<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] NC teleconf minutes May 2, 2002
[To: council@dnso.org; ga@dnso.org]
[To: announce@dnso.org: liaison7c@dnso.org]
ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 2 May 2002 - minutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 May 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020502.NCteleconf-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles/
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD
Philip Sheppard Business
Marilyn Cade Business
Grant Forsyth Business
Greg Ruth ISPCP absent, apologies proxy to Tony Harris
Antonio Harris ISPCP
Tony Holmes ISPCP absent, apologies proxy to Tony Harris
Philipp Grabensee Registrars
Ken Stubbs Registrars
Bruce Tonkin Registrars
Roger Cochetti gTLD
Richard Tindal gTLD absent, apologies,
Cary Karp gTLD
Ellen Shankman IP
Laurence Djolakian IP
J. Scott Evans IP
Harold Feld NCDNH
Chun Eung Hwi NCDNH
Erick Iriate NCDNH absent with apologies
16 Names Council Members
Glen de Saint Géry NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
Alix Guillard MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020502.NCteleconf.mp3
Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summer time in the northern hemisphere).
Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.
Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020502.NCteleconf-agenda.html
It was decided to discuss Item 2 first.
The agenda was approved.
Another Names Council teleconference was suggested just before the Bucharest
Meeting.
Names Council teleconference schedule:
Tuesday 14 May
Wednesday 29 May
Thursday 6 June
Monday 17 June
Agenda item 2: Update on dot ORG task force
Elisabeth Porteneuve reported that the Names Council Task Force was
reconvened and had a teleconference on Tuesday April 30 with Louis Touton on
the implementation of details for the Request for Proposals (RFP).
Subsequently he posted the RFP, at 5:00 am Paris time which Elisabeth
forwarded Task Force members only so far.
There are 6 days to read the proposals as the deadline is May 8.
There are 2 main differences between the new dot Org registry and the new
gTLD registries:
1. It is a registry with 7 million domain names in operation which should be
taken into account for implementing the operation.
2. There is no sunrise period.
Ken Stubbs remarked that the most important factor in the short time span
was reasoned and deliberated input rather than who would or would not be on
the Task Force.
Agenda item 1: . Recommendations v7 - agreement on recommendations 14, 15,
16 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.Response-Reform-v7.html
Recommendation 14 Board Elections.
Friendly amendment Cary Karp:
The advisory body should elect or select a <number> to replace <selection>
of Board Members.
Marilyn Cade said Board members should be clarified by adding "voting Board
members. As a separate point, the process of how others will get on the
Board should be addressed.
Bruce Tonkin said that it was the Registrars position that 10 peopleshould
be nominated by the nominating committee, 5 should be elected by the
Advisory Council.
Discussion followed on the Advisory body and merit was found in certain
people participating in non-voting capacities, such as the Government
Advisory Committee (GAC) Chair and members from the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Architectural Board
(IAB).
Tony Harris said that the ISP constituency confirmed support for the
revised structure of Advisory committees.
Elisabeth Porteneuve echoed what Tony Harris said that though she could
not speak for the ccTLDs, it was certain that they agreed with the
analysis that there are problems, but not necessarily with the future
structure. The idea should not be given that ICANN 2 needs only minor
adjustments.
Philip Sheppard summarised:
Advisory Bodies, such as those referred to in Recommendations 9 to 13
should elect a number of voting Board members.
Marilyn Cade, going back to the Recommendations 9 to 13 suggested
adding,
ICANN Policy Development/Advisory Bodies, to which J.Scott Evans added
ICANN Policy Development Bodies.
Ken Stubbs said that there should be a specific list of definitions so
that when reference is made to a committee it is clear what is meant
and the difference made between Advisory and Functional.
It was suggested that a list of additional topics be made and explained
what the bodies consist of.
New Wording: Recommendation 14 - Board Elections. The Advisory Body
should elect or select a number of voting Board members.
Recommendation 15 - Board Size
The balance of the Board is important.
Board size and composition must be specified.
Ken Stubbs objected to the statement that he called "bland" and said
that an approach to deal with the composition and strucure of the Board
should be sought. He felt that it was important to have a specific
discussions that should be well documanted and that the ICANN Board
should have the opportunity to hear some of the discussions
Chun said that there was a difference of opinion on Board functions and
the number of Board members was less important. He felt that the board
looked like an extended DNSO structure and it was necessary to be clear
about the role of the Board before one could talk about the size. Where
is the coordination of the different groups.
There did not seem to be consistency among the constituencies on this
recommendation.
Marilyn Cade suggested a friendly amendment:
Board Size and composition.
Ken Stubbs did not agree with the wording of the recommendation
Recommendation 16 - Independant review
Cary Karp corrected "an ombudsman" to "the ombudsman".
Discussions made clear the diffrence between the functons of a review
committee and the ombudsman.
Marilyn Cade made the point that there should be a process where
complaints are made and a serious case of where by-laws are violated
should be separated. Roger Cochetti agreed with Marilyn Cade and
pointed out that many large organisations have complaint departments
and in Europe they would be called ombudsman. An ombudsman is usually
part of the management team but it is not part of ICANN's proposal in
that it does not deal with the public. The courts usually play the role
of independent review bodies with the ability to overthrow decisions,
regulate actions and control to avoid abuse.
It was decided to separate the two functions and add:
Recommendation 17 - Create the office of ombudsman.
New wording: Recommendation 16 - Independent review. Create a committee
for independent review of appealed decisions of the ICANN Board.
Philip Sheppard asked for comments on who should be candidates for the
independent Review committee.
Marilyn Cade suggested that designee of the IAB/IETF
An essential characteristic should be that no Board members participate in
an independent review process and it is not necessary to specify where they
come from.
Item 3 - Discussion on Policy Development mechanisms
Marilyn Cade noted that the Business constituency felt the policy
development process must add structure, timelines and staff support.
Whatever the Body be, it should develop generate and support policy.
Harold Feld pointed out that there should be a specific vehicle for
public comment.
Ken made the point that if the policy was not consistent with the
charter of the entity, the Board has a responsibility towards the
entity. He felt the recommendation was too vague.
Bruce Tonkin stated that a policy making body was the prime place for
policy making and that the board needs the ability to make interim
decisions to speed things up and reduce costs.
J. Scott Evans disagreed as a problem that needed extensive study could
not be resolved by an interim decision subject to change.
The IPC model dealt with identified issues imported/exported to
expertise committees, that make recommendations and draft the policy on
the recommendations. Expanding the model further, there is a formalized
structure for keeping the Board up to date.
Bruce Tonkin emphasised the importance of Board involvement in the
decision making process, supported by professional staff.
Phillip Sheppard went on to the next point of Constituencies versus
Forums.
Harold Feld distinguished between the outreach and notification
function and the actual policy making process.
Marilyn Cade felt that fora were a useful distribution mechanism that a
process was going on but ad hoc fora were irresponsible.
There was no support for the concept of fora.
Marilyn Cade repeated the Business Constituency proposal supporting two
seperate policy development entities for ccTLDs and gTLDs with a strong
relationship between the two, the present constituency model and a
mechanism to take input from the AtLarge.
Bruce Tonkin agreed that the Registrars constituency supported a
similar model.
AOB - none
Philip Sheppard concluded and and said that he would formally submit a
report as edited on this call. He confirmed the next teleconference on May
2, 2002 at 15:00 Paris time.
1.Board composition and voting
2. Size of Board
The teleconference ended at 17:10
Next NC teleconference May 14 at 15:00 Paris time, 13:00 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
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|