http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991102.GAlosangeles-agenda.html
[ taken from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la/archive/scribe-ga-110299.html]|
Scribe's Notes DNSO General Assembly I. Nii Quaynor - Chair A. Reorder agenda? Perhaps strengthening relationship between NC and GA is a priority and should be moved forward on the agenda. Currently scheduled to start at noon. 1. Little concern about agenda expressed by audience. Agenda kept as is. B. Reps from Names Council? 1. Chicoine II. Administrative Issues A. Confirm minutes from Santiago III. Reps from Board? A. Abril i Abril — present. Cohen and Pisanty not present. B. Presentation from Abril i Abril. 1. Thanks to all who supported his nomination. 2. Term "our" to describe certain Board of Directors is not appropriate."ICANN Directors selected by the DNSO." Not delegates or representatives of DNSO or its constituencies; rather, three more members of Board that happen to be selected by a SO within ICANN. Bound to act in the best interest (as best it can be determined) of ICANN and the Internet. But we will pay"most special attention" to DNSO matters. 3. Happy to answer questions re roles or other matters. 4. Inclined to state opinion — both own and those of others as desired. 5. Questions? None. IV. Update from the ICANN Board A. Crew: Will attempt to answer questions from audience. Has personally concentrated on Membership. (Meeting on that subject later today.) B. Questions: 1. Abril i Abril: What are most important issues for this week? * Agreements among ICANN, NSI, DoC * At-Large Membership Bylaws * Funding 2. Langenbach: Board's position re new arrangements between NSI and DoC? Replacement of Initial Directors with At-Large Directors? * Comments sought, discussion still ongoing. Phased introduction of At-Large Council and Directors. 3. Langston (remote). Question read in its entirety."When an individual constituency to be recognized?" * Still not on agenda. Board now complete — with three directors from each SO. Put aside a constituency for individuals in order to concentrate on election of ICANN Board. V. Update from Names Council Chair - Chicoine A. Waiver of geographic diversity requirements for certain constituencies expires on January 15, 2000. B. Time since Santiago has been focused on elections — procedure, nominations, actual voting. Elected Pisanty, Abril i Abril, Cohen. C. Want to enhance procedure. Berkman Center proposal at [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso/ncprocedure]. D. Still working on business plan — funding, both short and long-term. E. WG-C report should be ready shortly for public comments. F. Questions? None. VI. Report from Recognized and Emerging Constituencies A. ccTLD — Howard 1. Yesterday's meeting had representatives from all over the world. 2. Administrative committee. 3. Discussed recent NC elections. Asked ccTLD representatives how they voted and why. Agreed to improve process for advising NC representatives. 4. Currently in breach of ICANN bylaws that allow only one representative per region. Have a 90 day waiver for the second European currently serving on NC. Need a new election procedure to ensure geographic diversity. 5. Funding for secretariat and other expenses. Some work already done; proposals are invited. 6. Agreed to pay share of expenses like webcasting. But future budgets must be approved. 7. Understand that have to pay a fee for technical services received. But the amount suggested for ccTLDs to pay seems like too much? 8. ccTLDs want contracts with ICANN for services received. 9. Code of best practices. 10. Meeting with IANA (Josh Elliot). Want to continue such meetings in the future. Discussed who is currently running the root. B. Non-Commercial — Mueller 1. Was minute-taker of recent meeting. 2. 74 organizational members, about equally divided between large and small. 3. Most of discussion about funding mechanisms. Believe no direct funding of ICANN should come from constituencies; funding for DNSO only is OK. Discussed membership fees but did not make a decision. Proposed funding of the constituency for a grant. Plans for a bank account, treasurer. 4. "By voting to exclude individuals into our constituency, we do not indicate opposition to a constituency for individual domain name holders" -Twelve yes, one no, one abstention 5. Discussed UDRP. Will prepare a cover sheet to help domain name holders challenged under the UDRP understand the procedures and their rights — to be translated into a number of languages. 6. Discussed WG-B. 7. Discussed relationship between WGs and the NC — no consensus. C. gTLDs — Telage 1. New general manager of NSI registry gave a tutorial re * Intended changes * Registry objectives * Making registry more reliable even with more registrars * Technical details * How NSI is being separated into registry and registrar divisions (conflict of interest training, information transfer prohibitions, etc.) 2. Meeting well-attended by registrars. Similar discussion given in the Registrar constituency meeting. D. IP Constituency 1. Well-attended and productive meeting. 2. Progress on administrative issues. * Election to be held in December for permanent NC members to achieve geographic diversity. * Provisional funding mechanism to pay share of DNSO expenses incurred. 3. Discussed ICANN, DoC, ICANN agreements. * IPC members are major consumers of WHOIS data. Want to assure high quality of data, don't want access to become harder or more expensive. * Suggested some clarifications to agreements. 4. Disappointed in Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy. Loopholes in policy. UDRP may prove not to be a viable alternative to litigation. Some mechanism needed to monitor and evaluate how the UDRP works in practice. E. Business — Sheppard 1. Want to stay abreast of developments within ICANN. Focus on interests of organizations as users of the Internet. For example, want electronic commerce to work for customers and consumers. * Perhaps have a member of constituency focus on each major issue. 2. Have a permanent secretariat. 3. 91 members from 5 regions. (Combinations of individual businesses and associations.) North America and Europe have highest representation. 4. Talked with three new board members elected by DNSO to ICANN. 5. Discussed funding. F. Registrars — Palage 1. Most well-attended ICANN meeting to date. 2. Had two meetings in addition to Registrar Constituency meeting. * Funding — expecting to contribute 50% of ICANN funds. * UDRP — discussion of how it will impact registrars, including presentations by those providing resolution services. 3. Discussed nomination and election of new NC representative to replace Abril i Abril. Selected Paul Kane (sp?). 4. Concern about NSI Registry — metrics for stability. Need for a centralized WHOIS database. 5. Funding of NC. 6. Discussed recent case law, legislation in US House and Senate re cybersquatting. 7. Attempting to improve IP Constituency and IP interests generally. Survey by IPC re how to correct erroneous WHOIS data. 8. Vote re agreements currently proposed between ICANN, NSI, and DoC. Hard to agree on language. Eighteen registrars voted. NSI supported contracts in their current form. Other seventeen registrars:"Do not support agreements in current form. Have serious concerns that need to be addressed." Of these seventeen, fourteen felt"These concerns needed to be modified." Two said" & clarified." One said" & renegotiated." G. ISPCP — Hotta 1. Chaired by Schneider 2. Interim funding approved to cover three physical meetings. Further details and long-term funding to be decided on mailing list. 3. Want to separate officers and NC members. 4. Adjustment of regions to comply with ICANN bylaws. 5. Want to further publicize ISPCP mailing lists. 6. Member organizations to link to ISPCP web site. 7. Most members concerned about agreements. H. IDNO — No Representatives Present I. Questions? 1. Wong: Not entirely clear exactly what the concerns were from the reports * Foreman (Register.com): We and 14 or 15 other registrars submitted some comments. We didn't all have the same concerns, but five had support of at least 50%. 1) NSI can use registry proceeds to support efforts as registrar. 2) Drafting error perhaps, but NSI is getting to enter forbidden agreements. 3) Credit policies. 4) No service-level agreements. All registrars feel that SLAs are required in order to protect ability to compete. 5) Super-majority issue. NSI gets veto right to reject accreditation fee changes. - Other issues included WHOIS, and a general feeling that landscape is changing without time to understand exactly what impact will be. Need chance to address flaws that have been identified. 2. Cade (AT&T): As a registrar, we are concerned about WHOIS access. We also are disturbed by provision allowing 3 day service outages given notice. This is commercially unreasonable for competitors. No incentives to keep WHOIS up all the time. J. Introduction of board members Pisanty and Cohen 1. Pisanty: I am very pleased to be here. 2. Cohen: I am seeing much more promise in process than some have seen. I am very optimistic. 3. Questions: * Quaynor: How do you intend to safeguard the interests of the DNSO? - Cohen: It's been made clear to directors that we are no longer representative of just DNSO constituency. Our ethical obligation is to act in the best interests of the Internet. However, I come from DNSO and for the short time that I will be a director, I hope to hear from all constituencies in DNSO and to bring all of their disparate points of view to the Board. I find that there is an open set of minds to these points of view. I can and will listen. - Pisanty: Responsibility to look to ICANN business as a whole. I don't see a strong opposition between DNSO and other SO's. I intend to keep open ear to all points of view and to contribute to principled discussion of all of these. We need to focus on being constructive in our discussions and so to further open and transparent discussion. * Remote comment (Langston): What is your position on allowing individual stakeholders (like domain name holders) representation within ICANN? - Cohen: Difficult issue. Some constituencies in DNSO allow individual membership and participation currently. I find that healthy. There is a move by some to form a new constituency for individuals, but there is debate on whether this is necessary or advisable, or whether individuals should participate in the at-large membership. I don't have a firm opinion. - Abril i Abril: I am opposed to the formation of a new constituency. There is a place for participation of individuals in DNSO and ICANN: general assembly. Non-commercial domain name holders are the only ones trying to keep the individuals out. I am frustrated by this. At-large membership for other kinds of representation. I am in favor of representation of individuals, but opposed to individual representation. Constituencies represent different functions that SO's perform. Being an individual is not a function. Being an individual does not describe what your role is in ICANN. We are not about defining citizenship, but about having representation of functional groups/operators. Functions of Internet are natural constituencies, not individuals. Adding constituencies could destroy DNSO; they are being added on political grounds rather than on functional grounds. Continuous addition of political parties is self-destructive in long-term. - Pisanty: One way to approach representation of individuals could be to strengthen general assembly by allowing more active participation of individuals who are also members of constituencies. If risk is perceived that individuals could overwhelm due to sheer numbers, self-organization of general assembly could protect against this. * Crispin: Non-commercial constituency allows individuals to participate. Membership question has to do with whether individuals can vote. Almost all allow individuals to participate on mailing lists and in discussion/decision process but the key issue is whether individuals get their own votes. I don't think any constituencies allow that but there is a forum for participation by individuals nonetheless. * Pisanty: Question to Howard Center: Best practices work group. Could you expand on it please? - Howard Center: RFC 1591 and others need to be updated. Best practices document is needed. GAC and others are working on such documents. We are making our own recommendations. Administration and delegation and other issues previously covered by 1591 in the past. * Abril i Abril: One of the problems with the DNSO is that people don't feel that they have a say in the real process. Only the registrar mailing list is publicly archived and available for reading. I would like to see all mailing lists for all constituencies to make their mailing lists publicly available to quiet fears that key issues are being decided in secret or otherwise out of public light. There is no opposition but it isn't happening either. * Cohen: Many people have done much work over time. This is very encouraging but we are in a critical period. I would encourage reasoned decisions and communications with new directors about remaining concerns. No one is twisting arms but dialogue seems open. I would encourage people not to be strident but to make their feelings known. Remember that we are at a time offering a strong future if we can get past some critical issues. VII. Working groups A. Group B: Palage: 56 participants but should grow to roughly 90. We have been trying to allow all who express interest to participate fully. We have allowed all individuals to vote. 1. We have engaged in an outreach program to nonprofits and to US Small Business Administration because small business interests have no been represented in ICANN process to large extent. 2. WIPO process ignored non-IP individuals. Question 0 vote: Are safeguards needed at all? Controversial because this is presumed by WIPO report. Consensus reached that safeguards are needed. We are calling for position papers (by 11/17) and then we will draft in committee a report. Tentative deadline is 12/31 for that report. B. Group C: Weinberg: DNSO has job to recommend to ICANN regarding new gTLDs. 1. Our group has open membership with over 90 participants but about a third have never posted. Another third has posted only very little. Core membership is about 24. 2. Our interim report is with Names Council and will be publicly available shortly. We are eager for comments. Report contains two pieces * Intro by co-chairs and report of consensus on need for new gTLDs and the pace at which they should be introduced. - Sharp division on pace and number to be introduced originally. Compromise that ICANN would introduce 6 to 10 in near future with testbed period and understanding that if that resulted in no serious problem, more would be added. This proposal was accepted by those really happy with it and those who found it the best of alternatives * No consensus on other issues so set of position papers representing different views. Seven of these are attached. They are about what the gTLDs should be, what they should be like, etc. Varying degrees of support for each. 3. Now we are waiting for public comment from those not in the working group. Report is on DNSO website linked from top page. We will publish URL and schedule for comments shortly. Please read and comment. C. Group D: Fausett: Policies and procedures. What working groups should be like and how they should proceed. We have a draft for all of the policies and procedures of all of the working groups. Meeting from 5 to 7 and all are welcome to come go over the draft. * What a report out of a working group should look like * What level of formalism should be followed by working groups in their internal discussions? Robert's Rules or Internet freeflow? * What happens in a working group when consensus can't be reached? * Should a working group have some testing of implementation of its work product if it wants to do something technical? Should its report include results of tests? 2. Public comment draft will follow this discussion and we hope to have comments there from all. By end of year we hope to have report to send to Names Council for its consideration. D. Group E: Chon: Global Awareness and Outreach 1. We had trouble getting sufficient number of members. We have 20 to 30 and want 40 to 50. Awareness is a problem, as is diversity. Geographic, discipline, etc. 2. Interim report on DNSO website; please come and make comments. 3. Yesterday's meeting: we went through outreach and awareness in 3 areas. * General Assembly (DNSO in general). Mailing list has about 200 members. Is this enough? Maybe 500 in DNSO total. Out of these, 200+ are GA@DNSO.org mailing list. We think 2000 would be our goal; reasonable for size of DNSO community. Please comment. * Then awareness is next issue. Must work together with ICANN and the constituencies. Many GA members will come from the constituencies. Biggest problem is a lack of information. What is a DNSO? No good source of basic introductory information in any language; we'd like to have it in a number of different languages. Same problem with ICANN information. If you have made a presentation, please put it in an accessible website somewhere and publicize it. We need introductory presentation material on websites and linked, also translated. Efforts are important. - Next step is workshops and seminars, and a video. - Should be a collaborative effort. * Constituencies information. Only 2 or 3 have information available (out of 7). They need informative websites. Extremely important. Public relations effort. All of the mailing lists should be publicly archived. - 7 constituencies and 5 working groups: how many of them have publicly available mailing lists and presentation material? Please work towards these goals. Only 2 or 3 are making reasonable efforts right now. 4. GA membership and ICANN at-large membership have overlap. Probably half of our GA members expect to be at-large members, whereas others are only interested in DNSO membership. This is a starting point for outreach. Other SO's will be similar. We can canvass using this information. Need 5000 members before they can have an election and are really aiming for 10000. Strong collaboration will be useful here. We think there should be an ICANN working group doing our function for them that we could work with from our DNSO perspective. 5. Funding: Volunteer is insufficient, although it helps. ICANN and DNSO and constituencies and working groups all need funding source and collaboration with leadership to work toward this goal. We need to address this at this meeting because March meeting will be too late. 6. We have a mid-term report now and final report should be done by March meeting. Second set of documents, for implementation, will be started soon and should be done three or four months in approximately July. Conception paper is available now (website). E. Questions/Comments 1. Schaeffer (remote): Working Group B is not focusing sufficiently on openness and transparency. Remote participation excluded yesterday. Trade association bias * Palage: We didn't have funds for it yesterday, but we did try. This goes to point that funding is necessary to pursue goals. I will go on record to state that no changes were made yesterday * Fausett: We are tentatively recommending that any physical group meeting decision be reviewed on the mailing list prior to be approved to protect openness. 2. Auerbach: 1000 seems to be too low a target since there are millions of domain name registrants. 3. Seltzer: How much of your discussion has centered of fair use of trademarks? How can we avoid undue burden on would-be fair uses? * Palage: We are seeking position papers on these delicate issues. Last 4 to 5 weeks have been centered on whether safeguards are needed. Now we are getting into what the scope of such safeguards should be. Certain contracts about filtering provisions that Red Cross and Olympics asked the registrars to sign voluntarily. What happens to an individual trying to protest abuses (political speech) who is stopped by such filtering? Registrar community does not want to get tied up in First Amendment issues but the working group is trying to resolve such issues. * Abril i Abril: Please remember that the US is not the only country and fair use means nothing to any lawyer not educated in US. VIII. Break IX. Relationship between NC and GA A. Touton 1. Bylaws provide for DNSO constituencies plus Names Council. Generally Assembly to be where all members of DNSO can meet periodically to discuss matters of general interest. Can discuss whatever it likes. 2. Once a year, NC elects ICANN Board Members (one per year after startup period). B. Quaynor: How to improve relations between NC and GA? 1. Questions * Langston (Online, #598): Comment read in its entirety by Quaynor. "To what extent should the GA be autonomous from the NC? If the GA is to be controlled by the NC, then what is the purpose of the GA? Without any autonomy, the GA is nothing but a discussion list." * Touton: GA to be the body that does the work — develops, documents consensus. To allow all people with legitimate interests in a subject to express their views. NC not just nineteen members voting according to their own preferences; are supposed to recognize consensus in WGs, constituencies. Idea of"control" is not appropriate. * Chicoine: Chairs of WGs to be liaisons between WG and NC so that NC knows what WGs are doing and doesn't get behind / out of touch. If problems do arise, chairs to help the WG move along. But the NC rep as chair should not attempt to control the WG. Perhaps use a similar model for the GA. * Quaynor: Seems like there's a problem, but no one is saying anything! * Auerbach: GA needs power. Right now it's just a place to"grump" and can be ignored by Board and NC. Need the GA to get explicit powers so it's taken seriously. Nominations for ICANN Board from DNSO to have come from members of the GA, but in the future nominations will come from"participants." * Chicoine: NC looks to GA to suggest procedures. * Touton: Auerbach's suggestion is a conceivable version of the DNSO but it's not what was agreed on in Singapore. Issues are complex. Working groups analyze issues and find expertise. Working groups are places where principal work is done. Achieve consensus directed to names council. NC formulate consensus recommendation to forward to the board. Just one idea. * Carl: bylaws say NC measures consensus. It should only measure consensus and do nothing else. NC should not be the policy vehicle. GA should be the policy formulators. * Touton: article 6b section four. GA is open forum for DNSO work. NC members devote time and energy. GA supposed to do the work. Bottom-up system. NC hasn't done anything differently. * Carl: NC measures consensus, numerically, and forwards and not forwards based on that. * Kilnam: Working group B perspective. GA has one chair. One third of members. We must have something more. We need election process and nomination of a chair. Frustration comes from GA discussions fizzling out. We have to come to some kind of consensus. One chair not enough. Agenda must be developed in time. Need specific effort to make a structure. Outreach and awareness globally. Now has 150 members. Do we have a good diversity? Need people to come in from different geographical areas to deal with diversity. * Touton: Too narrow a view of the GA. GA also forms the working groups. Lots of structure there. Co-chairs and sub groups. Drafting groups. * Schueller: Many people don't subscribe to the GA list because it has too much"noise." It would be even worse if the GA had (more) power. The GA is a good way to figure out what the issues are, but solutions to the issues can't be discussed in a group as large as the GA. * Online comments: Greenwell (#600) read in its entirety. "I am very concerned that the Names Council is putting itself in the position of electing the Chair of the GA &" * Barry (#601):"To me it's far more of an issue of disenfranchising individuals and other non-business entities in the DNSO &" * Barry (#602):"Why should the NC elect the GA chair? &" * Touton: Article 6B.2.ii says NC shall elect the chairman of the GA. * Abril i Abril: NC is part of GA, so are WGs. GA is"expressed" in many forms — online, physical, etc. But constituencies are becoming increasingly closed. NC and constituencies are too complicated — "more chiefs than Indians." * Quaynor: Something is not right. Want to figure out what and fix it. Let's have solutions, not just descriptions of the problem. * Crispin: Agree with Abril i Abril. There's a lot of structure here, and how it works together is not yet clear. Shouldn't create any more bureaucracy until we understand what we have already. * Fausett: GA should be the way the NC determines whether or not there's consensus on a particular propose. * Langston (remote #603 read in full):"Why is the GA characterized as not having thought through the issues or as incapable of making substantive decisions for itself? &" * Touton: GA is not well-suited for developing the kinds of policies necessary for maintaining the stability of the Internet. How many people have participated in a WG? (40% of room?) * Crocker: Suggestion: That everyone who participates in the DNSO be given title"Chair." Everyone participates in every decision all the time. Agrees with remote comment saying as much. Need mathematical process in the decision-making process. The structure should make us confident in the nineteen people on the NC — it's not as if they're all representatives of the same constituency. * Auerbach: GA has no effective power. Have to create a voice for those who don't fit into one of the constituencies. Suggestion: WGs be formed by and report to the GA not the NC, and that the GA approve WG reports before passing reports to the NC. * Gallup: Structure of DNSO is a failure. So many constituencies create a bottleneck. This structure won't result in consensus. Constituency groups are too disparate. Recommendation is that the DNSO be disbanded. * Greenwell (#604):"That the Bylaws state that the GA chair are to be elected by the NC is not the issue. The issue is that the Bylaws are in violation of the concept of self-organizing constituencies and should be altered accordingly." C. Quaynor: Motions? 1. Auerbach: Propose that WGs should be formed by, report to, and have reports approved by the GA. * Seconded. * Debate: * Crispin: Significance? What's the point? Given current structure of GA, what would happen as a result of such a vote? * Quaynor: Have to express the sentiment of the GA. * Sheppard: Confused about subject of debate. The NC is the way in which the GA can debate and discuss. There's no reason for anyone to feel disenfranchised. Bylaws are clear. * Auerbach: Current practice does disenfranchise many. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be the feeling of dissatisfaction that there is. * Perception of separation between GA and Names Council is the same as an actual separation. People aren't discussing how the line of communication between the two is supposed to happen. Lack of real identity for GA: amorphous blob. Names Council is supposed to listen to GA but not clear how that will happen. Whether Names Council has power or not is not issue. GA concerns about power and lack of accountability equates to it being that way. Seems that Names Council is sealed off and is determining for itself what it will send to Board without accountability to GA. Expressions of interest by Names Council illustrates that it is not obligated to listen. Names Council's only issue should be representing GA, but it's not. As long as GA does not seem critical to process, necessary in organized way, it will appear that it is not important and views expressed by it are not central to discussion * Rony: I supported Auerbach motion. I monitor these issues on a full time basis, and that's what it takes to understand what is going on because it has become so complex. For someone not in GA to find out what is going on in working groups, that person has to check five sites everyday and this is not untenable. Everyday more people become stakeholders (see domain name registrants as well as new online users) and they had no voice in elections. They need a voice and if GA doesn't have one, neither do they * Fausett: Working group's report supports Auerbach proposal for working groups for GA. There should be a process by which there is official attempt to examine consensus in GA * Chicoine: There has never been an attempt to reject a working group by Names Council. * Touton: How many people out there were aware that GA members could make a proposal for the chartering of a workgroup? * Auerbach: I would like to remove discretion to reject such a proposal — shouldn't be a proposal at all. * Chicoine: I agree that we are still at an early stage here. We need to have some structure. We have working group chairs currently playing most active role. Perception that Names Council is controlling working groups and where they are headed is not well-founded. * Auerbach: I don't see how confusion has any relation to whether GA can found a working group * Chicoine: that unfettered discretion in GA would not allow good prioritization of issues * Auerbach: That is Names Council and narrow group of constituencies * Chicoine: We would prioritize according to what we heard from GA * Auerbach: But that's according to your discretion * Touton: Names Council is supposed to manage flow and establishment of working groups according to bylaws. I know no example of poor use of power * Langenbach: Working groups get going and make proposals and then come back to GA. People not involved then decide whether they approve or not and this seems untenable. People are voting without adequate knowledge base * Langston et al (remote): We support motion * Mueller: The idea that the GA should play role in ratification of working groups work product and in creation/formation of working groups is a good proposal but is first step. GA needs more structure before can perform these tasks adequately. Perception is that Working Group C was disastrous until Names Council stepped in; I think it was opposite. Names Council gave WGC an impossible task on an impossible timeline. Results were not problematic due to open process or WGC nature but because problem being struggled with is central to ICANN debates generally. We perceive that Names Council had specific agenda that it wanted to force. WGA felt similarly. I don't know that this resolution will solve the problem, but could we at least get an expression from Names Council and ICANN saying that GA's function and role as consensus building entity could be stated more clearly and leveraged more effectively * Auerbach: If we had DNSO as a whole voting on every proposal, we will get some uneducated voters. So what? We are opening doors to educated and motivated voters as well. This is the price of a democratic process. * Schaeffer (remote): Common perception is that Names Council members must chair WG's, and thus NC approval is required. - WGB chair: WGD's interim report stated that Names Council rep is supervisory chair. Since then WGD and I have been working to reflect concerns of participants here: that NC gets bootstrap process by right to supervisory chair. I am elected co-chair of WGB and I have not seen this happen. We have had a clean slate to build upon, and have examined issues that NC did not/would not have approved. I share some of these concerns but my experience with WGB has showed me that the process is not tainted. I encourage all to work with WGD to refine the process. Trying to reach consensus with GA on each issue is not practicable. Just within WG's has been very difficult and they are much smaller. 2. Quaynor: What is our next step? WGD is working on similar issues. Do we put it to them to consider further, or do we put it to a vote right here? I think we've had insufficient debate and would like to integrate this with WGD's output. * Auerbach: I'm already a member of WGD so I think that's fine * Quaynor: Do we have consensus to send it to WGD? (Vote) Passes. Let's all get active with WGD to make this happen. D. Other matters including funding of ICANN 1. Touton: Public forum on funding tomorrow. Check website for materials. 2. Abril i Abril: I've been concerned about GA only focusing on organizing. I think GA should be anything its members decide for it to be. More effective this time than previously. Less discussion about role and more using role. X. Lunch CONTACT INFORMATION For additional technical information, please contact: Ben Edelman and John Wilbanks |