.0.html%20
for an email vote and urge people to vote as soon as possible.

3.2 Decide whether to initiate policy action on deletes issues, and whether
to
create a task force [20 mins] Deletes issues paper was published on 19 Sept
2002:public/council/Arc11/msg00042.html%20 3

Bruce Tonkin introduced the delete issue saying that a report was published
and
the purpose at this meeting was to decide whether to initiate policy action
and
decide whether to form a task force or do the policy work directly within
the
Names Council. There were 4 topics in the paper:
- when a domain name has past the expiry date there is a variable period of
time
for Registrars to delete- when there is a complaint about the Whois accuracy
Registrars require the registrant to correct it within 15 days otherwise the
name may be cancelled, and the registrant may be disadvantaged.- how
registries
delete names varies across registries,- the requirement to use a delete
operation to reverse an incorrect renewal operation.

Discussion was largely in favour of initiating policy action and forming a
task
force. Ken Stubbs noted that the success of task forces in the past has
depended
heavily on the additional resources provided by employers of members of task
forces (such as AT&T's support of Marilyn Cade's work) to organise meetings,
and
document findings.

Bruce Tonkin proposed:
Initiating policy development on the deletes issue on the basis of the
deletes
issues report, and creating a task force, with the terms of reference
drafted by
October 19 for approval at the Shanghai meeting.

The proposal was unanimously adopted.

Decision 3: create a task force to deal with the deletes issue.

3.3 ERC committee report - suggested invite of Alejandro Pisanty for
discussion
[5 mins]- final report not yet available (scheduled for around 1 Oct 2002)
- Alejandro Pisanty agreed to informally meet with Names Council members at
informal breakfast meeting, Shanghai Monday October 28, 2002- any motions
arising from final report can be put out for email vote in the next 3 weeks,
or
physical vote at Names Council meeting on Tuesday October 29, 2002

Bruce Tonkin said that Alejandro Pisanty had not been invited to this
meeting,
but he had accepted the invitation to the Names Council breakfast as had
Jonathan Cohen, where he thought discussions would be more fruitful.

Comments on the ERC final report should be made by e-mail to the council
list.

Harold Feld suggested that Amadeu Abril i Abril should be invited to the
Names
Council breakfast. Bruce Tonkin undertook to invite Amadeu on behalf of the
Names Council.

Item 4: UDRP Task Force update [15 mins]
See/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html%20 - in 2001
Names council appointed task force to review and evaluate UDRP
- questionnaires distributed in March 2002
- J.Scott Evans appointed chair July 2002
- waiting for report from UDRP task force
- discussion - is work continuing or disband?

Bruce Tonkin summarizing, said that a questionnaire was sent out in March
2002,
but no report had been issued. Thus, the question is whether there is a
process
moving forward on the UDRP and if not, it should be brought to the Names
Council
for a decision.

J. Scott Evans reported that he had been reading 270 e-mails and planned to
reconfirm theTask Force membership reminding them of the terms of reference.
Summaries of the questionnaires have taken several months and there was a
delay
in getting the responses from the ICANN web site. Names Council guidance is
needed on how the questionnaires fit into the report, whether they should be
an
advisement and a report formulated based on the members own expertise. Bruce
Tonkin suggested looking at the Whois task force, where a report was put out
for
public comment having summarised the survey findings and preliminary
recommendations made, and urged the task force to produce a report that used
as
input the results of the survey as well as the expertise and experience of
the
task force members in using the UDRP process. The alternative was to close
the
task force and start again. J. Scott Evans was in favour of maintaining the
current task force. Discussion was in favour of using the value added
expertise
in the task force in addition to the survey.

Bruce Tonkin suggested putting this on the agenda for the November meeting,
and
that the task force establishes meeting dates so that a report and initial
recommendations can be developed for discussion at that meeting.


Item 5: IDN Task Force update [15 mins]
- task force created July 01
- terms of reference unclear
- briefing document Feb 02
public/nc-idn/Arc00/msg00063.html
- limited activity since Feb 02
- discussion - should work continue (and if so review/create terms of
reference)
or disband?

Bruce Tonkin summarised saying that the terms of reference were difficult to
find and that since Elisabeth Porteneuve's briefing document little had
happened. Elisabeth Porteneuve, addressing the International Domain Names
(IDN)
issue, said it had become a hot public matter in the summer of 2000 when the
Names Council decided to form a task force. However there were no terms of
reference, the aim beng to understand the issue and gather information. In
autumn of 2001, ICANN formed the IDN Committee comprising of language and
technical experts with a budget of $100 000 to analyse the issue in depth
and
produced a final report in Bucharest. If the IDN solution proposed to the
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) became a standard it would take a
long
time to implement. The importance of the task force was to have groups that
understood the issues, in contact with the IDN committee, which could act if
need be through the Names Council. The value lay in a good understanding of
the
techniques used, the technical issues to be solved and the possible
expansion of
the TLD space by adding international TLDs.

Bruce Tonkin, supported by Marilyn Cade, said that a standing committee to
offer
advice with the necessary expertise was needed rather than a task force and
suggested that Elisabeth Porteneuve and the existing Task Force members keep
a
watching brief and report every two meetings.

Decision 4: Standing committee, comprising the existing members of the IDN
task
force, Porteneuve and Bruce Tonkin to keep a watching brief and a standard
agenda item be created for every second Names Council meeting where any
developments in the IDN issue can be discussed.

Item 6: Structure Task Force update [15 mins]
- terms of reference:
public/nc-str/Arc00/msg00046.html
To produce a timely impact assessment on
a) the efficacy of policy making within the DNSO,
b) the efficacy of ICANN decision making as a result of the proposals from
the
at-large study committee, the desire of the ccTLDs to form their own
supporting
organisation and other proposals and;- on 14 March 2002 meeting, Names
Council
decided to address the issue at the Names Council level- Names Policy
Development Process Assistance Group produced a
report(mittees/evol-reform/npdpag-report-21aug02.htm) on 21 August 2002-
discussion - is it appropriate to formally close this task force given
events
since 14 March 2002

Bruce Tonkin reported that at the Accra meeting, March 14, 2002, the Names
Council decided to look at the reform process at a Names Council level
rather
than in a task force and the Names Council Policy development process group
issued a report on August 21. In view of this progression the task force
should
probably be closed. Philip Sheppard agreed, adding that the structure task
force
predated the provisional Lynn report and underlined the Names Council's
continuing quest for improving policy development.

J. Scott Evans proposed and Ken Stubbs seconded a:
Motion to close the structure task force formally.

The motion was unanimously adopted

Decision 5: formally close structure task force and send a note thanking
members
for their participation

Item 7: Discussion of Jordyn Buchanan's proposal regarding Task force chairs
(not for decision)/notes/20021003.NCmotion-Buchanan.html [15 mins] Bruce
Tonkin
summarised the proposal that suggested a task force chairman could be
someone
from outside the Names Council with the necessary expertise. However, was it
appropriate to change the Rules of Procedure in the interim period?

Tony Harris excused himself from the meeting and gave his proxy to Tony
Holmes
(16:10 Paris time)

Jordyn Buchanan in addressing the motion, said that there was no reason not
to
make the change now and felt that it allows for a good balance without
requiring
the chair to be a Names Council member. Discussion highlighted the following
arguments: Philip Sheppard drew attention to the fact that under the new
Policy
Development Process, the specific request being sought by Jordyn is allowed,
however Bruce Tonkin said that it may not come into play until the Annual
General meeting in December and in the meantime the deletes task force would
be
formed.

Marilyn Cade thought that it might be inappropriate to change in the interim
period and felt that the inter-relationship between the task force and the
policy council is important for the ongoing understanding of the rest of the
Names Council work, as well as for accountability. While Harold Feld said
the
proposal did not go far enough and that a constituency should be able to
elect
the bes qualified member as chair.

Ken Stubbs was concerned about a chair ceasing to operate because he/she was
no
longer a council member and felt that this should not be an obstacle.
J.Scott
Evans said that the policy development process called for Jordyn's model.
BruceTonkin said that since there would be a delete task force, the motion
was
relevant The motion was posted with the agenda and not up for vote but the
options open are:- vote on the motion by e-mail prior to Shanghai
- vote on the motion at Shanghai but prior to the formation of a task force.

The motion was formally proposed by Jordyn Buchanan and seconded by Ellen
Shankman for the agenda for the Shanghai meeting and vote there prior to the
task force formation.

Decision 6: Vote on the motion at the Shanghai meeting.

8. Budget items [15 mins]
- update on constituency payments
/notes/20020905.ICANN-DNSO-finances-recap.html%20
- update on constituency status with regard to Names Council sanctions
procedure. (see Section 12
of/notes/20020418.NCprocedures-v7.0.html/notes/20020418.NCprocedures-v7.0.ht
ml
Bruce Tonkin reviewed the budget
position:/notes/20021003.ICANN-DNSO-finances-status.html/notes/20021003.ICAN
N-D
NSO-finances-status.html- at the end of September there was a cash reserve
of
$57 000- at the end of December it is likely to be $35 000
- at an average monthly expenditure of $7 000 there would be provisions
until
the end of April 2003. Three constituency dues were outstanding: the Non
Commercial, ccTLD and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers
Constituency (ISPCPC). After the Shanghai meeting there should be a further
review.

Roger Cochetti agreed with the reasoning but cautioned against unforeseen
expenses. The budget committee would meet in Shanghai with ICANN staff and
work
on plans for next year. A report from the budget committee is envisaged at
the
November Names Council meeting.

- update on constituency status with regard to Names Council sanctions
procedure. (see Section 12
of/notes/20020418.NCprocedures-v7.0.html/notes/20020418.NCprocedures-v7.0.ht
ml
Bruce Tonkin said that according to the Names Council Rules of Procedure,
voting
sanctions would come into effect on October 20, 2002 This would not refer to
participation and proposed that for any resolution voted on after 20 October
2002, it would be noted:(1) for, against, and abstentions for voting members
which will decide names council resolutions in accordance with the rules of
procedure and ICANN bylaws(2) for, against, and abstentions for non-voting
members - this information will be made publicly available in the minutes of
the
names council.

Harold Feld and Marilyn Cade urged for sanctions to be deferred until after
Shanghai, while Elisabeth Porteneuve raised the question whether it was
possible
to prevent constituency voting rights in the ICANN bylaws. Ken Stubbs said
that
there was consternation among constituencies which had paid as to why others
had
not. Tony Holmes spoke for the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity
Providers Constituency saying that they had experienced problems and
expected to
pay something by 20 October 2002.

Bruce Tonkin said he would seek advice of general counsel on the matter
pertaining to the bylaws. He said that there were 2 approaches:
- voting rights to be suspended on October 20, 2002.
- leave it open to Names Council members to put forward a motion on the list
for
e-mail vote on the resolution to suspend or change the Rules of Procedure
for
the Shanghai meeting.

Requested Harold Feld and Marilyn Cade to work on a resolution that could be
put
to an e-mail vote as 14 days of motion need to be given.

Item 9: Agenda topics for next meeting (Tuesday 29 Oct 2002, Shanghai)
- Transfers Task Force update
- WHOIS Task Force update
- Discussion on Dept of Commerce MOU (proposed by Harold Feld in 26 Sept
teleconference)- Discussion on role of Governments (proposed by Marilyn Cade
in
26 Sept teleconference) Harold Feld was asked to identify the points to be
discussed in the Dept of Commerce Memorandum of Understanding. Marilyn Cade,
mentioning the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) option to appoint a
liaison
to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the need for
discussion
on the role of the GAC was asked to list the key issues and reference the
documents for discussion on the council list.

10. Any other business

It was strongly recommended that there be dial-in facilities for the
Shanghai
meeting.  It was agreed that the secretariat would make all the necessary
arrangements for this.

Bruce Tonkin thanked the council members for their participation.

The teleconference ended at 17:00 (15:00 UTC)

Next Names Council meeting to be held in Shanghai at the Shanghai Convention
Center, F3 International Hall: October 29, 2002 at 14:00 local time.

See all past agendas and minutes at/2002calendardnso.html%20
and calendar of the NC meetings at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html
------------------------------------------------
Information from:
© DNSO Names Council