<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] NC telecon, 24 January 2001, minutes
[ To: council@dnso.org
[ To: ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org ]
[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010124.NCtelecon-minutes.html ]
ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 24 January 2001 - minutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 January 2001
Proposed agenda and related documents:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010124.NCtelecon-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD
Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD
Philip Sheppard Business
Theresa Swinehart Business
Hirofumi Hotta ISPCP (arrived late)
Tony Harris ISPCP (joined at 22:10, proxy for M.Schneider)
Michael Schneider ISPCP
Erica Roberts Registrars
Ken Stubbs Registrars
Paul Kane Registrars
Roger Cochetti gTLD
Caroline Chicoine IP
Axel Aus der Muhlen IP
Guillermo Carey IP (left at 23:39 and rejoined later)
Youn Jung Park NCDNH
Dany Vandromme NCDNH
Zakaria Amar NCDNH absent
Louis Touton ICANN staff
Maca Jamin Scribe
Quorum present at 22:09 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +1:00
during the winter in the North hemisphere)
Minutes of the meeting.
K. Stubbs, who chaired a NC meeting for the last time, opened the meeting by
welcoming all participants. He expressed his pleasure in working as a Chair
trying to help DNSO process to move forward. Due to a rather heavy agenda,
he urged the participants to respect time slots allocated to each item.
* Agenda Item 1. Confirmation of scribe and audio recording of the
meeting
Scribe was confirmed and it was decided to explore further
possibilities of arranging audio recordings of the NC
teleconference meetings.
* Agenda Item 2. Approval of the Agenda
Y.J. Park wished to add an agenda item on establishment of a
working group on individuals constituency.
K. Stubbs recalled that there is an item 13 on the Agenda
examining GA request for "NC to consider an Individuals
Constituency", and not a setting up of a working group.
To clarify a discussion Ph. Sheppard quoted Agenda procedure
document (version August 4th, 2000) concerning last minute
suggestions:
Last minute. In case of issues arising subsequent to the
above timetable, NC members will be able to propose items for
any other business at the start of an NC meeting. Such items
will be accepted for discussion that day or deferred to the
IC at the discretion of the NC chair.
It was decided to consider Y.J. Park's suggested item under A.O.B.
and, if no time available, to postpone a discussion to the next
meeting.
* Agenda Item 3. Nominations for NC Chair for period February - July 2001
(New Chair will propose NC meeting dates for March - Dec 2001 by end
January)
C. Chicoine moved the motion, second by E. Porteneuve, to elect
Ph. Sheppard as the Names Council Chair for the period February -
July 2001.
Decision D1:
Ph. Sheppard was unanimously elected as Names Council Chair
for the period February - July 2001 by 15 votes in favour, no
opposition and no abstentions.
Ph. Sheppard thanked the Council for their confidence and informed
that calendar of the NC meetings for the whole period of his
mandate will be provided at the end of January 2001.
He also mentioned objectives the NC is to achieve during this
coming period after having had, up to now, successfully
consolidated its procedures and functioning:
+ Move strongly forward on issues the NC and DNSO consider as
essential to its role and impact on further development of
ICANN
+ Develop and put in place the DNSO business plan
* Agenda Item 4. Approval of the Summary of the 19th December Meeting
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001219.NCtelecon-minutes.html
Decision D2:
The minutes of the Names Council teleconference of December
19th were approved by 16 votes in favour, no opposition and
no abstentions.
* Agenda Item 5. NC Minutes - approval and publication process
E. Roberts described her proposal designed to ensure a simple
approval process for publishing of the NC meetings Minutes and to
comply with ICANN Bylaws:
* require scribe to provide a Chair with the notes within
7 days
* 3 days for chair to finalise a text and send it to the
NC
* if no comments received in 7 days, the Minutes should be
deemed approved. In case of a disagreement it would be
the Chair's responsibility to complete the process
within the 21 days time frame and submit them for
agreement.
No additional approval by the NC is needed and the Chair is
ultimate authority and the objections could be raised at the
next meeting.
E. Porteneuve observed that 21 days time limit is rather short and
that setting up of such a strict scheme could become a
considerable constraint. She spoke in favour of more flexible
approach.
P. Kane suggested accepting E. Roberts' idea on a temporary basis
and reviewing a process later, if needed.
On C. Chocoine's question which time slot seemed more
problematical, E.Porteneuve responded that 2 or 3 days given to
the secretariat to publish the Minutes is rather short, taking
inot account travel, weekends, holiday period etc.
C. Chicoine pointed out that the period of time that looks short
is one allocated to a Chair, who has a great responsibility in the
process.
Ph.Sheppard found timetable 7+3+7 rather realistic and he proposed
to test and respect the scheme during his mandate.
K. Stubbs suggested giving more time to Chair: 5 days instead of
only 3.
C. Chicoine stressed that if objections occur a Chair will have to
work with other parties, but a calendar, set in advance, could
help in planning different stages of the process.
L. Touton recalled two requirements of the Bylaws :
Article VI section 2h (requires publishing but not formal
approval of the Minutes not later than 21 days):
"The NC shall post minutes to a web site that is available
for public access as soon as practicable following the
meeting, and not later than 21 days following the meeting"
And Article III section 2a:
"All minutes of meetings of the Board, Supporting
Organizations (and any councils thereof) and Committees shall
be approved promptly by the originating body."
E. Roberts suggested putting in place on-line approval process.
Ph. Sheppard proposed public posting of the Minutes within 21
days.
L.Touton suggested that to satisfy the Bylaws include into the
decision: "approval by the Names Council at the following
meeting".
Decision D3:
The NC is taking a temporary motion, to be changed if
necessary (moved by P. de Blanc second Ph. Sheppard).
The NC Minutes approval and publication process will be as
follows:
* Not later than 7 days - a scribe will draft and send
notes to the Chair,
* Not later than 5 days - a Chair will finalise a text,
* Not later than 7 days - a chair will resolve conflicting
points,
* Notes will be made public within 21 days and approved by
the NC.
The motion was adopted with 16 votes in favour, no opposition and
no abstentions.
* Agenda item 6: Nominations for the Independent Review Panel nominations
committee
(see http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00622.html
Independent Review Panel Nominating Committee).
+ http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00577.html,
Louis Pouzin and Olivier Iteanu (proposal by Elisabeth
Porteneuve supported by Dany Vandromme)
+ http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00578.html,
Scott Hemphill (proposal by Ken Stubbs supported by Caroline
Chicoine)
As the party to a nomination process of DNSO candidates, K. Stubbs
stepped dawn as a Chair and asked Ph. Sheppard to moderate
discussions on this topic.
L. Touton, who has provided a written information on the matter,
as requested by E. Roberts at the December 19th Call, informed the
Council about the nominations already made by other Supporting
Organisations:
* ASO has nominated two people from Asia/Pacific Region
* PSO has nominated one person from Asia/Pacific Region
He reiterated that two persons from DNSO are needed and that it is
the Names Council responsibility to make final nominations (there
are no requirements concerning a regional diversity).
K. Stubbs provided information on Scott Hemphill, a candidate he
proposed to become a member of the IRC Nominating Committee.
S. Hemphill is an attorney with an extensive knowledge of DNS and
ICANN process. As a general counsel for an ICANN accredited
registrar, he will contribute to development of ICANN work
E. Porteneuve also briefly presented the two candidates she has
proposed:
+ Louis Pouzin, involved with the French packed network, active
within standardisation bodies, Internet Society and familiar
with ICANN work would move forward ICANN matters.
+ Olivier Iteanu, French lawyer specialised in Internet
matters, president of French Chapter of Internet Society, an
experienced person, will bring new dynamics to ICANN work.
She also suggested, as there are three candidates 1 form USA and 2
from Europe, to choose one from each region.
L.Touton asked if there are any other nominations to be made at
this meeting.
No other names were proposed as candidates for IRC Nominating
Committee.
E. Porteneuve suggested to choose S. Hemphill and O. Iteneau as
members of the IRC Nominating Committee and to consider L. Pouzin
as a potential candidate for the Independent Review Panel.
P. de Blanc supported the motion.
L. Touton recalled that IRPNomCom's responsibility is to nominate
members to the Independent Review Panel. To complete a process all
nominations are subject to confirmation by the ICANN Board.
Decision D4:
The NC appointed Scott Hemphill and Olivier Iteanu as members
of the IRC Nominating Committee.
Decision was adopted unanimously by 16 votes in favour, no
opposition and no abstentions.
* Agenda item 7: Budget Committee - recommendation on 2001 budget and
coinstituency contributions
o Status of Constituencies Contributions to the DNSO for 1999 and
2000
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001206.ICANN-DNSO-budget.html
K. Stubbs asked R. Cochetti to moderate this agenda item.
R. Cochetti recalled three points on which the NC should decide:
7.1 liability to AFNIC (services provided during year 2000)
7.2 Proposed budget for year 2001
7.3 Constituencies? dues
7.1 Budget Committee has reviewed liability to AFNIC and proposes
to pay AFNIC for provided services amounting to $59,400 on the
receipt of the invoice and under the following conditions
(accepted by AFNIC):
+ Provision of services at no cost during a three-month
transition period
+ A satisfactory report to the NC on the intellectual property
rights that the DNSO has acquired from AFNIC's work.
+ Provision to the NC by AFNIC of a report on how AFNIC's costs
should be allocated among the elements of the DNSO
K. Stubbs drew the attention of the Council not to open Pandora?s
box and have other organisations also claim money for the services
provided in the past, as no formal agreement exists between the
two parties.
R. Cochetti stressed the transparency aspect of the services
provided by AFNIC and a notice sent in advance stating their
intention to end provision of services. Both sides failed to take
the steps they should have to set up a formal relationship. He
agreed that we cannot guarantee that no one will claim payments,
but thought this will not prejudice to the NC.
K. Stubbs underlined a superior quality of AFNIC services and made
clear that his remark does not reflect their appreciation but only
concerns the process as such. He invited the Council to formalise
arrangements for services provided in the future
P. Kane insisted that AFNIC should be paid once clarifications
made. He also questioned when the three-month AFNIC transition
period begins and asked whether there was time available to select
a new provider of web and listserv hosting services.
R. Cochetti mentioned different possibilities:
+ 3-month transition period starts on January 1st 2001,
+ 3-month transition period starts upon the receipt of a
payment.
P. de Blanc informed that the AFNIC services ended on December
31st 2000 and that DNSO should be paying for them as soon as
possible.
E. Porteneuve confirmed that the transition period starts as of
January 1st 2001.
K. Stubbs supported P. Kane's proposal to pay AFNIC.
Decision D5:
(motion moved by K. Stubbs and second by Ph. Sheppard)
The Names Council Chair (Ph. Sheppard according to the
results of the election at this meeting) will instruct ICANN
to make a payment upon a receipt of two compliant reports and
after the following conditions have been met:
+ Services provided at no cost during interim period,
+ A satisfactory report from AFNIC on the IP acquired by
the DNSO,
+ Additional report on how AFNIC'S costs should be
allocated within the DNSO.
7.2 Proposed budget for year 2001
R. Cochetti commented operating budget for year 2001 divided into
two categories:
i. Voluntary contributions
It is difficult to estimate the amount of voluntary
contributions as no clear process on how to raise those
contributions is in place yet. The Budget Committee has
therefore not maid any recommendations.
ii. Funding by dues is the basis of the 2001 budget. They take
into account all late payments yet to come. Contingency will
permit more flexibility in allocating money to different
actions considered important and not forecasted.
In order to meet expenses amounting to $ 107,600 and
expecting the number of DNSO Constituency staying unchanged
(7) due per Constituency for 2001 will amount to $15,371.
T. Harris found the provisional budget excellent but pointed out
that the amount of $30,000 allocated to web site and list serve
maintenance seemed rather high compared to only $10,000 allocated
for translation of documents.
R. Cochetti insisted that this should be considered as an approach
showing budget categories only. The Budget Committee recommends
that NC develop some criteria for translations. As to the list
serve, not all the money have to be spent but it must kept in mind
that the management of the lists serve is not only a silent
process but includes management of the rather costly voting
process for ICANN Board Directors.
Ph. Sheppard asked for the clarification as to the increase of
Constituency dues.
K. Stubbs responded that this budget is based on existing
Constituencies and any newly formed Constituency will pay its due
on pro rata based conditions.
D. Vandromme reiterated his request, already made at the Marina
del Rey meeting for a 50% reduction for Non Commercial
Constituency due.
The NC has taken a note of this request.
L. Touton inquired if there is a practical report on voluntary
funding.
R. Cocheti recalled the NC decision to accept voluntary donations.
Budget Committee will submit a complete plan on how to employ this
part of the revenue later.
P. Kane suggested that NC examine specific expenses in more
details and takes budget expenses listed here as information.
R. Cochetti restated that these are only budgetary category items,
and when the NC will have a professional support the more specific
financial reports will be provided regularly.
First attempt to vote on the budget failed and those who have
abstained provided explanation of their vote:
+ D. Vandromme: cannot commit the Non Commercial constituency
with such a high due.
+ Ph. Sheppard: Budget Committee reached a decision in
principle on an assumption to collect the 2001 dues from the
Constituencies who have not paid their 2000 dues yet.
+ H. Hotta: due to his late arrival has not had a chance to
follow a discussion.
E. Roberts suggested taking separate votes on constituencies' dues
and on indicative budget for year 2001.
R. Cochetti disagreed explaining that those two points are linked
as we have to start collecting the money and start sending out
invoices for year 2001.
K. Stubbs called the NC to vote on a Budget Committee report:
The motion did not pass: with 7 votes in favour (de Blanc,
Porteneuve, Caray, Cochetti, Stubbs, Chicoine, Aus der Muhlen), 9
abstentions (Sheppard, Hotta, Harris, Schneider (by proxy)
Swinehart, Roberts, Kane, Park, Vandromme), and no vote against.
K. Stubbs expressed his deep disappointment in not reaching a
decision on this topic. He also inquired on when the report was
circulated to the Council members.
E. Porteneuve informed that it was on 24th January.
Due to a short time given to the NC to consider this issue, K.
Stubbs suggested to organise a special teleconference very soon,
aimed at reaching an agreement on a DNSO budget.
P. de Blanc invited the Council to come up with some kind of
agreement on a budget first and see later about the Constituency
contributions. In his opinion there is an urgent need to do
something concerning this matter.
R. Cochetti suggested differing further discussion to the next
meeting allowing NC members to study a report more thoroughly.
Th. Swinehart thanked the Budget Committee for a valuable work
they have done. She also indicated that as a Constituency
representative she could not commit the Constituency by a vote
before checking that the Constituency can pay its due. She agreed
with K Stubbs? proposal to schedule another call within a week and
recommended that everybody participating in that call make a
decision on Constituency funds
At this point (23:39) G. Carey left a call for a half an hour.
* Agenda item 8: Review Process.
o Preliminary report of NC Review Task Force (Theresa Swinehart) -
30 mins
o Working Group - request for extension of deadline, clarification
of terms of reference (YJ Park - 10 mins)
Documents referenced in
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/wgreview-history.html
Th.Swinehart summed up briefly different stages of the Review
process. (E. Porteneuve prepared WG review - History in the Making
to be found on: http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review-history.html
)
An interim report was circulated on 21st January 2001, which
included all contributions received from: Constituencies,
individual contributors and WG Review.
She thanked all those, who by their contributions moved a process
forward and mentioned main points expressed in comments such as :
* DNSO structure and its overall performance,
* Discussion of Constituencies (additional information needed),
* GA interest in forming an individuals Constituency,
* WGs their drawbacks and benefits,
* NC structure and procedures,
* Secretariat,
* Outreach and translation of documents.
As stated in a press release issued after the December 19th call,
WG submitted comments on 15th January (extension of the initial
schedule set for January 6th). Additional comments will be added
to the first version and version 2 posted for public comment
(January 26th - February 6th).Comments received will be
incorporated and report sent to ICANN Board who will post a
document for another public comment period.
K. Stubbs opened a discussion inviting participants to make brief
interventions.
C. Chicoine proposed to send her comment by e-mail to Th.
Swinehart (copy to the NC).
Y.J. Park requested the extension of a deadline to enable WG
Review to continue their work. She insisted that the draft version
should not go for public comment and the process should be
continued in order to come up with some conclusions.
Th. Swinehart recalled that the Task Force collected information
based on a Questionnaire and incorporated all of them into the
Interim report (reference is given to all comments encouraging
readers to consult them). She indicated that the WG Review has
done a tremendous job, but objected appreciation of the report.
T. Harris and P. Kane congratulated Theresa for her work and
offered to send their comments by e-mail.
Th. Swinehart said, as this is a DNSO report, that more time to
comment on Interim report will be available.
P. Kane urged the WG Review to send comments on Interim report and
by doing so permit their inclusion into the final version.
Y.J. Park stated that the WG Review would like to provide
recommendations, which could not be finalised by 26th January.
P. de Blanc, as a participant in WG discussions, suggested to
append to Th. Swinehart?s document those issues on which the WG
Review has reached polling stage, without looking for resolutions.
Discussion focused on timetable, which apparently cannot be
changed, and K. Stubbs reminded the participants on the decision
taken on December 19th Call:
Decision D4 (December 19th):
- establish a Review Working Group, chaired by Y.J. Park
- make the "terms of reference" "responding to the RTF
questionnaire"
- make the lifetime of the WG January 15th
- ask the group to report by January 15th to the NC Review
Task Force.
- issue a press release immediately to encourage
participation in this WG.
Ph. Sheppard invited the meeting to make a distinction between the
WG action in responding to the Questionnaire and the solutions
finding process. He also mentioned the excellent job the WG has
done in making outreach and in increasing the DNSO review process.
Th. Swinehart reminded that we have to follow the schedule in
order to meet public comment period (an extension of a deadline
was already provided by the Board).
Y.J.Park expressed some observations as to the Review Task Force
rules.
K. Stubbs noted the diversity of opinions and stressed that we
have to follow the agreed timetable. He encouraged further
comments, in particular those coming from the WG Review , be
submitted during the public comment period.
P. de Blanc proposed, when posting the report, prepared by Th.
Swinehart, to DNSO, to append existing 6-9 polling items of the WG
Review (second by P. Kane).
E. Portenueve appreciated P. de Blanc's initiative and thanked
both Th. Swinehart and Y.J. Park for their work. She also said,
that this is certainly not the last time the DNSO has put in place
a review process.
Y.J. Park mentioned that Greg Burton was elected a WG co-Chair
(she will be acting as a liaison Chair).
K.Stubbs pointed out excellent job G. Burton has done and invited
him to take this opportunity and incorporate excellent
contributions the WG has collected.
Th. Swinehart said that during phase two the WG could come up with
resolutions on specific issues.
Decision D6:
(Motion moved by P. de Blanc)
Append to Th. Swinehart Interim report whatever topic items
exist, or 6-9 polling items, of the WG Review and post them
together for public comment, 26th January - 9th February
2001.
K. Stubbs suggested that G.Burton forwards information to Th.
Swinehart.
The motion passed with 15 votes in favour (including G. Carey who
rejoined the meeting at 00:14), one vote against (Y.J. Park) and
no abstentions.
Y.J. Park stated that it is impossible for Review TF to come up
with its Interim report within two days from now.
Y.J Park also stated that the current version should be posted in
the name of an individual, Theresa Swinehart, instead of a Review
TF, who doesn't provide proper, open and formal channel of
discussion among the full members and excludes some member's
comments upon her own decision rather than seeking Review TF's
full agreement.
Subsequent to the meeting Y.J. Park has sent her apologies and
asked to withdraw this last observation.
Due to the late hours, K. Stubbs proposed to close this meeting
and to call another one very soon to tackle all Agenda items not
covered at this meeting, including the DNSO budget. He insisted
that the items have to be taken up before a month period (P. de
Blanc second that motion).
Th. Swinehart suggested choosing a date.
Ph. Sheppard agreed to arrange a call in two weeks time.
E. Porteneuve drew the NC attention to numerous meetings the
ccTLDs will hold during the coming month, the main reason why she
had suggested February 26th as a date for the NC meeting in the
first place.
K. Stubbs concluded that an hour call be organised in one week
time and encouraged everybody to come up with decisions.
He closed the meeting by expressing his pleasure in continuing to
work as a member of the NC and thanked all participants for their
contributions.
End of the meeting 00:22 CET.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information from: © DNSO Names Council
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|