Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San Jose - 062599

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Ellen, Ben and all,

  I have checked the site indicated below, and I did not fine any
text or html version of the meeting indicated.  Is there one avalible?

Ellen Rony wrote:

> ROUGH NOTES FROM THE NAMES COUNCIL MEETING 062599 -
> For accurate record, see:
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso
>
> The good, the bad, the ugly.
> The good:
> An open meeting, democracy in action with all its warts.  The meeting
> showed that it is possible to handle administrative matters without
> audience interruptions.  E-mail comments on large screen in full public
> view. Several comments were publicly addressed.
>
> Summary: focus on bootstrapping. policies and procedures for setting up
> working groups, mailing lists, identifying members of the General AssemblY;
> Calendar considerations tabled.
>
> The bad:
> The warts. Deference to Roberts Rules of Order without understanding those
> procedures. Who calls for the vote?  How to handle amendments?   Discussion
> interrupted a vote underway.  Revoting,  Unclear restatement of topics
> under consideration for voting.   Fits and starts in the discussion.  Lack
> of clarity about the role and power of the Names Council. Difficulty of
> remote participants to hear discussion.  Lack of review of who connected
> remotely in the middle of the meeting, in the middle of a vote.
>
> The ugly:
> Making *any* decisions until the NC is fully formed.  Currently, the
> non-commercial constituency public  has no representation in these
> decisions.  The gTLD constituency representation is in dispute.  The
> outcome of the meeting put cart before horse, and therefore, all
> recommendations that follow from an ill-conceived (not fully formed)
> process are suspect.
>
> Suggestions:
> The Names Council needs a parliamentarian.  Every vote should FIRST be
> restated by a neutral party, and discussion should *precede* the vote, not
> interfere with the actual voting. Chair needs to ascertain which remote
> participants remain online and that they all heard the complete proposal
> being voted on. [I wonder how ICANN'S board meetings are run.] Also, the
> agenda should have built into it time to review and address the comments
> sent in by e-mail. NC needs to address what to do if it receives a large
> volume of email response during a meeting, revealing a part of the
> discussion that hit a public nerve.
> _______________________________________
> IN ATTENDANCE:
> cctld Constituency
>       Europe () - Fay Howard
>       Africa (.gh) - Nii Quaynor
>       AsiaPac (.nu) - Bill Semich
> business Constituency
>       NorthA (.us) - Jon Englund
>       Europe (.es) - Javier Sola
>       NorthA (.us) - Theresa Swinehart Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com
> ispcp Constituency
>       AsiaPac (.jp) - Hirofumi Hotta
>       Europe (.de) - Michael Schneider
> registrars Constituency
>       Europe (.es) - Amadeu Abril i Abril - remote participation
>       AsiaPac (.jp) - Richard Lindsay
>       NorthA (.us) - Ken Stubbs - remote participation
> intellectualproperty Constituency
>       NorthA (.ca) - Jonathan Cohen
>       NorthA (.us) - Susan Antony - remote participation later in meeting
>       Europe (.be) - Ted Shapiro  - remote participation
>
> No participation from gTLD constituency.
> NCDHC not yet recognized as a constituency, so no representation included
> in the meeting.
> Randy Bush present as an observer
>
> ADMINISTRATIVE MEETING - 2p.m.
> Estimate of 30 or less people in attendance including Dyson, Sims, Roberts,
> two ICANN staffers.
>
> Howard: Before getting into working groups, since we are interim, first
> discuss process, elect chairman,  communications correct,where to go to
> find things, how to join working groups.
>
> Amadeu: "our primary goal is making policy recommendations" [Note:  not
> according to the Bylaws.]
>
> Major discussion on whether to have Working Groups open to everyone.
> Amadeu: rule enforcing limits on number of members from a single group is
> advisable in some cases.
>
> Semich: current working groups not bottom up process. This is a consensus
> facilitating body, not a policy making body. We need to come up with a
> constituency building mechanism. None of the constituencies has suggested a
> Working Group to date,. We should start from Day 1 bottom up.  If we don't
> do it now, we won't be able to get there in the future. Cart before horse.
>
> Sola: We have proposed Working Groups A, B, and C.  Working Group E
> proposed by Fay from cctld
> D from proposed by several groups. A from the general assembly but not any
> constituencies. All the constituencies have known that these are being
> created.
> Make certain that no specific point of view is excluded.  Anyone who has
> anything to say has to be included in those working groups.  We have
> received feedback except ggtld constituencies have given us names including
> non commercial constituencies.  If we create Working Group C, al large part
> will be from the General Assembly.
>
> Cohen:  Date limitation a concern.   Also, people didn't know that WGs were
> open.
> Long general discussion about these two concerns.
>
> Theresa: Main problem is communication issue.  We need to put greater sense
> of urgency in D and E  so that outreac hand procedures and structure is
> given much higher priority.  Maybe we need to do aggressive outreach.
>
> Cohen:  It is urgent that we establish a General Assemb ly for everyone who
> wants to participate and be in a WG, only subject to the realities of a
> given situation.  You can't have 200 people in a WG and you cant have 30
> people from one interest.  In the very limited time we were given, we made
> it clear that anyone was welcome. There hasn't been enough time  I have
> written to ICANN board that we need to postpone the provision of these
> reports to provide enough time so that there is a prope Names Council
> represented by allcostituencies, GA and outreach around the world.  Support
> my application to the ICANN board to slow down reporting dates so that we
> can do a proper job and dont get criticized.
>
> Sola: Working Groups are where documents are prepared.  Everybody can
> participate, even if they don't participate on the drafrting side.
>
> Howard:  GA has to be in place.  How to we do that?
>
> Amadeu: GA can only be a mailing list between meetings.  Cannot ask for
> cards or passports.  Reality check: provide a list of those subscribed that
> belong to constituency mailing lists.  People can subscribe to
> dnso-announce and they can then participate on the discussions.  GA was
> born in Berlin from the people who were there.
>
> Cohen? To expect that after outreach there will be a GA of thousands of
> people is dreaming in technicolor.  We probably need more time to get
> working properly.  We aren't well enough organized.
>
> Semich: We need to find people to participate in this process so they won't
> ask what happened a year from now.
>
> MS - We're not going to vote on anything, just establish consensus.  We
> have people watching.  We have outreach first and won't do anything until
> we do outreach first.
>
> VOTING:
> 1.  We announce that we recognize the GA as being existent as defined in
> the ICANN bylaws.
> PASSED, not unanimous
>
> 2. We regard the GA at DNSO.ORG list as being as being the General Assembly
> of the DNSO.
> PASSED
>
> 3.  There will be a mailing list announce@dnso.org (low traffic one-way
> participation) which will be used to broadcast announcements of all
> significant Names Council events and documents.
> (some discussion and confusioh) PASSED
>
> ISSUES RAISED;
> Are we assigning priority to physical meeting or priority to mailing list.
> Should this follow the IETF model? Physical meeting should still be held
> but people will have opportunity to participate other ways. Since NC has
> not yet been fully constituted, how are those in NCDHC supposed to
> participate?
>
> WORKING GROUP OPERATIONAL CRITERIA
> Semich, we need a better mechanism re. working groups.  Some have already
> voted in chairs even though there has been no process.  [Thank you for
> raising that issue.
>
> WG D  changed to a Committee.  Semich, Cohen and Abril will draft working
> group mechanism by July 15.
>
> Schneider - We only need a procedure for people who are voting.
>
> Howard: If 26 people from IBM want to make a proposal, they can do it, but
> that's not consensus but that's one company.  WGs are supposed to make
> proposals to us, we are not supposed to initiate them.
>
> Sola: whatever working groups we create, everything will have to be done in
> the open and anyone who wants to be involved can be.  We might subdivide
> Working Group C.    Anyone who wants to give feedback can.
>
> REPORT ON WORKIKNG GROUP
> Cohen:  Not working.  Deadlines are too short.  Will be roundly criticized
> from all quarters.  Has been some support in ICANN bvoard for postponing
> report.  Greg Crew willing to postpone until NC and procedures are fully
> established so they will not be a sham.
>
> Amadeau - WG A is the same group has already been participating in the WIPO
> process.  We have already expressed our views. WIPO report has been
> extensively reported around the world.  We're not going to get more people
> than have come forward in that process.  No way we
> will get something better than the WIPO participation so I oppose asking
> the ICANN board for any delay.
>
> Bush:  I object to the part that the part that tell the ICANN board to do
> whatever they want to, too open ended recommendation.
>
> [Ken Stubbs joined in remotely]
>
> [My comment: there may be a different set of people who are interested in
> these issues through DNSO participation rather than through WIPO
> consultations.  IMHO, it is unreasonable to cut off this opportunity for
> broader participation and discussion of the WIPO recommendations.  They
> should NOT be passed on to ICANN without careful examination.
>
> Amadeu: We spend too much time arguing over procedural issues.  I think we
> are over that.  I think its too early to ask for further delay.
>
> Semich:  MOVED to accept report and forward it to ICANN.  No second, motion
> dies.
>
> Amadeu: Names Council should ask for an extension only after July 7th
> deadline appears.
>
> ?-:  That Cohen submit a written report electronically.
>
> CREATION OF WORKING GROUPS B and C
>
> [A document was available regarding proposals for the membership,
> structure, and operation of Working Group C.  When, how, by whom this was
> prepared was not clear.]
>
> Sola:  proposes the creation of Working Group C to develop a document
> addressing the following questions:
> 1. Should there be new gtlds?  How many, which, at which speed deployed?
> What should be the mechanism?  Should each new gtld have a specific charteR?
> What should be the registration process? How should new gtlds be managed.
> Is it mandatory to have a new registry?
> Propose 3 deliverables:
>         1. Response to the questions.
>         2. If registry called for, should be description, a call for
> tenders to recommended to be issued by ICANN.  We propose the rules under
> which the should operate.
>         3.  A set of procedures for registration and data maintenance for
> the registry.
>
> Proposes aggressive time schedule.  Proposal has been posted on Names
> Council mailing list?
> Ken:  Has anyone applied for the list who has been rejected.
> Amadeu:  No.  The Names Council has never rejected anyone.   Modem
> interruption. Someone signing off
>
> Membership in WG C - everyone who has applied, but will divide
> participation on the individual questions.
>
> Semich: People need to come up with their own charter and their own focus.
> For example, competitioh is more important than adding new gtlds. For
> example, other countries want to know how to self manage, how will smaller
> ccdtlds be able to compete.  Wait 3 weeks to come up with the proposal.
> Sola:  I have proposed one WG.  You have other issues, You design a
> different WG. The earlier we create working groups so that we can actually
> create comments, helps. Don't block discussion.
>
> Semich:  the working group needs to be self organizing, to come up with
> their own charter.
>
> Semich: Amendment:  Recommend postponing vote on WG C until we have created
> the policies and procedures of participating in a working group.
>
> Cohen: defer a formal vote until the next meeting of the Names Council
> (July 27)
>
> Stubbs:  Adding another delay.  ORSC was able to draft a document in three
> days.  We ought to be able to come up with a policy for working groups in
> less than three weeks. Don't want to get lost in "bureaucratic wrangling".
>
> Bush: This particular work item will take considerable amount of time.  The
> three weeks being asked is not unreasonable.  NC is not suggesting that
> nobody can do anything or speak or draft documents. I suggest procedurally,
> Javier should drop his original motion. which kills the amendment.  He can
> start discussing stuff and then form a working group when there are
> procedures and that doesn't stop informal progress in the meantime.
>
> Sola: I'd like to maintain my proposal.   To start working group C in a
> very open way ....
> Amadeu:  This is chapter 4 from WIPO final report, and ICANN board wanted
> DNSO to submit a report as soon as practical after Santiago. This means
> starting work by September.  August for Europeans is holidays.  So you are
> delaying everything until September.  This group is Rushing through to meet
> an report by a set date, but this is worse
>
> Semich: proposed an amendment to defer working group not be started until
> there are formal procedures to do so.
>
> VOTE: England amendment to defer a decision on the formal creation of
> Working Group C until the next meeting of the Names Council.We have a
> formal vote at the next Names council as to whether to create Working Group
> C.
> First vote:  6:5 in favor of amendment.   Stubbs abstained.
> Revote, now new participants:  6:6 but chair doesn't vote.so 6:5
> FOR:  Englund, Semich, Howard, Cohen, ?
> AGAINST: Shapiro, Amadeu, Anthony (just joining in?), ?,?, ?
> ABSTAIN: Stubbs
> .
> [Initial vote not heard by remote participants..  More discussion and
> clarification.  Revote confusing.  I think final vote was 6:5 against but,
> as an observer, this important vote seemed mishandled and unclear.]
>
> VOTE:  Sola: Working group to procede with charter presented
> 8-3-3 FOR
>
> subject to the rules that future groups will apply to working groups.
> 12 FOR
>
> There was more discussion, but I stopped taking notes here. Given the
> confusion over the wording of votes, over the role of the Names Council,
> the difficulties the remote participants  had hearing the discussion and
> the interruption of voting to discuss and clarify, as Civics 101, I'd give
> this a C.  And didn't someone say early on that the NC wasn't going to vote?
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> End of administrative meeting, beginning of public forum.  I stopped taking
> notes. The agenda was established to discuss Working Groups A, B, C and
> then take up matters discussed in the Administrative meeting.  Instead,
> most comments focused on the process or the lack of same, of putting
> discussion of specific working group items before understanding how the
> recommendations get into the DNSO, without proper notification of the
> topics to meet the time schedule, making decisions before having a fully
> constituted Names Council which lacks representation from any
> non-commercial representatives, unwilling to wait for three weeks until a
> sound, solid process was in place. Time ran out before there was public
> discussion on the individual Working Group agendas.
>
> IMHO, here remains a belief among some NC members that the world at large
> understands these complex issues and knows exactly where to go to track
> them and exactly what to do to participate in these discussions.  I firmly
> assert this is not true.  It is difficult enough for someone following this
> on a daily basis to understand the deadlines, the charter, the scope of
> various working groups, the ways that various policies and structures
> intersect.  Those who call for clear procedures are NOT stalling the
> process. I would lob such criticism back and say that those who are rushing
> the process are preventing others from having time to acquire a necessary
> understanding of the issues and process for participating.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Ellen Rony                                                         Co-author
> The Domain Name Handbook           ____        http://www.domainhandbook.com
> ==========================     ^..^     )6     =============================
> ISBN 0879305150                (oo) -^--                   +1 (415) 435-5010
> erony@marin.k12.ca.us              W   W                         Tiburon, CA
>                Dot com is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208