<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] NC teleconf minutes 14 November, 2002
[To council@dnso.org]
Dear Council Members,
Please find the Names Council Teleconference minutes, Novemebr 14, 2002,
below.
If you would any changes made, please let me know.
Thank you,
Glen
DNSO Secretariat
ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 14 November 2002 - minutes
14 November 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021114.NCteleconf-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard Business
Marilyn Cade Business
Grant Forsyth Business absent, apologies
Greg Ruth ISPCP absent
Antonio Harris ISPCP absent, apologies, proxy to Tony Holmes
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
J. Scott Evans IP
Harold Feld NCDNH
Chun Eung Hwi NCDNH
Erick Iriate NCDNH absent, apologies, proxy to Chun Eung Hwi
13 Names Council Members
Louis Touton ICANN General Counsel
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/mp3/20021114.NCteleconf.mp3
Quorum present at 15:05 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
winter time in the northern hemisphere).
Bruce Tonkin chaired this NC teleconference.
* Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021114.NCteleconf-agenda.html
Ken Stubbs drew attention to an e-mail notification from Dan Halloran
on the implications and actions as a result of proposals before the two
task forces and said that the Names Council members should be appraised
of Transfer and WHOIS issues
Agreed to put under question to Louis Touton under item 3.1 of the
agenda.
* Marilyn Cade expressed concern about the time limits for comments on
the ccCNSO assistance group's work.
* Agreed to deal with under item 9 AOB on the agenda.
* Item 2. Summary of last meeting:
Summary to follow.
* Real-time captioning available on the web site:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021029.NCshanghai-minutes.html
Webcast:
http://www.icann.org/shanghai/#webcast
* Item 3: Issues arising from the teleconference of 29 October 2002
3.1 Briefing by Louis Touton on implementation of policies.
http://www.icann.org/legal/briefing-on-implementation-20oct02.htm
Bruce Tonkin summarized by saying that ICANN's regulations are based on
a set of contracts.
* Contracts between ICANN and the Registries
ICANN and the Registrars.
Agreements between Registries and Registrars
Agreement between Registrars and Registrants.
In the ICANN contracts with Registries and Registrars, provision is
made to add additional policies with a given definition for consensus
that needs to be formed. As well as what areas allowable within the
contracts that are topics for consensus policy. However it is not clear
from Louis Touton's paper if transfers and WHOIS fall within the policy
area that is covered by the Registry and registrar agreements or
whether the policy areas are not covered, in which case they would
require almost complete agreement of the Registrars and the Registries.
* In the Registrars agreement there is a list of topics for new and
revised policy:
1. Issues for which uniform coordinated resolution is required to
facilitate interoperability, technical reliability and operational
stability of Registrar services.
2. Policy necessary to implement ICANN policies relating to DNS
Registry and Registrar services
3. Resolution of disputes concerning registration of names
4. Principles of allocation for registered names
5. Prohibitions on warehousing
6. Maintenance of up to date contact information
7. Reservation of registered names that may not be registered initially
or renewed due to reasons reasonably related to avoid confusion among
users and intellectual property owners
8. Procedures to avoid disruption of registration related to suspension
or termination of Registrars or Registries
9. Transfer of registration data upon a change in Registrars
Bruce Tonkin asked Louis Touton whether the 9th provision was a
mechanism for the introduction of a transfer policy ? Or, was transfer
policy not covered in the 9 areas.
L. Touton replied that transfer policy would generally be covered in
the 9 areas and point 9 would cover this.
Bruce Tonkin confirmed that WHOIS is mentioned a number of times in the
Registrars agreement, while Transfers are only mentioned explicitly in
point 9, but as mentioned by J. Scott Evans the task force
recommendations might have bearing on some other points.
Once it was established that the task forces, in areas generally, were
covered under consensus policy, and that the recommendations produced
were consensus policy, Bruce Tonkin asked how policy implementation
could be foreseen.
L.Touton said for the most things the DNSO/GNSO covers would be in the
scope of the consensus policy and that the question to be asked would
be whether the procedures for demonstrating consensus have been
followed and the results have been achieved. Within that scope there
are 3 requirements:
1. a written report demonstrating the consensus, outreach and that any
opposition is isolated or irrational
2. The Names Council adopts the report as reflection of consensus by a
2/3 vote
3. Approval of the report by the ICANN Board.
If it has achieved all 3 requirements the document will be communicated
to the contracting parties, and reasonable time will be allowed for
implementation with certain protections for Registries and Registrars,
pertaining to cost redemption mechanisms, indemnities and legal aspects
arising because of the policy.
* Bruce Tonkin summarized saying that there could be a separation in two
elements:
1. Written report communicating policy
2. Document supporting consensus.
L. Touton went on to say that the contracting parties have a variety of
mechanisms whereby they c an challenge whether it is a policy they must
implement.
Bruce Tonkin asked whether, in the case where the criteria had been
met, ICANN staff would check the document before it gets to the names
Council for compliance?
L. Touton replied that in the context of the GNSO, this would be the
responsibility of the staff manager.
Philip Sheppard asked whether the burden of proof would lie with the
independent review to show that there was not consensus.
L. Touton said the mode of review is an independent review and the
burden of explaining that there was an error is on the party invoking
the review. It is important that the decision for an independent review
must be based on the report and supporting materials required by the
report. The report is required to include all comments achieved in the
process. It would be inappropriate for a contracting party that is not
in favour of the prospective policy to remain silent and disagree at
the stage of the independent review.
New elements not submitted in the process should not be considered in
an independent review, as the written report must include all
substantive submissions to supporting organization and follow a:
Three step procedure:
1. Basic report developed by the task force
2. GNSO council determines whether new public comment period is needed
3. New material should be considered as part of whether the written
report demonstrates the consensus claimed.
The agreement provides for 3 basic elements:
1. Document the extent of agreement/disagreement among the impacted
parties
2. Document the outreach process used to achieve adequate
representativeness among the impacted parties
3. Document the nature and support of reasoned support and opposition
to the proposed policy.
It was emphasized that the Transfer and WHOIS task forces had engaged
in extensive outreach efforts through public meetings, open calls,
public comments and constituency participation.
* As there is the likelihood to get a consensus policy recommendation put
to the vote by the Names Council on:
a). the short term, WHOIS task force recommendations on accuracy and
bulk access
b). Transfer task force recommendations proposing a standardized
transfer framework and short term elements dependent on the Deletions
task force work:
Is the policy in or out of the scope of the Registrars/Registries
agreement?
What is the possibility of getting an opinion from general counsel, on
the document produced, whether it would be consistent with the
requirements for consensus policy?
With regard to the WHOIS report, the portion relating to accuracy does
not require consensus policy provisions, but more vigorous enforcement
of existing policy, thus requiring a recommendation of action by the
ICANN staff as opposed to a new policy.
* Bruce Tonkin sought clarification on the point that task force work was
becoming involved in administrative details and whether this was
appropriate for policy development or should policy development set
general guidelines.
L. Touton answered that policies are most expressible and consensus
developed around the essential elements while timeframes may vary and
need those responsible to agree on a time frame for implementation.
Discussion on a question from Marilyn Cade as to whether there was a
point before policy implementation where there is comment or a review
by the policy board, emphasized that policy documentation must be
explicit and give guidelines to staff for implementation.
Marilyn Cade went on to comment that if during the implementation
period, policy areas emerge that have not been thought about, there
should be a mechanism to refer them to the supporting organization.
Discussion pointed out that a distinction should be made between
referring certain problems back to the supporting organization and
referring back the entire implementation process. Accountability is
important and where difficulties arise in discussions between staff and
the parties, referral back to the council should be allowed. However, a
warning was noted that spending time on implementation may draw out the
process time wise.
The key issue is that the implementation process is still in
development, and in the future the constituency structure will still be
in place to act as an alarm to the GNSO if the process goes off track.
Louis Touton assured the Transfer task force that they could rely on
staff resources to provide the necessary consultation which may be in
verbal and or teleconference form.
Bruce Tonkin thanked Louis Touton, who left the conference call at 4:10
(CET) (10:10 EST) for the useful discussion on the issues and his time
devoted to the Names Council.
Item 4: UDRP update - report from J. Scott Evans on next steps
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/msg00409.html
J. Scott Evans referred to the e-mail communication, referred to above,
sent out the task force stating:
1. Modified version of the Policy Development Process in the blue print
for reform
2. Member contact
3. Identification of participants
4. Interest group contact
Plan of action and time lines
Ask Names Council to extend an invitation to the new Asian Domain Name
Dispute Resolution provider of services to appoint a representative.
Conference call, Tuesday 19 November at 15 UTC 10:00 EST
Preliminary draft by late December reviewing the articles and study of
survey results
Draft report by Spring ICANN meeting 2003.
* Bruce Tonkin proposed a motion, seconded by Ellen Shankman, as a
procedural issue, consistent with the structure of the original task
force:
To appoint a representative from the Asian pacific Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Centre as an expert representative on the UDRP Task Force.
Motion carried unanimously
Decision 1: appoint a representative from the Asian pacific Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Centre as an expert representative on the UDRP Task
Force.
During the discussion mention was made that a significant number of
attacks on brand names were coming from the Asia Pacific area.
Experiences in other Dispute resolution proposals could be made as
submissions to the UDRP task force illustrating different approaches
used.
* Item 5: New TLD process - discuss Stuart Lynn proposal
Bruce Tonkin summarised the 3 elements in the Stuart Lynn proposal:
1. Suggesting an extension of proof of concept for 3 added sponsored
Top Level Domains(TLD)
Comments should be made to the ICANN website
2. Plan for implementing the recommendations of the committee of
evaluation of the new TLDs.
Comments should be made on the ICANN website
3. The Board has asked the DNSO how to evolve Top Level Generic Name
Space. The Board will look at the recommendations in December and if
the recommendations are followed, a formal request to the DNSO for
advice by the Board will follow.
Advice is being sought, not policy issues, so each constituency would
create a position where the commonalties would be considered at the
Names Council level.
Should there be a taxonomy of names in the GTLD space or should it be
left open to market forces?
Time frame:
Submissions from constituencies
Activity for January 2003
* Bruce Tonkin clarifying the request, said that after the August Board
meeting, the Board asked Stuart Lynn for a plan of action on how to
createnew domain name spaces in the future and the proposal is a
written plan for action coming from the President of ICANN.
Marilyn Cade added that in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 5,
ICANN has been instructed to develop a clear process for the
introduction of new gTLDs.
Item 6: Budget report
- current financial status
- projected position for 31 December 2002
- discuss DNSO budget for 1 January 2003 to 30 June 2003 and estimate
constituency contributions required for 2003
In the absence of Roger Cochetti, Bruce Tonkin briefly summarised the last
informal budget committee meeting on October 27 in Shanghai where Stuart
Lynn and Louis Touton were present with some of the members of the budget
committee.
The new budget from ICANN for staffing and policy support may only be in
place by July 2003, so the DNSO must make a plan to operate on its own
resources till then.
The balance of $25000 to $30000 left is not sufficient and additional
constituency contributions are required for the first half of next year.
J. Scott Evans commented that the constituencies that had not yet paid their
dues should be asked to pay up.
Marilyn Cade said that she would create a budget for the task force work
which up to now she has been supporting by her employer.
Item 7: GNSO Budget planning for 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004
Bruce Tonkin started by asking whether it was appropriate for the DNSO to
look at an overall budget for the GNSO in 2003/2004.
ICANN should form the budget, but does need input from the DNSO about staff
support.
The GNSO may need two staff members but ICANN may only be able to support
one in which case the GNSO would collect fees to supplement.
The budget committee is where this should be discussed but inclusion of
other Names Council members would be useful and decisions would benefit from
a broader participation.
Philip Sheppard commented that there was a difference of desire in terms of
the GNSO on the necessary funding and the question lay in the nature of the
desire. He stated that the principle should be that the budget committee
determines the minimum budget necessary to support the GNSO and the money
should be available from ICANN.
Harold Feld announced that he would sign off 16:55 CET 10:55 EST
Bruce Tonkin suggested documenting the discussion and providing direction to
the budget committee along the following lines:
1. For the budget from 1 July 2003 onwards, other Names Council members have
been invited to participate
2. The objective is to identify a minimum budget necessary to operate the
GNSO in the new structure
3. ICANN is expected to fund the budget.
4. A budget committee meeting be planned for the Amsterdam meeting where
ICANN staff could be engaged as it would be in keeping with the transition
plans.
Item 9: AOB
Marilyn Cade commented on the amount of time open for public comment on the
ccCNSO group's work, reminding the Names Council that the Business
constituency encouraged and formed a liaison committee with the ccTLDs and
emphasised the importance of the ccTLDs remaining in the ICANN structure.
Therefore it was important to comment productively on the draft and 7 days
was inadequate to take comment.
The business constituency and business users have a positive relationship
with the ccTLDs and have difficulty in taking consulation in the time frame
provided.
The Business constituency supports and reinforces their position with regard
to the ccTLDs staying within the ICANN structure.
Bruce Tonkin undertook an action:
Action 1:
As Names Council Chair Bruce Tonkin will contact the Chair of the Assistance
group and Stuart Lynn and state that the Business constituency and other
constituencies need more time to comment on the latest report.
This was supported by Philip Sheppard, a member of the assistance group, who
said that similar comments from other cc's and ADCOM had been received,
adding that progress should be at a practical pace.
Item 8: Agenda topics for December 14, 2002
a. Transfer task force recommendations
b. WHOIS task force recommendations
Bruce Tonkin thanked the participants and signed off.
The teleconference ended at 17:00 (16:00 UTC) (3:00 Friday morning
Melbourne)
Next Names Council meeting Saturday, December 14, 2002 at 8:00 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
>>>
|