[ga] [bwg-n-friends] Informal Notes: Names Council Teleconference9/23/99

[Ellen Rony <erony@marin.k12.ca.us>]

UNOFFICIAL, UNAPPROVED, INFORMAL NOTES FROM THE DNSO NAMES COUNCIL
TELECONFERENCE OF 9-23-99

Note:  These notes were made from the Real Audio archives of the
teleconference, posted at  http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso.
Although a sincere effort was made to capture the full discussion, some
comments which could not be clearly heard are not incorporated below.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Three members of the Names Council are not participating in the teleconference.

Ken Stubbs: I get calls on a regular basis asking how this is going to
work, how the whole system is supposed to work and I have to tell them that
I don't have that information yet.

Amadeu: It's simple, the NC will select the best three nominees for the board.

Chair:  NC will focus teleconference on Item 3 (Election of Permanent Names
Council Members) and Item 9 ( Election of ICANN Board Members) of the
posted agenda.


3. Election of Permanent Names Council Members

ICANN has received 4 applications for permanent recognition of constituency
groups, one application for a geographic waiver and are considering a
second..

* gTLD - only one member, hasn't adopted any formal procedures.  ICANN
board likely will approve without any problem.

* NCDNH - duplicate of proposal that board accepted in Santiago along with
a commitment to hold elections within 6 months.  Fine with board so long as
next 6 months will be used for outreach.  During that kind of period, the
ICANN board intends to make the Names Council a permanent NC for purposes
of electing DNSO representatives to the ICANN board even if one or two of
the constituencies haven't held permanent elections for their NC
representatives, and those constituencies won't be precluded from voting
and wont have their votes be diluted because they haven't held their
permanent elections.  Board seems willing to go along with that.

* IP and business constituencies.  Difficult to get all the ICANN  board
for a teleconference.  We were hoping to do all applications together in a
package.  Have routed around that. - went to board's executive committee
and they are okay with that, with a caveat that it's okay if they want to
impose an additional geographic requirement above bylaws requirement.
Citizenship is the test for geographic diversity..  Three NC
representatives
IP has an ambiguity in the bylaws to make clear about the test for
geographic diversity.

*  cctld has held elections and two of the three have come from countries
in Europe.  Rob Hall submitted a geographic diversity waiver.  Used STD
procedure and Rob Hall was third member.  Board has agreed to a 90-day
waiver only.   Less burdensome option is adjusting STD transferable vote
rules that they used, which would mean replacing the third highest vote
getter with another from a different region.

*  registrars have sent informal waiver because accreditation is not
geographically diverse and that forms basis for waiver request.  ICANN
gives the sense that it will agree on a 90-day basis.

*  ISPs - no application received by ICANN board to the best of my
knowledge.  (someone said that ICANN has received it).

Bottom line is that the board really wants to enforce geographic diversity
provisions.  The sense that if the ICANN board is not even-handed in
applying those rules, there will be some feeling of favoritism.

Amadeu: we thought September 15 deadline is for amendments to the charter.
Andrew McLaughlin M:  You should all send a formal application even if it
is the same as the original charter.

Board is sensitive to fact that there are unfairnesses  and bizarre results
created by the geographic diversity requirements.  Board is interested
doing a full scale review of that policy but comments have been few and far
in between in reviewing that policy and will make a concerted effort to get
public comment before Los Angeles meeting.  There is a waiver provision if
the registrar really can't make it work.

Executive committee may meet by Internet as early as today to see if
revisions are necessary.

Don Telage:  Isn't the registrar issue example similar  to that of the gtld
constituency in that it's hard to impose diversity when there aren't
sufficient members in each region.

Ken Stubbs:  Want to be clear on what does the 90-day waiver means.  You're
telling us is that any election that we hold today, with respect to any
potential exception that is created for this election, would be tolerated
for 90 days, and if two members of the registrar constituency were
according to ICANN bylaws  citizens of the same region even if they
represent corporations and be residents in another region,  that situation
would be allowed for 90 days and then would have to be remedied.  Correct?

Andrew McLaughlin:  For sure the registrars and ccTLDs can have a 90-day
waiver essentially to get us through this election period without too much
disruption.  If registrar constituency concluded that it needs a permanent
waiver on the grounds of impracticability, which is the standard in the
bylaws, the registrars should make that waiver request, but ICANN will want
them to find a way to comply.

Jonathan Cohen:  We are going to be requesting a waiver of short duration
because we didn't decide until London ten days ago the fundamentals of our
constitution and now have a backlog of more new members than existing
members and we want to give them a proper election.  What we did is confirm
our current members, we will hold new elections no later than March 31,
2000.

Andrew McLaughlin:  Executive committee is giving waivers to others, most
likely will give it to IP.  Don't feel comfortable speaking for them.  I
think the board will grant final accreditation subject to holding final
elections with some specific time.

Ken Stubbs:  with respect to registrar constituencies and I'm going to
treat it as status quo for 90 days.

Andrew McLaughlin:  Proceed under plans you have been operating under.
Assume that the geographic diversity requirement is waived as to one
person.  We should take up off line what to do after that 90 days.

Reports on individual constituency elections:

	ISP - will have three new NC members in time for the ICANN
elections.  Candidates will come from three different regions.
	cctld - Three now on NC will be the same at the time of the ICANN
elections.
business - NC elections will be held before elections for the ICANN board.
Will not be the same people who are now on the NC
	gtld - Don Telage again;  "Last three people I tried to appoint to
this job quit in protest, so I guess I'll have to stay on the job"
	NCDNH - will be same ones now on NC during elections
registrars - currently running election; new members by October 8
	IP - three we have now will be there until new elections are held.

Andrew McLaughlin:  Names Council should think about whether revision to
geographic diversity requirement should be changed and how to do it.  GAC
is coming up with some diversity advice across the board , both for At
Large and SO level.

Jonathan Cohen:  Concerned that the board, by pushing for new NC elections
before the ICANN board meeting who not only don't have NC experience but
also may not be in a position to know new candidates as well as one may
like on an election of this import.

Item #9: ICANN elections
Andrew McLaughlin:  Board intends to approve these amendments.  Staff has
posted five different amendments to clarify and make easier to get SO
elected directors on the ICANN board.  15-day notification is now a 7-day
notification period, to allow SO directors an additional week to elect
directors in October.  Aggregate rules on geographic diversity will be
borne by on the At Large side.  Its not feasible to tell SOs which regions
are first in sequence.  SOs should have autonomy within the bounds of the
rules.

Art 6, Section 4.  No one can serve simultaneously as SO director and ICANN
board member.  We thought that this was implied in bylaws.  Basic principle
of conflict of interest:  Nominees cannot participate in any discussion or
vote of the SO council relating to election of directors.
Restatement of provision of geographic diversity extended to ASO and PSO.

Don Telage:  I can see the intent of the provision.  Disturbed to have it
characterized as a clarification.  It has stronger import and it represents
a significant change.

Amadeu: a question about having non-voting members attending meetings.

No objections raised.

Stubbs:  Candidates don't lose their status on the NC if they aren't
elected for the ICANN board.

Don Telage: What is rationale for barring a constituent from voting.  If
the gTLD constituency nominated me for a board seat, that constituency
would have no vote for that election.

Andrew McLaughlin:  Justification is the basic principle of conflict of
interest is that when you are a member of a council that makes policy
decisions or things of nature, members should not vote for matters on which
they have an interest in that outcome.  People on the inside have
advantages over those on the outside.  e.g., they can swap votes.  Concern
that the SO elections would be very closed and have significant advantages
for those on the inside.
Not the board's intention to deprive anyone of a vote.  Each constituency
can choose Names Council members in any way they want, so if someone wants
to run for the board, that NC should select another individual who serves
on the NC during the election process.

Amadeu:  We are running our nomination process in parallel, so you are not
a member of anything during that period.  On October 8, you are depriving
them because you don't have time to run a new election and select someone
else.

Ken Stubbs:  There are situations where the SOs have a very limited
representation by certain regions.  If someone who is a member of an SO is
also in a specific region, you then minimize their ability to represent
their region in the election.

Don Telage:  The focus is not from an individual point of view.  We are
representing in most cases large classes of participants, so the focus
should be on what impact these changes would have on the constituency
itself, rather than on a particular individual.

Theresa Swinehart:  On universities, when committees need to vote on issues
and say the parent of one of the students is on that committee,  the parent
will step aside during that voting period.  Is it only the individual who
been nominated who abstains from voting or the whole constituency who
cannot vote?

Andrew McLaughlin: An individual who has a stake in the outcome should not
vote.  I can understand the constituencies setting up a requirement that in
the event the NC representative is nominated for the ICANN board, the
administrative committee can appoint a temporary representative to the
names Council consistent with the geographic diversity requirements.

Jonathan Cohen:  To suggest that by having anyone on the NC who chooses to
accept the nomination cannot vote changes nothing.

Theresa  or Caroline:  You are arguing about an unfair advantage.  There is
also an unfair advantage for the constituencies that are all developed who
represent certain interests not to be able to vote for the ICANN board.
There are strong competing unfair advantages.

Amadeu:  Need to have all constituencies represented in full force for this
decision.  Not enough time to find replacements for this election.  Perhaps
should not apply it for this election.  I don't feel that these changes are
coming in a bottom up fashion.  This is a top down decision from the board
and I have seen very little support for this from the general membership.

Ken Stubbs:  The board should say who is making that decision.  We need to
understand the logic behind this.  It would be very difficult for
constituencies to change their bylaws to allow for a substitution in such a
short time.   Also concerned with disenfranchisement of constituencies.

Andrew McLaughlin:  Idea is not to disenfranchise any constituency,  just
individuals who are in a conflict of interest situation.

Stubbs:  You are asking us to conduct a Chinese fire deal.  Not giving us
enough time to deal legitimately with this change.

Andrew McLaughlin: Public is afraid that the fix is in and that the DNSO
will choose three of its own and will do some internal horse trading.
Where you have a personal stake in the outcome of the vote, you should not
be allowed to participate in the vote.

Theresa:  If this concern is being raised outside the NC, and the concern
is about a capture of the NC, we need to take a look at that.  Whoever is
on the board is representing the DNSO in its entirety, so whoever is on the
board, they have an obligation toward the entire DNSO as part of their
responsibility to the ICANN board.

Schneider:  Who are making these suggestions?  I think the board is being
lobbied by a few individuals.  No objection in principle to the intent but
I think changing the rules in the middle of the process is unwise because
people might have made different decisions  if they had known.  Want to
clarify if Administrative Committee can appoint a temporary NC member
purely for the purposes of the election.

Andrew McLaughlin:  That is what we would hope but this isn't yet a done
deal and we have to wait for the comments.  Even with the pressing nature
of the elections, we have to wait and read the comments of the SOs and NC.

Amadeu:  We need agreement that this does not affect voting rights of
constituencies but only of the individuals.

Andrew McLaughlin:  This is not the way we like to go about making
significant policy changes like this.  In the best case, we would have
thought of this six months ago.

Item # - Election Process.

End of Real Audio.

............................................................................
Ellen Rony                         ____             The Domain Name Handbook
Co-author		       ^..^     )6     http://www.domainhandbook.com
+1 (415) 435-5010    	       (oo) -^--                     ISBN 0879305150
Tiburon, CA                        W   W               erony@marin.k12.ca.us
	   DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
............................................................................

............................................................................
Ellen Rony                         ____             The Domain Name Handbook
Co-author		       ^..^     )6     http://www.domainhandbook.com
+1 (415) 435-5010    	       (oo) -^--                     ISBN 0879305150
Tiburon, CA                        W   W               erony@marin.k12.ca.us
	   DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
............................................................................