<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[announce] DNSO Names Council Amsterdam meeting minutes Dec. 14, 2002
CANN/DNSO
DNSO Names Council Amsterdam Meeting on 14 December 2002 - minutes
17 December 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021214.NCteleconf-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard Business
Marilyn Cade Business
Grant Forsyth Business remote participation
Greg Ruth ISPCP absent, apologies
Antonio Harris ISPCP absent, apologies, proxy to Tony Holmes
Tony Holmes ISPCP
Philipp Grabensee Registrars
Ken Stubbs Registrars
Bruce Tonkin Registrars
Roger Cochetti gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan gTLD remote participation
Cary Karp gTLD
Ellen Shankman IP absent, apologies, proxy to Laurence Djolakian
Laurence Djolakian IP
J. Scott Evans IP remote participation
Harold Feld NCDNH absent, apologies, proxy to Chun Eung Hwi
Chun Eung Hwi NCDNH remote participation
Erick Iriate NCDNH absent, apologies proxy to Chun Eung Hwi
9 Names Council Members physically present, 4 remote participation
Thomas Roessler GA Chair
Glen de Saint Géry NC Secretary
Alix Guillard MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20021214NCteleconf.mp3
Quorum present at 9:10 local time in Amsterdam
Bruce Tonkin chaired this Names Council meeting
* Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021214.NCteleconf-agenda.html
Roger Cochetti added: the administrative transition from the DNSO to
the GNSO
* Item 2: Summary of last meetings:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021114.NCteleconf-minutes.html
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Philipp
Grabensee.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Decision 1: Motion adopted.
* Item 3: Transfers Task Force final report and recommendations
- for decision (deadline for report 30 Nov 2002)
- confirm and approve consensus policy recommendation
Bruce Tonkin summarized saying the Transfers task force presented a
final report on November 30, containing recommendations for new
consensus policy. Referring to a communication to the Names Council on
December 7, http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00195.html
Bruce Tonkin suggested that the next step would be to carry out further
implementation analysis and add it as an appendix to the report before
providing a final report to the ICANN Board in February 2003, ready for
the March ICANN Board meeting in Rio de Janeiro.
Discussion and comments on the report and the suggestion:
Marilyn Cade read out a comment received on December 14 from the
At-Large Organizing Committee. (ALOC).
The ALOC commends the efforts of the Transfers task force to improve
the efficiency and security of gTLD domain name transfers and to ensure
that the concerns and interests of the registrants are addressed. They
emphasized the importance of the procedure and said that they would
have a statement at a later date.
Bruce Tonkin said that the comments would be included in the final
report.
Roger Cochetti, on behalf of the Registry constituency, expressed
concern with the short time allowed to comment on the December 12
updated report and the procedural aspects, namely, that the Names
Council is responsible for addressing policy issues.
J. Scott Evans, on behalf of the Intellectual property constituency,
said that it was time to move forward. He agreed with an implementation
analysis working group with a narrow focus agenda including input from
Registrars and registries and other stakeholders giving a real world
analysis of what costs would be involved, and that this should be added
as an addendum to the report.
Ken Stubbs on behalf of the Registrars who expressed support for the
report. An implementation report should be an integral part of the
report to the Board and the process should be managed by people
responsible for providing services to the end-user.
Marilyn Cade, as Task Force Chair, expressed appreciation for the task
force work and the participation of all the members. The task force had
benefited from the support of constituency participation, registrars,
registries, individual registrants and resellers and this consultation
has been documented in the report. An implementation issues assessment
analysis would be an important addition and work should be concluded by
the end of January so that it can be put forward for an ICANN Board
vote in March.
Bruce Tonkin asked what substantial changes there were between the
November 30 and December 12 reports?
Ross Rader, a task force member who was in the audience, stated two
changes:
- Summary of the comments received during the public comment period
- Impact analysis received from the Registry constituency which was
received late.
Bruce Tonkin said that there were no new recommendations since the
November 30 report and adequate consultation had been done.
Motion proposed by Grant Forsyth, seconded by Ken Stubbs:
The Names Council accepts the policy recommendations that were in the
transfer Task Force Report of 30 November.
The Names Council approves the formation of an implementation analysis
committee which incorporates the Registries and Registrars plus
representatives from the task force. The purpose of that committee is
to look at how to implement the policy recommendations and not to
create or change policy recommendations. If there are any changes they
would go back to the Names Council and the Names Council would ask the
task force to comment on any changes.
Friendly amendment by J. Scott Evans accepted by Grant Forsyth and Ken
Stubbs.
Request that any liaison between Transfer Task Force and the
implementation committee would be members of the user community.
Grant Forsyth wanted to clarify that if policy might be altered or
modified, that the change would need approval of the Names Council
which would seek advice of the task force before changing the
recommendation.
Bruce Tonkin agreed that the Names Council would need to approve a
change to any of the policy recommendations and that the Names Council
would consult with the task force for advice.
General Counsel, Louis Touton, present at the meeting, clarified the
timelines: the Board report had to be completed 30 days before the
meeting in Rio de Janeiro which is on March 22, 2003.
The meeting broke for a short period to allow for consultation with the
constituencies on the motion.
Motion proposed by Grant Forsyth, seconded by Ken Stubbs:
The Names Council accepts the policy recommendations that were in the
transfer Task Force Report of 30 November.
The Names Council will form an implementation analysis committee which
will comprise of the Registries and Registrars with ICANN staff and
user liaisons from the transfer task force.
That it will complete its analysis by 30 January 2003.
The Names Council will then meet to discuss the final ICANN Board
report in its meeting in February and the final Board report will be
forwarded with the aim to reach the ICANN Board 30 days prior to the
ICANN meeting in Rio de Janeiro.
The report from the implementation analysis committee will present the
findings on the feasibility of implementing the policy and it will be
suitable for inclusion in the report which will become theTransfers
Board report.
The members present with proxy votes voted unanimously for the adoption
of the motion.
Motion unanimously approved
Decision 2: Motion adopted
Bruce Tonkin will spearhead the formation of the implementation
analysis committee and act as interim chairman.
Action: the Secretariat will open a public mailing list for the
implementation analysis committee.
Grant Forsyth dropped off the call and gave his proxy to Philip
Sheppard.
* Item 4: WHOIS Task Force final report and recommendations
- for decision (deadline for report 30 Nov 2002)
- confirm and approve consensus policy recommendations
Marilyn Cade remarked that there were task force members present in the
room.
Bruce Tonkin summarized, saying that the WHOIS task force produced a
report with two specific areas of policy recommendations:
- Accuracy
- Bulk data for marketing purposes
Further WHOIS policy work is foreseen, and this should be conducted
subject to new terms of reference and following the new GNSO policy
development process (see
http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-appa-annexa-31oct02.htm).
Discussion and comments on the policy recommendations.
Roger Cochetti on behalf of the Registry constituency, repeated his
concern expressed about the Transfers task force report saying that the
integrity of the Names Council was at stake, as there had not been
enough time to consult, adding that contracts could be amended through
the assertion that there is a consensus and such changes to contracts
can significantly affect the business of registries. There would be no
process issue if it came up at the next Council meeting in January.
Further comments were received on the timing from J. Scott Evans and
Philip Sheppard who felt that there had been adequate time for
consultation.
Ken Stubbs reported that the Registrars constituency recommend that the
WHOIS Task Force wait until the next meeting to propose its
recommendations so as to provide adequate time for consultation with
registrars in order to conduct an assessment of the potential costs and
impact on competition caused by the recommendations in the report.
Jordyn Buchanan expressed the same concern as in Shanghai, that the 15
day period to update information in the WHOIS was too short and that
accuracy and privacy issues should be dealt with simultaneously as
those concerned for their privacy will look at ways to curcumvent the
accuracy provisions.
Chun Eung Hwi, on behalf of the non-commercial constituency said that
members felt their comments on privacy were not taken into account.
Accuracy should be dealt with differently for different registrants
meaning a uniform accuracy policy is not possible. The members propose
a testbed period in the implementaion, starting with commercial gTLDs
and then going on to non-commercial gTLDs later.
Bruce Tonkin speaking for a large Registrar, said the wording was loose
and vague. It was unclear how much work is needed if data is to be
accurate. The 15 day period depends on the form of the contact
available (it could be adequate for email, but inadequate for
international land mail).
More definition is needed before the report can be accepted, such as,
what should be done if some or all of the information is incorrect,
what documentation is required. There could be significant costs that
would be charged to the registrant and an implementation analysis
report is required.
Marilyn Cade, as task force co-chair commented that the WHOIS has an
even broader impact to the community than the Transfers issue and the
work of the Task Force has to continue in 2003 with revised terms of
reference. The task force recommends identifying the impact of
recommendations about enforcement and existing obligations and
understanding the cost impact.
The report should be received, there should be the establishment of an
implementation analysis committee with the participation of Registrars,
Registries and task force members to assess the policy recommendations
and the implementation of increased enforcement. The work should be
concluded in a timely manner to be voted on by the February meeting,
then put forward to the ICANN Board in March. At the same time the task
force will prepare two reports on:
- Consistency of data elements
- Seachability
In a revised terms of reference further work will be undertaken and
Government participation would be sought.
J. Scott Evans proposed the motion, seconded by Roger Cochetti:
That the Names Council delays acceptance of the policy recommendations
in the November 30 WHOIS task force report and allow additional time
for consideration by the constituencies until the next Council call on
16 January 2003.
That the Names Council creates an implementation/cost analysis
committee, that would look at the cost of implementing the
recommendations as they are written and as they may change during the
next 30 day period.
That the implementation Cost analysis committee produces a report by 30
January 2003 prior to the Council meeting on February 20 which can be
incorporated into the main report.
The structure of the implementation analysis committee would be
identical to that of the Transfers implementation analysis committee
and would consist of Registries, Registrars and user representation
from the WHOIS task force.
The members present with proxy votes voted unanimously for the adoption
of the motion.
Motion unanimously approved
Decision 3: Motion adopted
Bruce Tonkin clarified that the analysis report should be completed by
January 30, 2003. Any policy changes should be notified to the Council
14 days before the meeting in January and the policy recommendations of
the WHOIS task force should be voted on at the January 16, 2003
meeting.
The Names Council Constituencies need input and comments before January
16, 2003.
* Item 5: Budget report
for decision: constituency contributions for 2003
- current financial status
- projected position for 31 Dec 2002
- discuss DNSO budget for 1 Jan 2003 to 30 June 2003, and estimate
constituency contributions required for 2003. (Currently in the range
$5000 to $9000 per constituency)
Roger Cochetti summarized the budget position. The DNSO Budget year
ends at the end of December 2002 and the ICANN Budget year ends at the
end of June. From July 2003 the DNSO/GNSO will be taken over by ICANN,
but until June 2003 the running costs are estimated at $54 000.
Two approaches may be taken to cover the costs for the next six months:
- use up the cash reserve and lower the constituency fees so that the
constituency fees would go down from approximately $9 000 to $5 000
- raise sufficient dues so that there is a cash reserve,which provides
more flexibility in the budget, and the constituency fees would be $9
000.
After discussion, a straw pole was taken with 3 alternatives, $5 000,
$9 000 and a figure in between proposed by Ken Stubbs of $6 000.
The results were 5 members voted for $5 000, 3 members voted for $9 000
and 2 members voted for $6 000 as the constituency fees.
·
* Decision 4: Council requested the budget committee to draw up a budget
assuming a contribution from each constituency of $5000 for the first 6
months of 2003.
Item 6: AOB
1. Roger Cochetti said that as the DNSO was about to expire and become
the GNSO, certain administrative and quasi-legal issues arose. ICANN
Board could take certain actions but it could not act on internal DNSO
Council matters, such as the Rules of Procedure and the Memorandum of
Understanding with ICANN to manage funds.
He proposed scheduling a meeting within 7 days to examine the
administrative matters.
Date of the meeting and agenda to be circulated as soon as possible for
the week ending Friday 20 December.
2. Tony Holmes raised concern about timeframes for task force work as
during the first six months of 2003, there was no staff support in
place.
3. Thomas Roessler said that as the DNSO ceases to exist the GA also
ceases and will be replaced by ALSC and GAC liaison.
The GA list would however continue and volunteers, Alexander Svensson,
Thomas Roessler and Ross Rader, would monitor it.
Bruce Tonkin thanked all present for their participation.
The meeting ended at 12:10 local time in Amsterdam.
Next Council meeting TBD.
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
>>>
|