[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[announce] NC teleconference 31 March 2000, minutes
[ To: council@dnso.org ]
[ To: ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org ]
[ from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000331.NCtelecon-minutes.html]
ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on March 31th, 2000 - minutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 31th, 2000.
Proposed agenda and related documents:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000331.NCtelecon-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Dennis Jennings ccTLD absent
Patricio Poblete ccTLD
Philip Sheppard Business
Masanobu Katoh Business
Theresa Swinehart Business absent, proxy to Katoh
Hirofumi Hotta ISPCP
Tony Harris ISPCP arrived in late
Michael Schneider ISPCP arrived in late
Erica Roberts Registrars
Ken Stubbs Registrars
Paul Kane Registrars
Roger Cochetti gTLD
Caroline Chicoine IP
Axel Aus der Muhlen IP
Guillermo Carey IP
Youn Jung Park NCDNH
Kathryn Kleiman NCDNH left in the middle, proxy to YJP
Zakaria Amar NCDNH absent, proxy to YJP
Louis Touton ICANN Legal Counselor
Elisabeth Porteneuve DNSO Secretariat
Chair Ken Stubbs (Registrars)
Quorum present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda
A. Comments of minutes from the last NC meeting in Cairo, on March 8th,
see
o http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000308.NCcairo-minutes.html,
Cairo NC minutes
Kathryn Kleiman clarify the difference between WG-C and WG-B status as
in Cairo, the former is the consensus report, the latter the status
report, they are not on the same schedule. In Cairo the NC gave 4 weeks
to the WG-B to come with the consensus report. Both reports were
published on the dnso.org website on March 21th:
o 21 March 2000 Working Group B status report to the Names Council,
by Michael Palage
o 21 March 2000 Working Group C consensus report to the Names
Council, by Jonathan Weinberg
The NC is seeking public comment on the recommendations of WG-C with a
deadline of four weeks. After this time the NC will make a decision on
the endoresement of these recommendations, and forward them to the
ICANN Board no later than April 20th. The call for comments will be
sent out by Elisabeth Porteneuve shortly.
B. The discussion and adoption of the DNSO budget proposal
See http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00509.html, by Ken
Stubbs
1. Roger Cochetti
The NC work with the significant consequences needs adequate
funding, there is a minimal level of expenses for a legitimate
body to exists. With regards to the level of proposed fees between
$US 15000 and 35000, per constituency for year 2000 the lower
amount when spread out over the number of members in each
constituency should be acceptable, and in many cases is still less
than the airfares to one of ICANN meetings for one constituency
member. We need to create an institution publicly accountable and
preserve the low cost.
2. Masanobu Katoh
We need to be realistic, the fees are expected from 7
constituencies, which whould imply the committment in liability to
such expenses.
3. Ken Stubbs
From Registrars point of view, it is important to send a message
to ICANN that the structure was set up in such a way that it can
hardly function.
4. Patricio Poblete
With regards to the ICANN budget of $US 1.5 millions the DNSO
numbers are not significant, but the problem lies with the
multiple level of constributions. The larger the number the more
hassle, it would be preferable to have one contribution to ICANN.
5. Ken Stubbs
We need to put in place a commitee to develop the methodology for
the funding mechanism in the future, but we cannot leave the
meeting today without decision.
6. Roger Cochetti
There are two principles that will be affected by the DNSO budget,
accountability and the autonomy. The costs in these budgets
reflect the level of accountability. The same work could be done
in a fraction of time by Louis Touton in Marina del Rey, but it
would not be accountable. If we want a DNSO that is highly
accountable and independent from the ICANN Board, then will have
to pay for it, you cannot have it both ways.
7. Philip Sheppard
There is a difference between the NC functionning
administratively, and all the work necessary for the Working
Groups and the GA. The latter are providig good for the whole
ICANN, it would be unfair to have the secretariat founded only by
the Constituencies. There is a responsability.
8. Erica Roberts
My understanding is that the WGs has been set up to report to the
NC, and therefore we are responsible for them. There are two
separate questions: look on the size of budget and find out how to
get revenus into it. The proposed budget is very conservative, do
we have any objections to the size of budget ?
9. Ken Stubbs
It is a good approach. My proposal is handling the meeting cost in
decreasing manner, we get to one seventh of the webcast costs. The
audio archives of all meetings can be used, and are the legitimate
substitute for the webcast dissimination.
10. Elisabeth Porteneuve
The main difficulty for a budget is not the amount, less than 5
percent of ICANN budget, but the layered system. Another important
item is that the DNSO's members are providing 90 percent of all
ICANN budget, therefore reluctance to raise additional amounts.
Furtheremore, the outstanding part of this ICANN budget comes from
outside of the US. To the two important aspects already mentioned
-- accountability and autonomy, I would like to add the
legitimacy.
+ http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00523.html
workplan and budget
+ http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00524.html
legitymacy
11. Paul Kane
The geographical diversity is an important issue. Why not consider
a call for tender.
12. Kathryn Kleiman
The budget is reasonnable, and some money could be saved if
technical work passed to ICANN. In trading associations you do not
charge for the policy establishement. For NCDNH even the
teleconferences have a cost.
Erica Roberts
I sympathise, but I do not know how much we need to operate
effectively. How does implementation give the value for the pack?
How do we raise the money? Within Registrars constituency, there
is a possibility we may balance various constituency groups. We
need an effective organization, with responsability, there are a
lot of things we did not budget for and there are various
requirements.
13. Roger Cochetti
I propose the motion that for the year 2000 we adopt a budget for
the DNSO of $US 95500, with the spending broken down according to
the categories in Ken Stubbs proposal. This motion is only to
approve a spending amount and has nothing in and of itself to do
with either how the funds will be collected to how they are
administered
14. Masanobu Katoh
Subject to the further consideration of the income.
15. Roger Cochetti
In deference to Katoh-san's concerns, I am willing to accept a
friendly amendment that says: If we find that it is impossible to
raise $US 95500, then we will have to revisit the budget. Does it
respect Katoh's request ?
16. Ken Stubbs
If we cannot raise that money, it is a clear signal to
constituencies to operate effectively.
17. Michael Schneider
I disagree, it is a bad signal. We agree on budget, unless we
solve the question how to generate the revenue. We unconditionnaly
agree on budget and postpone untill we find how to raise money.
18. Ken Stubbs
We have obligation of expenditures.
19. Michael Schneider
If we agree on budget, we create the liability, and if we do not
manage to have Constituencies agreed to pay for it ? We need solid
basis.
20. Roger Cochetti
My motion is: "The NC hereby endorse for the year 2000 the
expenditure of $US 95500 with the expenses as broken down in the
proposal as by Ken.", see
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00509.htm
21. Caroline Chicoine
Second.
22. Philip Sheppard
Point of order. Do we accept to be connected to particular
conditions, like California, or do we indicate only the upper
limit and the methodology.
23. Louis Touton
Roger's motion does not endorse any geographical implementation,
but only the total amount. The freedom and flexibility are left to
the NC on how to implement it.
24. Caroline Chicoine
Second this version.
25. Masanobu Katoh
I request to have written in the minutes my concern about raising
money.
26. Ken Stubbs calls for vote
The motion passes with 14 yes, 3 abstentions (YJP voting for 3
members of the NCDNH) and 1 absent (Dennis Jennings).
27. The small commitee will be set up from to study the implementation
of the approved budget ($US 95500).
28. Roger Cochetti
We have conditions of time. I propose we proceed step by step to
immediate allocate responsabilities to the Constituencies, to
encourage Constituencies to come up with the method of paiement,
to get the invoices out.
29. Philip Sheppard
I have to leave, I voulounteer to the implementation commiteee. I
will be back from Istanbul in 5 days.
30. Caroline Chicoine
Is the GA the burden on the Constituencies only ?
31. Roger Cochetti
Having adopted the budget, we recognize responsability to each
Constituency. We allocate liability to each Constituency. We also
sollicit volounteer donations and contributions from other
interested in DNSO matters.
32. Caroline Chicoine
With the vote we just done, I am concerned about the $US 5000 fees
for 1999. How much was raised ? The IPC gave $US 5000, but is very
reluctant to pay until others pay. How should the total amount be
distributed ?
33. Louis Touton
$US 15000 has been collected.
34. Roger Cochetti
We request ICANN to publish information on who has paid.
35. Ken Stubbs
How should we deal with some strong reluctants to pay ? Some do
not have much ressources and wish to participate.
36. Erica Roberts
NCDNH Constituency is not fortunate. We could reduce their
participation to $US 10000, and spread out the remider accross
others.
37. Roger Cochetti
We do not want to encorage the irresponsability, but I want to
show some reduction.
38. Tony Harris
I wish that we do not make special exceptions.
39. Ken Stubbs
The financial difficulties comes always with the NCDNH. If we cant
find out way to deal with that, the wrong message si sent out.
40. Roger Cochetti
I propose the motion:
* Recognising that the NC adopted the year 2000 expense budget
of $US 95500, we hereby allocate equally among the seven
Constituencies the full $95,500 with all Constituencies to be
invoiced immediately
* we take note and recognize the concerns that have been
expressed that not all Consittuencies have an equal ability
to pay and that there may be extenuating circumstances for
some Constituencies and therefor we strongly encourage
Constituencies to be cooperative and creative among and
within themselves in developing means to make the necessary
payments
* in order to foster this creativity and cooperation within and
between Constituencies in raising the funds needed to meet
their obligations to the DNSO, we ask the Chair of the NC to
set up a commitee
* we ask the staff to notify the GA of the DNSO and other
interested parties that we have approved a budget and that we
encourage the volountary donations to help defray the
operating expenses of the DNSO
41. Caroline Chicoine
Do we have a procedure for enforcing the budget ?
42. Roger Cochetti
The item 2 is moral lecture to Constituencies that we should look
at creative way, and not releve anybody from legal obligations.
There is an obligation to Constituencies to work with each other.
43. Tony Harris
Do we propose any staggering in paying founds ?
44. Roger Cochetti
The collection of money is details to be sorted out with Louis
Touton.
45. Louis Touton
Lets divide the total amount equally among the seven
constituencies, so each would have to contribute US$ 13,643. Each
constituency will be contacted by the ICANN staff to arrange the
details of the payment (if they prefer to be invoiced as the whole
group or as a collection).
46. Roger Cochetti
We ask the ICANN staff to advise the NC immediately about received
paiements. We have also to talk what to do in case of default in
paiement.
47. Youn Jung Park
The NCDNH cannot protect its rights with such expenses.
48. Ken Stubbs
You reach out organizations willing to have their voice heard and
point them out the benefits of being involved, and to join your
constituency.
49. Ken Stubbs calls for vote
The second motion passes with 14 yes, 3 abstentions (YJP voting
for 3 members of the NC DNH) and 1 absent (Dennis Jennings).
C. any other relevent items you all can think of
The deadline for the NC recommendation on the WG-C and WG-B is no
latter than April 20th.
The next NC teleconference will be held on Friday April 18th. The time
will be in favour of Parific Rim.
The issue of Independent Review Nominating Committee is postponed to
the April 18th
o http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00502.html,
request to the NC for selection of 2 individuals to the
Independent Review Nominating Committee by Andrew McLaughlin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information from: © DNSO Names Council