[announce] NC teleconf minutes May 29, 2002

["DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>]

[To: ga@dnso.org; announce@dnso.org]
[To: liaison7c@dnso.org]

DNSO Names Council teleconference on May 29, 2002 - Minutes

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 absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD

Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business absent, apologies
Greg Ruth              ISPCP
Antonio Harris         ISPCP
Tony Holmes            ISPCP
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars absent, apologies,
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD  absent, apologies, proxy to Cary Karp
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 absent, apologies,
Erick Iriate           NCDNH absent, apologies,

13 Names Council Members

Thomas Roessler GA Chair

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut      MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat


MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020529.NCteleconf.mp3

Quorum present at 16:10 (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/20020529.NCteleconf-agenda.html

The agenda was approved.

Item 1. Summary of last meetings:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020514.NCteleconf-minutes.html
Cary Karp moved the adoption of the summaries.
The motion was carried unanimously. The summary of the last meeting was
adopted
Motion adopted.

Agenda item 4. Report on Wait List Service (WLS) - Marilyn Cade
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020524.TFSummary-deletes-WLS.html

This agenda item was discussed first.

Marilyn Cade reported that the Wait list Service had been referred to the
Names Council by the Board to be guided by input from the Transfer Task
Force. The Transfer Task Force had two open teleconferences, widely
announced to all constituencies, with 19 people on each call. Marilyn Cade,
Task Force chair, prepared a summary and said that there would be a status
report for the next Names Council meeting.
The assignment was to examine the:
- Deletion issue,
- Possible solutions
- Verisign Wait Listing Service proposal
The report will comment on the:
- the status of deletions,
- possible steps for ICANN to take on the redemption policy
- options to ameliorate harm done to Registrants
- ways of lessening the load on Registries
- the Wait Listing Service proposal from Verisign.

Discussion showed that there was limited support for the Wait Listing
Service; the time frame for the redemption period needed further discussion;
and a statement should be issued giving the parameters and thinking around
this. The importance of getting the Task Force recommendations out for
discussion before the Board meeting was emphasized.

AOB: Board Retreat

An informal report from at-large director, Andy Mueller-Maughan, was
referred to which Harold Feld said he would send to the Names Council list.
Care should be taken on the accuracy of the report. Thomas Roessler agreed
with Ken Stubbs who said that where  personnel matters were concerned, such
statements needed reconfirmation. Marilyn Cade noted that the Board was not
inclined to have an At Large election, and strong support had been shown for
a Nominating Committee. Documentation on the meeting could be expected by
the end of the week. Later, Thomas Roessler quoted from a mail sent by Joe
Sims to the GA list confirming that there would be:" Committee's production
of recommendations to the Board and the community, which hopefully will be
published later this week."

Agenda Item 2. Discussion and adoption of recommendations 26-33 (from
version 10) http://www.dnso.org/temp/20020529.NCinterimrepv10.html .

Philip Sheppard said that the section looked at the nature of Policy
Development Bodies and a number of options that if adopted would start to
shape Board composition.

Recommendation 26 was a reaction to the possible merging of the addressing
and protocol bodies. Discussion showed that there was broad support for two
separate bodies from the Business constituency (BC) and the Internet Service
Providers and Connectivity Providers constituency (ISPCP). Input from the
technical community is useful at the constituency level and at the Board
level. Marilyn Cade noted that there should be an effective process of
consultation across the supporting organisations.

New wording:
Recommendation 26 - technical bodies
There should be separate policy development bodies for addressing and
protocols. There needs to be an effective mechanism for cross-policy
development bodies consultation.

Recommendation 26 Accepted by all

Recommendation 27.
Tony Holmes pointed out that the GAC concept is supported from outside but
that it is not working well.
It lacks in terms of outreach and there is no coordination with ICANN and
the DNSO. Ken Stubbs said the benefits of a consultation process and
increased communications with Government bodies should be acknowledged but
he did not believe the Names Council should say how they should be
organized. Marilyn Cade commented on the importance of a consultation
process across the supporting organisations and the Government Advisory
Committee should be part of these consultations.
New wording:
Recommendation 27 - Government
There should be a Government advisory body. There needs to be an improved
flow of communication and better cooperation with the ICANN policy
development bodies.

Recommendation 27: Accepted by all

Recommendation 28
Ph. Sheppard explained that this was linked to policy development bodies and
on who would give technical advice to the Board. Tony Holmes expressed
concern that a technical advisory committee challenges what has been said in
recommendation 26, as a technical advisory body embraces a much broader
concept than protocols and address bodies. Bruce Tonkin made a distinction
made between giving technical advice and making policy on technical issues.
It was felt that it could be a standing committee but should not replace the
protocol supporting organisation. Discussion followed on whether there
should be board representation, voting or non voting, observer status.
Arguments showed support for a neutral technical advisory committee
available to the Board for expertise and consultative purposes to enhance
communication. Technical expertise and advice should be in the interests of
ICANN and not specific constituencies.

New wording:
Recommendation 28 - technical
There should be ad hoc technical advisory committees providing neutral
technical advice and convened by the ICANN Board. There is no need for a
standing technical advisory body with Board representation.

Recommendation 28: Accepted by all

Recommendation 29.
Philip Sheppard introduced the recommendation dealing with Government
Advisory Committee (GAC) representation on the Board and said that there
were three options:
- voting representation
- non-voting representation (observer)
- liaison

Discussion was in favour of a liaison role. Harold Feld pointed out that
even a non voting Board seat is significant as it provides many levels of
contact and participation. Ken Stubbs believed that a non voting observer
has to bound by the same conditions as a voting participant, especially with
regard to confidentiality. This was echoed by Thomas Roessler who said that
a GAC member acting as a voting member could have a conflict of interest,
but that this would not apply in a liaison position. Bruce Tonkin said that
the Registrars constituency emphasized good communication and coordination
which could be achieved by liaison. Marilyn Cade said the Business
Constituency supported non voting representation. Tony Holmes agreed that
the ISPC constituency could accept this, while Laurence Djolakian said the
IP constituency also gave consideration to expertise liasion but didn't
specifically refer to the GAC.

New wording:
Recommendation 29 - Board seats for Advisory bodies.
The GAC Chair or designee should provide a permanent liaison to the ICANN
Board.

Recommendation 29: Accepted by all.

Recommendation 30
Due to a leaving NC member quorum was then lost. Philip Sheppard invited
discussion on "equal representation". Should the number of Board seats
elected by the Policy Development Bodies be the same?

Ken Stubbs felt that there should be responsibility for financial support
for ICANN based on Board representation. Objection to buying ones way onto
the Board was expressed by Harold Feld and this was clarified by Ken Stubbs
saying that Board members should be obliged to support and follow Board
decisions. He believed a situation should not be created, as for the ccTLDs,
where a group seeks involvement but then chooses to not be subject to the
policy created. Harold Feld believed that there could be reasons why a
group, taking part in policy creation would decide not to be subject to it,
but would not want to give up their opportunity of participating as their
input is important. Tony Harris agreed with Ken Stubbs. Marilyn Cade's
opinion was that there should be a set of standards for all entities to
adhere to.

Thomas Roessler pointed out that there was logic to first discuss
recommendations 30 through 32 and that these points of principle would lead
to certain conclusions on board composition (recommendation 33).

No vote could be taken because there was no quorum and it was decided to add
fresh wording based on the discussion. Essentially there was no opposition
to an equal number of Board members elected by each policy development body.

Recommendations 31 and 32 The concept of a Nominating committee, its
existence and possible composition.

Philip Sheppard asked if there was space on the Board after the seats from
the Policy Development Bodies, should it be filled via a Nominating
Committee? Should the seats selected by that committee be equal, less or
more than the representation from Policy Development Bodies? Could the At
Large be included and how should a nominating committee be composed?

Harold Feld stated the NCDNHC position on At Large which calls for direct
elections. He believed that unless there is a mechanism to make a nominating
committee open, an oligarchy will be perpetuated. Bruce Tonkin said that the
Registrars support the election of a nominating committee with
representation from the Registrars, Registries, non-commercials users,
commercial users and individual users. Marilyn Cade said that the Business
Constituency supported an At Large process that would lead to elections. A
nominating committee should control too many Board votes . There should be a
method for the At Large to participate in the Nominating committee, for
example by designating 6 seats to the At Large. Tony Holmes said that there
was no support for a nominating committee among the ISPCP constituency.

Thomas Roessler said that the GA prefers direct elections for At Large and
there was not support for a nominating committee. He warned against a
nominating committee electing a number of Board seats close to the number of
members of the nominating committee itself. He believed this would
effectively replicate the committee's composition in its choice of Board
members. He believed a nominating committee should be forced to compromise
and so should be larger than the number of seats that it has to fill.

Conclusions

Philip Sheppard concluded saying that opinions were divided over
recommendations 30 to 32.He would draft a report as edited on this call. He
mentioned that it would be useful to have perspectives on the ccTLD
structure from Elisabeth Porteneuve and Oscar Robles on recommendations 18
to 24. He confirmed the next teleconference on June 6, 2002. Thomas Roessler
promised e-mail input recommendations 18, 19, 23, 24, 25. Marilyn Cade said
that in view of a possible document from the Evolution Reform Committee, the
Names Council should focus on comparing its recommendations to the
committee's.

A status report would be forthcoming from the transfer committee and
constituencies are encouraged to consult with their members on the report.

The teleconference ended at 17:20

Next NC teleconference June 6 at 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