Michael Schneider, EuroISPA

Hirofumi Hotta, NTT

Antonio Harris, CABASE

Amar Andersson, TELIA

Mark Foster, Lockheed Martin (observer)

Rob Hall, CAIP

Bruno Beaugrand, CEGETEL

Cathy Wittbrodt, Excite@Home

Jeremy Porter, TISPA

Barbara Dooley, CIX

Inmaculada da la Cruz, TELEFONICA

Eduardo Katansig, Webhost Chile

Henning Grote, Deutsche Telekom

Siegfried Langenbach, CSL

Tony Holmes, British Telecom

Gregoire Seneclauze, France Telecom

Bridget Cosgrave, ETSI

Jin Chung Hee, KRNIC

Carlos Martinez, ANTEL (Uruguay)

Livia Rosu, ETSI

John Montjoy, CIX

Mark McFadden, CIX

1. introduction of new member(s)

2. review and approval of agenda

3. report on ISPCP Articles

4. report on provisional Names Council and DNSO

5. discussion : member's participation in DNSO activities (especially WGs!!)

6. discussion : procedures of electing long term Officers

7. discussion : priority issues of ISPCP

8. discussion : outreach activities of the constituency

9. Any Other Business

Introduction of officers, call to order

Remarks (Schneider): formal issues first (delegates and members)

list on web not complete, some email / contact addresses missing/wrong

pass articles today as basis for other considerations

formal issues:

list of members: some organisations with more than one delegate (who is the ONE delegate?)

some entries which were unknown/unusable/incorrect (Manuel - Hurtado/ Abdullah - email wrong, no one knew him / Picallo from Brazil without email - from ANATEL - telecommunications / regulatory entity - getting correct email)

See http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ispcp/ISPCP.Members.html

ISPC - going through operating changes in next few months

Brazilian service providers association ABRANET (member of EcomLAC) - Antinio Trabares atrabares@abranet.org.br --- against voting on their membership immediately? No vetoes, no abstentions, membership accepted.

ANIEL introduced (not present)

• final draft posted after very little internal response
• three minor formal changes necessary
• 3.2.3 last sentence "to the Officers"
• iii) delete "the ISPCP reps on"
• replace "executive committee" by "ISPE"
• Dooley: vetoes with or without e??
• Dooley: quorum in 9.1 physical meetings - will there ever be a quorum as membership grows? Complement the physical presence of those participating via electronic means (CLARIFICATION)
• Hall: 4.5.1 clarification that only Delegate status is lost
• do we want officers to be NC-reps (too much work)? Larger executive / admin group? Such a serious change needs list-discussion --- reopen discussion??? VOTE: postpone decision on articles to incorporate this and other changes? In favour: 1, 1 abstention, rest against // Rob Hall to make suggestion to list, vote just before L.A.
• strong indication that it will be split in two

Hotta: first discuss election of NC-officers, then see whether there are consequences for the articles

goes through paper distributed, with change to timetable of beginning nomination period next week (August 30).

® change the way officers are selected completely?? More options? Not set down the mechanism for longer than this vote??

Shih-Ying Hsu: syhsu027@ms1.hinet.net NEW MEMBER

Compromise (after break)

- IF articles changed to uncouple later, officers to lose their posts then, re-elections held for executive and officers - different possibilities [general feeling -all in favour, one abstention]

• do not publish individual votes FOR PEOPLE (just the results) - possibly still listing who voted, who got how many votes, just not who for whom

8.1 add at end: all elections will be held by secret ballot.

1. "will publish... naming voters --- and the result of the voting"

8.3 first sentence: cut out after "present". Second sentence: "the names of the voters and the overall results of the vote shall be recorded." then "those.... are asked to submit their vote by Email, private phone call or fax, making use of some sort of secret keyword provided by the election manager." (all in favor, one against, one abstained)

8.5 Tied VOTE - adjust to clarify that "random lots" by election manager - don't bother

ALL APPROVED THE ARTICLES AS AMMENDED!!

Election of officers - period of two weeks as of next week, handled by election manager, 3 periods of one week each for each of the three officers - ALL IN FAVOUR (like paper plus amendment)

Anyone not candidating definitely??? Marc McFadden

several teleconferences held - main topics currently the WIPO report and internal DNSO-procedures; not enough input for WGs, chairs insisting every constituency participate more intensely

rather provisional currently, one camp trying to convince no decisions to be made at all until final NC elected. We feel most urgent issues MUST be tackled now, e.g. new gTLDs

compromise: that WGs (partly unofficially) begin work - five established to date (Rob Hall in C and D)

need more participation, focused and active!

Dooley: some WGs not interesting (e.g. trademarks), just because ICANN bylaws require each constituency to participate; executives have to jump in if no other member / delegate wants to; at max. observers everywhere

merely awareness in case something important comes up

have to show presence (no grounds for criticism that ISPs not affected) know we cannot force anyone to join

active role not necessary, just some reporting to constituency necessary on day to day basis for everyone's interest

Jorge Plano in E (CABASE)

report WG-C:

presented questions, vote on last three for tomorrow (presented questions, asked for constituencies' opinions on new gTLDs)

Hall: first clarify "should there be new ones" first - by tendency "NO"

Holmes: criteria set down first (criteria to assess need for new ones) - definitely no rush!!!

Langenbach: idea was to create "yellow pages" which break companies down more specifically (misuse of multiple-registration - mechanism to ensure appropriate namespace is used) - no rush, though it should not take another few years

General feeling: EITHER - none or so many that registration in all becomes impossible

BUT - final NC should answer that, not the pNC

DEFINITELY: no rush, NC should restructure mailing lists to make them able to generate results

Suggestion: urge NC to involve everyone more intensely, take more time

general WG-problem: no rules means that barely workable, e.g. no more than three mails per day per person

forbidding accusations and personal fights??

what issues are we interested in? What items is the NC not dealing with that should be picked up?

• D should be priority, not C
• has been dealing with it, some structure and reorganising

• if mailing lists are primary method of work, procedures are needed - more formal use of lists!! (restrictions on postings, timelines...) - bring it up as SERIOUS concern of constituency
• PROBLEM: a lot of outrage against "restrictions of free speech" - list the ideas/proposals?!?!
• CIX to join CAIP on D and then give that input

problem where-ever the issue is controversial (e.g. B as well), serious people discussing privately now, lists no longer reflecting the actual opinions (some think noise is good), e.g. also Trademark issues discussed on C!!

Andrew McLaughlin's suggestion: assigning a value to each message by a moderator (still everything archived) - users choice what to see [ISPs should not support that sort of 3^rd party content rating]

- or rather comments to ICANN-position papers, no free for all

Any other priorities??

• none

ICANN requests proof of effort

paper has suggestions, not all necessary

Do we NEED outreach?? Aren't all ISPs aware of the process/ issues being discussed? Of structures?

• vast majority even in US of regional/local scope largely uninformed!! Some level of outreach necessary.
• no constant outreach necessary, but in this initial phase, not give sole responsibility to ISPs to get informed

E.g.: banner /link on association websites, have current members distribute/communicate information

-- who designs the banner??

often, marketing etc. Is of more interest to them! Often delegate those issues to their associations!

- need programme for ICANN / DNSO, not really for this constituency? Should at least support it from ISPCP!

- EDUCATIONAL programme rather than outreach??!! We have to appear, even if that is actually DNSO problem

- just an email to inform everyone, then we've done our duty

Inform associations whom we're aware of

ASO meeting has been moved to Crowne Plaza from 2:30-3:30 (official) (that the RIRs called for)