<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[announce] NC teleconf minutes April 24, 2002 amended version
[To: council@dnso.org; ga@dnso.org]
[To: liaison7c@dnso.org; announce@dnso.org]
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 24 April 2002 - minutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 April 2002. - amended version
Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.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
Antonio Harris ISPCP
Tony Holmes ISPCP
Philipp Grabensee Registrars absent, apologies
Ken Stubbs Registrars
Bruce Tonkin Registrars
Roger Cochetti gTLD
Richard Tindal gTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Roger Cochetti
Cary Karp gTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Richard Tindal,
Roger Cochetti
Ellen Shankman IP
Laurence Djolakian IP
J. Scott Evans IP
Harold Feld NCDNH
Chun Eung Hwi NCDNH
Erick Iriate NCDNH
17 Names Council Members
Thomas Roessler invited as GA Chair
Alexander Svensson invited as GA Alternate Chair
Glen de Saint Géry NC Secretary
Alix Guillard MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
Invited ICANN staff and Board member
Alejandro Pisanty Vice Chairman ICANN Board
Lynn Stuart ICANN CEO
Louis Touton ICANN senior Counsel
Joe Sims ICANN senior Counsel
Due to a technical failure there was no MP3 recording.
Quorum present at 14:10 (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/20020424.NCteleconf-agenda.html
The Chair added two items:
1. Waiting List Service issue referred by the Board to the Names Council.
2. Request to the Names Council to comment on Request for Proposal (RFP)
materials for Dot ORG.
The agenda was approved.
Agenda item 1: Discussion points on v6 conclusions
Ph. Sheppard proposed adoption of the clarifications made in v6 and started
discussion on the e-mail input from the constituencies.
Recommendation 1 - Mission.
"users of the global internet"
The gTLD Registry constituency has not come back to Council with new wording
so it was decided to accept the wording as it stands and note the gTLD
Registry constituency derogation. The gTLD Registry constituency felt that
it should not reflect the content of public comment in the ICANN mission but
that the more complex structure of Registry, Registrar Registrant
relationship should be captured.
Recommendation 9 - Policy making.
"all stakeholders"
The Business Constituency supported the proposed wording believing the term
stakeholders was clear and in itself limiting.
The gTLD Registry constituency proposed: "led by those most affected by the
consensus".
This view was supported by Ken Stubbs who said that stakeholders should be
those who have a specific interest in, beneficiary of, or affected by a
process. Those most proactive in policy development should be those most
significantly impacted by those policies.
Discussion followed centering around the meaning of "led" but this change
was not supported. Agreed to adopt the phrase:
ICANN policy advisory bodies should formulate policy recommendations based
on a bottom-up, consensus process of all stakeholders.
The gTLD Registry constituency's derogation is noted.
Bruce Tonkin said that it was important the process was clear and J. Scott
Evans said that It is important for the Board to be active in the consensus
process. A new sentence was adopted:
There must be a clear process and that process should be managed by the
ICANN Board.
It was agreed that the process of policy making needed further discussion
and that there should be a future work session on this.
Ken Stubbs made the point that to understand legislation lawyers go back to
the legislation process. It was important for Stuart and the Board to see
what was meant in this process compared to what ends up on paper.
Recommendation 12 - ccTLDs.
Received broad support from the Business and Registry and Non Commercial
with the latter adding, provided there is a discussion on how policy is
formulated.
Recommendation 13 - gTLDs.
The gTLD Registry constituency felt that recommendations 12 and 13 should be
linked, adding:
"which would be comparable to the body envisaged above"
Elisabeth Porteneuve disagreed saying that there was no symmetry between
ccTLDs and gTLDs in that gTLDs have mechanisms to make policy such as ICANN
and the DNSO while the ccTLDs only operate in their national community.
Ken Stubbs replied that while this was true for dot FR there were ccTLDs
that have same characteristics of TLDs driven by creating the maximum
revenue and they should not be able to hide under the ccTLDs cloak from
issues like the UDRP .
It was agreed to adopt 12 and 13 as re-drafted:
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 gTLDs. This would need means of collaborative
decision making with the ccTLD advisory body on relevant areas of policy.
The Non Commercial Constituency wanted it noted that it does not support 13
without added detail on user representation.
Time limits did not allow for discussion of new items.
Agenda item 4: Discussion with Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty, Joe Sims
Philip Sheppard formally welcomed Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty and Joe
Sims on the call, and asked Stuart what he hoped the dialogue would produce.
Stuart Lynn said that he appreciated the time spent, and careful discussion
of the Names Council towards the future decision making process. The purpose
of the reform document was to stimulate community discussion and move
forward rapidly to debate. If there is criticism it is aimed at the process
and not the participants. Divisions in the ICANN community are recognised.
The concern with regard to the Names Council is that it brings together
different kinds of constituencies greatly varied within which makes the task
difficult. It is difficult for an organisation to change itself, and it is
important to find out how a clearer view and a coming through process can be
achieved to bring about change.
Alejandro Pisanty said that it was important to find out key expectations,
to hear from Names Council members, read constituency positions and drafts
and find out where there is agreement and disagreement.
Joe Sims said he was there to listen.
Questions from Names Council members:
Marilyn Cade: Could you share with us feedback on areas of support and no
support?
Stuart answered that the diversity of private and public opinions made it
difficult to answer. Most criticism and misunderstanding was about
government representation, nominations, public interest representation and
government funding.
Harold Feld: The Non Commercial constituency is thinking along two separate
lines:
a. delineate what lies outside the scope of ICANN
b. consider options such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
Tony Holmes commented that his experience in working with the ITU did not
encourage him at all to recommend this approach. Philip Sheppard commented
that his experience in general with inter-governmental organisations was
that they were universally slower and less efficient than even the present
ICANN structure. There was no support from other constituencies for the ITU
proposal.
Stuart Lynn said that it is important to arrive at a documented process that
works. Functions that lie outside of ICANN can be considered if assurance is
given that a changing internet can be anticipated. The concept of a thin
ICANN concentrates on issues different groups care about. There is a need
therefore to define realistically and flexibly what should be inside ICANN.
Government Advisory Committee (GAC) involvement was discussed and Stuart
Lynn hoped that there would be specific suggestions for strengthening the
interaction with the GAC. Tony Harris said that not all governments by a
long way represent public interests. Stuart Lynn commented that individuals
talk on their own behalf to get things done and are not representative of
the wider group. For example, it is odd that universities are hardly
involved in the NCDNHC and a distinction should be made between
representativeness and representative models. Stuart favoured a multiplicity
of entities to represent users.
Tony Holmes enquired about the April 29 deadline and the envisaged planning
thereafter.
Stuart Lynn and Alejandro Pisanty stated that an extensive and concrete
proposal for Bucharest was intended.
Ellen Shankman asked about the role of the nominating committee and who
would sit on the Board?
Stuart Lynn replied that the nominating committee was intended to focus on
making ICANN an overall effective credible organisation that can move fast.
Tony Harris asked about funding saying that he saw good support for a model
using a small proportion of registrant fees to fund ICANN. The BC had
proposed this at Accra.
Philip Sheppard reminded the call of the NC recommendation that core ICANN
funds should indeed come from the revenues of Registrants as they do today -
all that is in question is the transmission mechanism and related
contractual arrangements.
Alejandro Pisanty said there needs to be a clear model, how it should be
implemented and what support it has.
Stuart Lynn was of the opinion that funding in itself would not solve the
problems as such. He agreed with an analysis posted by Elisabeth Porteneuve
that conference fees could only ever provide a small part of funding and
they were not therefore a key issue .
Harold Feld raised the point of involvement in the ICANN process. Some saw
no necessity to be involved as the reward for involvement was often unclear.
Stuart Lynn considered this an important point; some do not get involved
because the ICANN process puts them off. The end user often delegates policy
issues and the need for involvement is not great. If ICANN is successful,
there should be little need for involvement.
Ken Stubbs added that ccTLD users should get involved at a national level.
In addition he added that re tax, the public was victim to public relation
campaigns that spun it so it sounds like user tax
Philip Sheppard asked for opinions on the workable size of the Board, saying
the key question is the balance between a board big enough to be
representative and small enough to be workable. If the board is large and
has an executive committee the key is to find a group that adds to
efficiency while not concentrating political power unfairly.
Alejandro Pisanty said any input with regard to a Board with a smaller
executive committee would be welcome. He agreed the concept could streamline
and/or put power in the hands of a few.
Stuart Lynn said that his concept of forums was to add flexibility and
increase the diversity of voices advising the Board. Council members were
sceptical about the process of unstructured fora and any meaningful impact
they would have on policy development. How would forums add to efficiency?
The GA after all was intended to be that broad group. If it does not work as
intended, is it not better to reform it so it does?
Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty, and Joe Sims said that it had been an
important, helpful discussion. Philip Sheppard thanked the invited ICANN
members for their valuable participation.
Other Business
Waiting List Service (WLS) issue referred by the Board to the Names Council.
Louis Touton explained that on March 21, Verisign had requested a Registry
agreement amendment for .com and .net. There have been increasing concerns
about deletes. The Board is looking for assurance on the WLS recommendation
that it will be made in the general context of the delete issue.
See:
General Counsel's Analysis of VeriSign Global Registry Services' Request for
Amendment to Registry Agreement
http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm
VGRS Response to General Counsel's Analysis of VGRS's Request for Amendment
to Registry Agreement
http://www.icann.org/minutes/response-vgrs-wls-21apr02.htm
Philip Sheppard said there were 4 options:
1. ignore the request
2. form a new task force
3. refer it to the existing Transfer task force
4. the whole Names Council to work on it.
It was decided to refer it to the existing Transfer Task Force. It was
agreed that the present work of the task force should not be slowed down.
Timeline: Work Status report June 10, 2002.
Decision 1: Refer the WLS issue to the Transfer Task Force.
Request to the Names Council to comment on Request for Proposal (RFP)
materials for Dot ORG.
Philip Sheppard acknowledged the request to the Names Council on the RFP for
Dot Org. He recommended reactivating the dot ORG task force with the
addition of members to replace Milton Mueller NCDNHC and Guillermo Carey
ISPC, and the ISP if they would like to nominate. Elisabeth Porteneuve was
chosen as the task force interim chair to act as a facilitator to start the
work immediately as the deadline was extremely tight.
Decision 2: reactivate dot ORG task Force for the single task of providing
comments to the NC on the Dot Org RFP.
AOB
Marilyn Cade proposed a work session on policy development to be scheduled
for May 2, 2002.
Philip Sheppard concluded and confirmed the next teleconference on May 2,
2002 at 15:00 Paris time
The teleconference ended at 17:10
Next NC teleconference May 2 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|