ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 21 September 2000 - minutes |
21 September 2000.
Proposed agenda and related documents:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000921.NCtelecon-agenda.html
List of attendees:Dennis Jennings ccTLD absent (appology) Patricio Poblete ccTLD Nii Quaynor ccTLD Philip Sheppard Business Masanobu Katoh Business proxy to Theresa Theresa Swinehart Business Hirofumi Hotta ISPCP proxy to Michael or Tony Tony Harris ISPCP arrived 14:35 Michael Schneider ISPCP arrived 14:20 Erica Roberts Registrars arrived 14:20 Ken Stubbs Registrars left 15:15 Paul Kane Registrars Roger Cochetti gTLD arrived 14:35 Caroline Chicoine IP arrived 14:35 Axel Aus der Muhlen IP proxy to Caroline Guillermo Carey IP proxy to Caroline Youn Jung Park NCDNH Dany Vandromme NCDNH Zakaria Amar NCDNH proxy to YJP Louis Touton ICANN staff Andrew McLaughlin ICANN staff Roberto Gaetano GA Chair (part time) Elisabeth Porteneuve DNSO Secretariat
Chair Ken Stubbs (Registrars) until 15:15, then Caroline Chicoine (IPC)
Quorum present at 14:20 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +2:00)Minutes of the meeting.
Ken Stubbs expressed concerns that the conference bridge for the call did not provide listen-only ports, so no facility had been provided for the general public to listen in real time.
Decision D1: Unanimously approved by a vote of all present (eight NC attendees, quorum with proxies).
DNSO point of contact
Decision on the webcast
Andrew McLaughlin urged the NC to select a DNSO coordinator for the November meeting, to serve as a single point of contact to schedule all DNSO activities (NC, GA, WGs Committees or Task Forces, liaison between Constituencies secretariats, etc.). Paul Kane volunteered to do this work, he shall be provided input from each Constituency, from the GA Chair, and from the DNSO Secretariat for liaison meeting.
Ken Stubbs reported that the meetings on Tuesday will include a meeting of the General Assembly and a Names Council meeting. The IANA is planning a meeting with ccTLD personnel on Tuesday afternoon, so that the Names Council meeting cannot run into late afternoon.
Action A1: Paul Kane to coordinate the LA meeting agenda.
Andrew stressed that the DNSO must commit promptly to cover the cost (estimated at $10,000) of webcasting for Tuesday, or arrangements cannot be made. Paul Kane reported that Roger Cochetti (who was not yet in attendance at the call) had secured NSI's "in principle" commitment, but needed to verify the amount.
Action A2: Paul Kane to coordinate with Roger Cochetti to firm up funding commitment for webcast.
Louis Touton indicated there were no material change in the financial status. Several checks have been received from the NCDNH members, but when bank accounts are in A currency and checks drafted in B currency, the banks are charging quite a high cost for cashing, sometimes above the drafted check value. The constituencies are requested to work out how to accumulate funds, and send out a lump sum to the ICANN.
The ISPCP Constituency, which is not formally incorporated, met last week and found a mechanism on how to legally collect funding. Michael Schneider reported the ISPCP will have in the future the budget larger than just for the DNSO fees, and they will consolidate payments through. They expect to pay their dues shortly.
During last item Michael Schneider and Erica Roberts joined the call. Ten NC attendees.
Louis Touton reviewed the mechanics of the ongoing process for receiving applications for new TLDs. Questions from applicants are not being answered privately, but rather questions submitted are posted with responses on ICANN's public web site. ICANN staff will receive the applications and will post significant parts of these (without confidential parts) for public comment. It was noted that some companies are offering pre-registrations in possible new top- level domains, some of them even charging money for the pre- registrations. Two companies raise problems, first being registrar, second claiming to be working through registrars.
The members of the NC discussed speculations issue, and how to deal with irresponsible practices. They are worried for consumers and general users of the Internet, looking for the way to discourage abuses. Louis reminded that one of criteria of selection for new TLDs is "how you will deal with registrations on startup". Paul and Philip volunteered to draft a press release and pass an information to the newspapers and public using ICANN communication channels.
Action A3: Paul Kane and Philip Sheppard to draft a press release to be circulated through ICANN distribution channels. It should be approved by Ken Stubbs and be circulated to the NC before distribution.
(On 29 September the Announcement has been posted at http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr29sep00.htm and released to the press.)At this point, Tony Harris, Roger Cochetti, and Caroline Chicoine joined the call.
Paul Kane reported on a proposed proxy policy that had been circulated. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000920.NCproxy-vote.v0.html, Version 0, 20 September 2000
The issue of quorum was discussed, in which situations only physically present members count and when proxies are counted. Louis Touton stated nothing is explicated in Bylaws. It was felt that 4 weeks for "incommunicado" may be a long time, and in the assumption of one NC telecon per month, a Constituency may miss a vote for one meeting. Elisabeth Porteneuve stressed that at some point it is assumed the Secretariat is working 24 hours a day. It was agreed Paul Kane would work with Andrew McLaughlin and bring back a revised proposal for the next meeting.
Action A4: Paul Kane to work with Andrew McLaughlin to prepare and report back with a revised proxy vote proposal.
Philip Sheppard raised an issue regarding whether the DNSO should temporarily return a $13,000 dues payment made by the Business Constituency. The ICANN staff has indicated that this return of funds would not be made without NC instructions.
Philip explained that the ICC manages the Business Constituency finances, making payments based on approvals by the BC Secretariat. The dues payment was made without Secretariat approval. This results in a cash flow problem, including difficulties in paying the Secretariat. The question was whether in such a situation ICANN can reimburse or not.
It was noted that a return of the funds at this point could create an unfortunate precedent and complicate the payment of dues by other constituencies. After discussion, the BC agreed that a request for reimbursement should not be pursued.
ICANN is awaiting two nominees from the DNSO to the Nomination Committee, which will nominate the members of the independent review panel (retired judges, etc., not paid). PSO already provided one nominee, ASO will do it on Oct 28th in Brisbane. The DNSO nominees may not have any conflict of interest.
There was various discussion about possible sources of nominees for the Nomination Committee positions.
Paul Kane suggested as part of outreach program to encourage people from Africa, Latin America, and all regions for the independent review panel. Patricio Poblette noted that a request for retired judges, familiar with English language and American law may be unrealistic.
Action A5: The NC to provide 2 nominees to the ICANN Nomination Committee.
Theresa Swinehart presented a draft document for the DNSO review that had previously been circulated to the NC. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000919.NCreview-report.v1.2.html, Version 1.2, 19 September 2000
The draft summarizes questions and issues to be included in the review. It is a preliminary document and is open for improvements and feedback from the NC. ICANN staff was asked for guidance on how specific a report the Board expects from the NC. In response, Louis Touton noted that the degree of specificity should be limited only by the extent to which consensus can be achieved. The review report should provide an evaluation on what was well done by the DNSO and less well done, noting any consensus on proposals for revision the Board should consider.
At this point Ken Stubbs left the call because of an emergency and Caroline Chicoine assumed the role of chair.
A discussion followed about the extent of consideration of the review issues within the DNSO so far. YJ Park reported initiating work in the NCDNHC. Roberto Gaetano, GA Chair, used this document as starting point for discussion on ga list.
Roberto Gaetano questioned whether a Task Force rather than a Working Group should prepare the Review report. He indicated that such a choice is not responsive to the GA's motion in Yokohama calling for creation of a Working Group and subsequent decision to merge the issue of Constituency for Individuals into DNSO review Working Group. The NC discussed this and decided to continue following the procedure the NC decided on in Yokohama.
YJ Park expressed dissatisfaction that in the review process the NC was not being sufficiently responsive to concerns that have been raised by various DNSO participants. The NC discussed the need to improve communications with the entire community on this issue.
The first draft of DNSO Review report is expected by the Board by October 13th, with the final report to be ready one week prior to the Los Angeles meetings. Theresa Swinehart's work will be completed and reviewed, questions will be prepared, then comments solicited, and the final summary drafted by the NC and send out to the ICANN Board. Nii Quaynor suggested incorporating some quantitative questions as a means to evaluate a level of involvement in the constituencies and GA, etc.
Action A5: Theresa Swinehart to lead the drafting of the first DNSO review report for 13 October 2000. Nii to send by email suggested questionnaire.
Philip Sheppard presented the first portion of the report of the Intake Committee, which covers intake/agenda procedures. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/200008.NC-intake.v4.html, Version 4, August 2000
According to the proposed intake procedures, the topics of the agenda will be defined 21 days in advance, the agenda sent out 14 days in advance, and reports 7 days in advance. The chair has the possibility to add last-minute new items.
Theresa Swinehart expressed concerns that an Intake Committee should not become a gatekeeper for agenda determination. Roberto Gaetano stated that the intake procedures should not result in an impaired flow between GA and NC. Roger Cochetti stated that the procedures do not prevent an individual NC member from raising new business items. Nii agreed with this view.
Erica Roberts proposed to adopt the recommendations of the Intake Committee and, consistant with thise recommendations, review the process after three months. The motion was seconded and passed with unanimous approval of all present and proxies (Philip, Paul, Theresa, YJP, Caroline, Axel, Katoh, Erica, Nii, Tony, Hotta, Roger, Dany, Zakaria)
Decision D2: The recommendations of the Intake Committee are adopted for 3 months, and shall be reviewed at the end of that period.
At this point, Erica Roberts departed from the call.
The Budget committee has several tasks:
(a) create a system for voluntary contributions to the DNSO may be solicited. Solicitation documents are nearly completed.
(b) Also, a mechanism for collecting and holding the voluntary contributions (unincorporated association) has been developed.
(c) develop a job description for the DNSO secretariat and other DNSO support functions. This is also well underway.
(d) develop a plan for recruiting.
Roger Cochetti raised the topic of NC work on IP protection in new TLDs.
Roberto Gaetano asked about formation of a working group to discuss an individual constituency.
| Information from: |
© DNSO Names Council |