[ga] Notes from yesterday's DNSO conference call.

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

Forwarded on behalf of Alexander Svensson: "These are not 
word-for-word transcriptions, but notes. They reflect what I 
understood, not necessarily what has been said. I would ask all 
participants who feel that their remarks have been misrepresented to 
comment on the notes."


[14:03:44] ltouton: board thinks that wls should be considered within broader 
framework. resolution not intended to restricted nc approach.
[14:18:31] recommendation 9 discussion. 
mcade: strong disagreement with limiting participation of stakeholders once 
defined as stakeholders.
hfeld: perception that icann wedded more to private interests. individual and 
noncommercial users should have formalized role.
rcochetti: no exclusion of stakeholders, but consensus process led by most 
affected. sole difference between text and gtld registry position: not in who 
gets to participate. difference in expectation of leadership of consensus 
process. e.g. in cctld issues, cctld registries should have leadership role. 
could add sentence to recommendation 9.
[14:24:25] kstubbs: stakeholder: who has a specific interest; who is a 
beneficiary or affected. agree with rcochetti: those who should be most 
proactive in policy creation are those most significantly impacted by those 
policies. 
btonkin: support concept; need to make recommendations that make a difference, 
not describe status quo. consensus process itself needs to be clearly defined. 
if we have a clear process, we'll work much more efficiently.
[14:29:54] mcade: bc could support clear process based on consensus. cannot 
support document that says we can discern who are the most affected parties. 
troessler: "leading" can mean secretarial function. this would be best provided 
by neutral party. "leading" can also mean who leads the discussion, makes most 
important points: self-evident that those most affected should drive it 
forward. agree with last point, but not manage.
hfeld: emphasize need for more formalizing individual and noncommercial 
participation.
[14:36:34] rcochetti: word that has been used: "manage the consensus process" 
to develop. leadership clearly means leading the management process. cannot 
imagine anyone wrt own organisation, that consensus development should be done 
by parties with no interest in it. cannot be done by random or political or 
whatever process. document is high-level collection of principles.
kstubbs: to understand legislation, lawyers look back to legislation process - 
sad that stuart and others invited not present at the moment. in the past, 
constituencies have attributed impacts on themselves purely to create alliance 
on issues they care about.
jsevans: imperative that board manages process. whether they serve as chair of 
the committee… staffed with staff liaisons… they need to be more active.
tholmes: struggle with words rcochetti proposes. without mechanism to judge who 
is most affected, not helpful.
mcade: cannot support "led by those most affected". move on, discuss how 
policy-making can be done. 
jsevans: in no way suggesting that policy made on the board level. should be 
handled, managed. problem with recommendation 9: same mantra heard all along; 
nothing new added.
mcade: not agreeing with status quo, but cannot get to detailed suggestions on 
policy development in this call.
[14:50:37] discussion of "coordinated" vs. "led"
rcochetti: would abstain
hfeld: comfortable if policy development will be addressed and that "managed by 
the board" does not mean elevating policy formulation to the board.
mcade: if clear that "managed" has ministerial meaning, okay.
btonkin: want clearly defined process. 
[coordinated stricken; second phrase added.]
[14:55:19] Recommendation 12 on ccTLDs.
hfeld: comfortable if policy development will be addressed.
rcochetti: link between 12 and 13 important from gtld registries view. strike 
second part of recommendation 13; symmetry. dnso enormously complicated 
institution with enormous difficulties and some strengths. we would have to get 
down to what we are endorsing. 
eporteneuve: there is de facto no symmetry at all. each cctld operates in its 
own country, currently has own national icann where policy is developed. cannot 
see symmetry today. maybe there will be convergence. 
mcade: don't consider it politically feasible to treat cctlds and gtlds in the 
same way. governments have little interest to change their relationship with 
their cctld in the way proposed by gtld registries constituency. disparity, 
different obligations. want positive relationship with cctlds.
kstubbs: there are country codes resembling gtlds hiding under the cctld cloak, 
e.g. .cc or .nu.
[15:07:59] 
[Recommendation 12 - ccTLDs. Create a new advisory body for the ccTLDs. This 
would need means of collaborative decision making with the gTLD advisory body 
on relevant areas of policy.
Recommendation 13 - gTLDs. Create a new advisory body for the gTLDs. This would 
need means of collaborative decision making with the ccTLD advisory body on 
relevant areas of policy.]
accepted
[15:11:42] 
psheppard, asvensson, aharris, btonkin, eporteneuve, eshankman, eiriarte, 
gdestgery, gforsyth, hfeld, jsevans, gruth, mcade, kstubbs, orobles, rcochetti, 
troessler, tholmes, slynn, jsims, apisanty
slynn: appreciate time. hope that it is clear by now that reform document was 
intended as starting point of the discussion to move on reasonably rapidly. 
most of the community told me that problems are correctly identified. we will 
listen carefully. if it sounds like I'm critical of process, I'm not critical 
of participants. each of you invents lots of volunteer time; this should be 
less devoted to issues of process. concern wrt names council: brings together 
very different constituencies, even within constituencies. need to see more 
coming through the process. difficult for organizations to change themselves. 
impressed by thoughtful dialogue. 
apisanty: have read drafts and constituency positions. interested in points 
where there is agreement and disagreement.
mcade: by now; have received feedback on areas with much and little support?
slynn: so difficult to answer, some come in privately, some publicly. some 
aspects of uniformity across the organization criticized. most criticism and 
misunderstanding about government representatives (actually nominees). how to 
ensure that public interest reflected? notion of government funding - was sort 
of a challenge: if not government funding, what else.
hfeld: ncdnhc discussion along two separate lines: first, interest in board 
delineating where its authority does not run. secondly, positive response to 
itu letter.
slynn: try to arrive at process that works. if we are sure that we can be 
careful that change over time is anticipated, should consider. e.g. taxation, 
content. challenge is to find realistic and sufficiently flexible area of icann 
should do. many want thin icann, thin around the issues they care.
mcade: see very little interest on part of most stakeholders in stronger 
government support. most people familiar with itu see that its balkanized, old-
world telecommunications-driven org that's trying to change. feedback on itu?
slynn: do not believe that have received support for itu proposal.
tholmes: no support from isp/cp for itu involvement in this environment. 
[15:32:20] 
psheppard: all i can say from own experience: icann fast and efficient compared 
to intergovernmental organization. should not look to igos for best practice.
tholmes: we see gac as group that has to be involved. would like to see it 
functioning in a way where there could be meaningful dialogue with other parts 
of icann.
eporteneuve: appreciate positive comments, but icann has not been acting fast 
as international forum, wrt to cctlds. issues are probably much more difficult 
and request executive decisions (which takes long time on an international 
level). itu working as international forum. after three years and something 
still no contract between cctlds and icann. 
psheppard. special role or interaction with gac in ccso?
eporteneuve: work in progress. in europe, we are permanently in contact with 
gac.
mcade: support isp statement. changes in how gac interacts with other parts of 
icann. within usa, governments talks with private sector when there is a 
crisis, not on an ongoing basis. governments should be supportive of icann; 
e.g. ex officio position on the board.
eshankman: nominating committee. defer to later.
jsevans: ipc cannot support itu taking over; have not heard support from 
governments for government nominations.
tharris: concerned about comments that governments represent public interest. 
not in all countries.
slynn: hope for specific suggestions for improving relationship with gac. if we 
like it or not, question is not whether government are involved, but what is 
the best way. think through how recommendations provide solutions to these 
problems. work in international environment is difficult, cctld constituency 
itself has had problems to arrive at positions.
[15:46:27] 
eiriarte: are governments needed only for political and financial issues?
slynn: complex issue re the public interest. important that we encourage not 
only one at large entity, but lots of entities through which end users can come 
under the tent, e.g. consumer organizations.
hfeld: ncdnhc concern that noncommercial and individual interest are perceived 
to be underrepresented in the formal process. interest in itu proposal reflects 
this perception. inspire confidence by the community at large.
btonkin: auda experience. board positions for different groups, some voted on 
by representative groups like telecom users, consumer associations etc. so 
often people claim to speak on behalf of community, but don't refer it back to 
their wider group.
tholmes: april 29 deadline. where do we move forward afterwards? set one of 
more options at the bucharest meeting? could you comment on level of 
alternatives?
slynn: april 29 deadline so that there can be something on the table for 
bucharest.
apisanty: trying our best to deliver proposal that is as extensive and concrete 
as possible for bucharest. reactions against some aspects, but insufficient 
thought about whole. e.g. itu participation, funding. e.g. idea that either 
public or stakeholders should fund must be detailed much more. to hfeld: when 
we say that icann should not reach in certain areas, that requires wise 
community input. if we get away from so model and direct elections by so, how 
can rich experience of dnso be reflected in this new structure.
eshankman: ipc looking at many of the issues. curious about role of nominating 
committee vs. the board. 
slynn: nominating committee intended to focus on problem that we want to make 
sure that icann is seen as effective and credible organization. nominating 
committee is one way of dealing with this; many have pointed to the problem of 
accountability of the nominating committee, can be improved.
[16:01:43] 
slynn: about btonkins' point: when we talk about representative models, to what 
extent are we really talking about representativeness: we may end up with 
enormous amount of process or individuals by necessity talking more on behalf 
of themselves. universities are hardly involved in ncdnhc. how to combine 
appointed persons and representatives.
tharris: committee has not received a clear presentation on where funding 
should come from? have proposed fees per gtld.
apisanty: how implemented? what amount of opposition?
slynn: funding not the priority, just a priority. 
[16:05:38] 
psheppard: see also recommendation 5 and posting by eporteneuve on conference 
fees.
hfeld: some nonprofits don't see the reason or value of participation in the 
icann process. for some, right to participate is as important as participation 
as safety measure.
slynn: important point. some don't get involved because of the icann process. I 
hear a lot of concern that the icann process is putting people off.
mcade: as important as icann is, most users choose to delegate policy issues to 
others they trust and empower. need to keep balance in mind between how people 
complain vs. people who really want to devote their time regarding the issues. 
not go overboard that everyone should devote all their time to policy-making.
btonkin: echo what mcade said. domain names for many users is just a small 
part. if the dns just works, it doesn't need massive participation by end 
users.
mcade: businesses also often delegate participation to associations.
kstubbs: wrt to those who want to get involved: many users from cctld 
perspective. they should go to the right place for their issues. from a 
practical standpoint, such users should get involved nationally. if you have a 
policy problem with an .mx domain, you should go to the national level. re 
domain tax, we were victims of public relations campaign. was spun in a way 
that it sounds like a user tax. 
[16:16:09] 
hfeld: may turn out to be the only working funding mechanism, but have to be 
cautious about this. registrars can hide it and pass it on to customers.
psheppard: one of the discussion points - workable size of the board?
hfeld: considerable feeling within ncdnhc for an elected board that reflects 
user and noncommercial representation. feeling that if anything is cut, that 
will be our interests.
tharris: concerned about reducing the number of board members despite 
initiatives to found an ccso and an at large so; in addition, regional 
representation might be complicated.
apisanty: wrt to excom: any input welcome. responding to tharris and hfeld: 
looking at advantages of forum approach. example of norbert klein who has very 
specific concerns (about internationalization) which would be drowned in a 
broader organization, e.g. an asia/pacific forum. there must be several 
approaches; the forum approach definitely seems to be a very good. even in the 
ncdnhc, there have been thoughts about having separate organization
slynn: forums should be much more flexible.
jsims: notion is that today we have a finite and fixed number of 
constituencies. under forum approach no fixed number of fora. 
tharris: what is the general assembly:
apisanty: ga was intended to be the cross-constituency forum, widespread 
perception. working better now than it has before, but still not the cross-
constituency forum.
psheppard: how would changing number of forums assist decision-making beyond 
public comment periods?
apisanty: not something that has been decided! advantages: you get to hear 
different voices. if you don't read the constituency list, you don't see all 
the valuable points. e.g. a north american business forum, e.g. a 
geographically diverse small business forum. still mechanics to work out. 
jsims: forums would provide input to policy councils in stuart lynn proposal.
psheppard: who is missing?
jsims: e.g. individual domain holders, small businesses.
slynn: do you think the current process is working fine?
psheppard: I don't, but not because of the constituencies.
[16:30:14] 
mcade: skeptic that small group wave their hands and create a sustainable 
forum; if they can provide meaningful participation, fine. forums feeding into 
policy-development process is fine, but structure must be defined.
tholmes: agree that structure must be defined. without structure, you have 
splinter groups; when they feel disenfranchised, they turn to the structure 
above. cannot see that working.
btonkin: support general dynamic concept, don't see need for permanent forums 
that stay around forever. key thing is defining what the process is. e.g. ietf: 
well-defined process, bird-of-feather sessions, working groups, steering 
committees etc. very well-defined, but flexible and true bottom-up consensus.
hfeld: need for formal structure. what is difference between comment period 
where like-minded groups can submit comments and the world described in the 
paper?
jsevans: in certain aspects, icann worked great; in some areas, needs 
improvement. don't see any greater efficiency in forum approach; exchange one 
set of problems for another. ultimately, some policy council has to discern 
some minority view and people will complain that they are left out; need to 
define structure that grows out of the lessons learned.
troessler: ga currently a vehicle for individuals which would be muted in 
larger constituencies; which can get some, even unusual views, into the 
process. asvensson proposal: gtld core community of 
registrars/registries/registrants on the council level: functional 
stakeholders; forum level: special interests/advocacy groups.
apisanty: asvensson+troessler proposal naïve at this point, but will look at 
it.
slynn: has been very interesting.
[16:42:13] 
jsims: what's different: voices not represented in the names council must make 
their voices heard through the ga or to the board after council has acted. ga 
as currently constructed: "all others".
[16:43:56] 
Referral from Board on WLS.
ltouton: verisign request for registry agreement amendment. board has heard 
increasing concerns about the area of deletes. board looks for assurance that 
wls recommendation by names council is done in the broader context of domain 
deletions. nc work status report by 10 june.
psheppard: options: ignore, form task force, existing task force, nc as a 
whole. recommend to refer it to nc-transfers for a recommendation to the nc.
btonkin: q to ltouton: about grace period?
ltouton: this specific proposal gets forward, but still other issues. e.g. 
failure of registrars to delete names that are expired, transfers in the 
context of expired names.
btonkin: don't want to see basic transfer issue delayed.
psheppard: ack. about .org request for proposals. within that, there is a 
request for dnso commens on rfp. recommend to reactivate .org task force, with 
extra re-nominations.
[16:52:13] 
ltouton: comments back by 13 may.
eporteneuve temporary chair/facilitator of reactivated .org task force.
mcade: propose work session on policy development.
scheduled for 2 may

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html