ICANN/DNSO
|
|
21 December 2000.
Proposed agenda and related documents:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001219.NCtelecon-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD (left early, proxy to Porteneuve) Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD absent (apology) Philip Sheppard Business Theresa Swinehart Business (left early, proxy to Sheppard) Hirofumi Hotta ISPCP Tony Harris ISPCP Michael Schneider ISPCP Erica Roberts Registrars Ken Stubbs Registrars absent (apology, proxy to Kane) Paul Kane Registrars Roger Cochetti gTLD Caroline Chicoine IP (left early, proxy to aus der Muhlen) Axel Aus der Muhlen IP Guillermo Carey IP absent Youn Jung Park NCDNH Dany Vandromme NCDNH Zakaria Amar NCDNH absent Louis Touton ICANN staff Maca Jamin Scribe
Due to family emergency Ken Stubbs was prevented from chairing this meeting. Philip Sheppard chaired the entire session on his behalf.
Quorum present at 14:10 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +1:00 during the winter in the North hemisphere)
Note: BC has not yet replaced Masanobu Katoh, newly elected at-large Director. The BC aims to do so before the next NC meeting in January. L. Touton confirmed that according to the ICANN Bylaws M. Katoh cannot participate in NC meetings anymore and consequently his proxy cannot be used.
Minutes of the meeting.
Two items were added under AOB:
i) Call for nominations for the NC Chairman
ii) Election of the GA Chair
Decision D1:
Including the above modifications the agenda for the meeting was unanimously approved.
October 19th teleconference
Y.J. Park pointed out that the motion concerning the approval process of the minutes (minutes to be approved by the NC first and then published) does not figure in the text of the 19th October teleconference minutes. She requested setting up a formal process and tracking different versions to settle controversial points.
E. Porteneuve clarified that the only change after the draft initially circulated concerned the discussion of the required number of votes to adopt Decision D3 and L. Touton stated that change was made in a e-mail E. Porteneuve had sent to the whole NC. Y.J. Park was still unhappy with the version and to move the meeting forward Ph. Sheppard proposed to continue the discussion concerning the 19th October minutes off-line.
E. Roberts suggested putting in place a simple process: scribe sends the minutes to the Chair who amends or approves and asks the Secretariat to release a draft. Any subsequent change to this draft is recorded and approved by the Chair until a final version is approved by the NC.
14th November meeting
C. Chicoine requested adding a reference to an e-mail from Y J Park (3 Oct 2000 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00335.html) to clarify the intent of the motion Chicoine had proposed.
L. Touton expressed his concern about the procedure of using the Berkmann Center notes as minutes: they are not generated for this purpose and we should be taking this fact into account.
P. Kane suggested using the session videotape to check on controversy.
E. Roberts remembered C. Chicoine's intervention and supported the idea of adding this reference to the minutes.
Y.J. Park expressed a desire to consult the videotape of the meeting and make amendments later.
Decision D2:
The minutes of Oct 19 were approved. The minutes of 14 November were approved, with the insertion of the e-mail reference. The reservation expressed by Y.J. Park was noted.
4.1 Status of AFNIC support
E. Porteneuve described the current functioning of the Secretariat now that she was an NC member. Her role is that of a Project Manager consisting in managing administrative and technical matters. A third party takes minutes of the meetings.
E. Roberts questioned if the primary task consisted in maintaining the DNSO web page.
E. Porteneuve provided detailed description of the tasks: monitoring mailing lists, managing security tools, ensuring back-up functions, updating the site, providing support to the GA, etc.
E. Roberts suggested discussing this under the item on the Budget Committee
4.2 Recording secretary
L. Touton pointed out that arrangements should be made to compensate a third party for taking minutes. The question was raised if the interim recording scribe is needed to work in tandem with E. Porteneuve until we recruit a full time secretary.
P. de Blanc recalled that there were some suggestions to hire a stenographer. R. Cochetti developed this idea by suggesting that the NC Chair or ICANN staff ensure that the minutes are taken and audio recording made at reasonable cost.
P. de Blanc said that a certain degree of formality should be added in case of controversial points. The latter will not be approved until a portion of a tape was circulated to all NC members.
R. Cochetti suggested giving a responsibility to the Chair and a practical part to the Project Manager and ICANN staff to provide recording secretary and audio tape recording for each meeting.
P.Kane added that this should be on an interim basis until a permanent support has been put in place.
Y.J. Park raised the issue of procedures for eventual transcripts, and impacted cost.
Th. Swinehart stressed that a tape transcription could be costly.
The following motion was approved by all with Y.J. Park abstaining:
Decision D3:
Until such time as the DNSO has internal staff support that is sufficient to provide these services, the Chair, or in the Chair's absence, the ICANN Secretary in conjunction with the AFNIC Project Manager, are requested to procure and, at reasonable cost, compensate, a scribe for each teleconference or other Names Council meeting. The scribe will prepare minutes of each meeting and the taking and maintenance of an audio recording of each meeting provided that if any NC member disputes what he or she has said in the resulting draft minutes, a transcript of the relevant portion of the audio recording shall be prepared and made available to the NC before its formal approval of the minutes. The NC Chair and ICANN Secretary are further requested to report periodically to the NC on the costs incurred.
C. Chicoine states she had to leave the meeting and asked to switch item 6 with item 5.
C. Chicoine restated that her intention in proposing a group during the NC meeting in Marina del Rey was limited to the proposals made in YJ Park's e-mail of 3 October (referenced above).
Ph. Sheppard recalled that since then there had been misunderstanding on what had been intended in the request made of Y J Park. Nevertheless the NC now had a revised proposal (December 10 e-mail from Y J Park Subject: Terms of Reference[version 0.2] : Review Working Group) for a Review Working Group (WG) and needed to react to that proposal. He noted that the terms of reference proposed in that proposal included:
Y.J. Park referred to discussions in Yokohama to form a Working Group. Following informal discussions with selected parties she had proposed terms of reference for a Review Working Group with a mission to:
P. Kane expressed his support of a Working Group as a means of outreach. As a representative of the Registrars constituency he wanted though to find out if the intention was to provide answers to the Review Task Force Questionnaire or NC as this would be preferable, instead of forwarding comments to the ICANN Board directly.
Y.J. Park agreed that the WG output would go to the NC.
C. Chicoine supported the idea that all results should come out of the collaborative work within the NC Review Task Force and not as a separate initiative.
In order to find a proper balance Y.J. Park suggested that Th. Swinehart, a leader of the NC Review Task Force helps to co-ordinate the two activities.
Th. Swinehart expressed some concern about this idea and briefly reviewed the whole process:
P. Sheppard stated that the second and third tasks proposed for the Working Group overlapped with the tasks assigned to the Task Force. Therefore, the Working Group should focus on the first task (answering the Task Force's questionnaire).
R. Cochetti recalled that it was approved at the Marina del Rey meeting, that there was to be a close link between the Working Group and the DNSO Review Task Force. A mechanism is needed to provide broad comments and the GA could play an important role here. There is no point in a Review Working Group and Review Task Force reporting separately to the NC.
Th. Swinehart informed that GA is preparing comments R. Gaetano, GA Chair, is working on that, and she observed time is limited. We are going through the second round of consultation right now and we have no possibility of extending the January 9 deadline. A report has to be sent to the ICANN Board before the meeting in Melbourne.
After this intervention Th. Swinehart had to leave the call
Y.J. Park pointed out the timing difficulty in conducting this work by January 9, as the WG had not been created after the Yokohama meeting. She also stressed that certain GA members she had spoken to were not happy with the process, which they saw as a top-down process.
P. Kane remarked that if GA members are talking to Y.J. they are taking part in the process, and that that together with the two calls for Constituency consultation, means we cannot speak of a top-down but definitely of a bottom-up approach. He also raised the question: Does the Working Group propose to review answers to the Review Task Force questions only or are there any other issues the group is interested to address?
Y.J. Park explained that if we had not had more responses by now, it is because people are suspicious. The main goal of the Working Group is to enable those people to take an active part in the process.
P. de Blanc insisted that sufficient credibility should be given to the process itself, aimed at providing a sound DNSO contribution to the Board. He supported the idea of the Working Group because of its inherent promotional value ensuring that the highest importance is given to the issue.
P. de Blanc left the call after his intervention at 15:31 - proxy given to E. Porteneuve.
E. Roberts restated that comments are due by January 9th. The possibility of extending that deadline could only be envisaged if it also allowed enough time for the Review Task Force to draft its report. The working group will therefore, have to conclude by January.
Y.J. Park noted the practical problems of a short life time of the WG especially given the likely period of inactivity during the Christmas period.
C. Chicoine rejoined a call at 15:36 and recommended that responding to the Review Task Force Questionnaire would be a valid and useful role for the WG.
T. Harris seconded C. Chicoine's point.
Ph. Sheppard summarised debate as centered around two questions:
- do we need a Review Working Group ?
- if yes to define a clear objective and timetable.
P. Kane stressed the importance of the outreach in raising awareness on any issue. He suggested producing a press release in order to reach the largest possible audience.
Ph. Sheppard reminded the NC that the key objective is twofold: get the largest possible response to the RTF questionnaire and provide input to the Board according to a set timetable.
E. Porteneuve was in favour of setting up of a Working Group even for a short period of time and to stimulate participation by issuing a press release.
Ph. Sheppard proposed a possible solution to the debate:
- set-up a Working Group immediately with a mission to provide additional answers to the Review Task Force questionnaire and report them back to the Review Task Force
- give it a deadline of January 15th
- issue a press release to increase participation.
Y.J. Park noted that the discussion is taking place on a different ground, as it is unrealistic that these objectives be achieved by January 15th.
D. Vandromme supported that idea because in his view it seems rather difficult to get high quality work done in such a short period of time. He suggested extending the lifetime of the Working Group.
L. Touton reminded the NC of the problems in setting up a different schedule from the one stated by Th. Swinehart as necessary to get the report to the ICANN Board in time for the Melbourne meeting
E. Roberts supported the idea of coping with the timetable as set. Two rounds of constituency and GA outreach had already been done. Establishing a Working Group is a great idea, but extending the time table past January 15 will prevent us complying with the request of the ICANN Board.
D. Vandromme insisted that it is better to have more time and produce a good report instead of providing an empty shell on time.
E. Roberts said that the report would not be an empty shell as there are lots of comments already available.
Ph. Sheppard urged not to extend the timeline too far and make sure the process stays on track.
D. Vandromme pointed out that the Review Working Group covers a different population.
T. Harris opposed the idea of extending the timeline for questionnaire replies as that would reduce the time for public comments on the NC final report itself.
Ph. Sheppard made the following proposal:
Decision D4:
- establish a Review Working Group, chaired by Y.J. Park
- make the "terms of reference" "responding to the RTF questionnaire"
- make the lifetime of the WG January 15th
- ask the group to report by January 15th to the NC Review Task Force.
- issue a press release immediately to encourage participation in this WG.
The following members voted in favour: Chicoine, aus der Mühlen, Roberts, Hotta, Harris, Cochetti, Sheppard, Swinehart (by proxy), de Blanc (by proxy), Porteneuve, Kane, Stubbs (by proxy), YJ Park (with the reserve that the given timeframe is too short to accomplish this task properly).
Vandromme abstained.
Ph. Sheppard offered to draft the press release, to liase with YJ Park and to ask Ken Stubbs as NC Chair (assuming availability) to approve it on behalf of the NC.
C. Chicoine left the meeting and gave her proxy to A. aus der Muhlen
Ph. Sheppard informed participants that a Business Plan Task Force (TF) had been established comprising one representative from each of the NC constituencies. The TF had agreed on a draft set of objectives for the business plan and this draft will now be sent to the NC with a request to circulate the plan for comments by Constituencies. Following the comment period - which will be focused only on the proposed top-line objectives for the NC, the TF will revise the business plan and add detail of the strategies, actions and measures of success necessary to fulfill the agreed objectives. After that revision the final plan will be presented to the NC for approval.
The discussion on this subject was postponed until the January meeting. On a request, L. Touton briefly reported on negotiation over new TLDs. More work is needed and ICANN does not expect to finalise agreements for all seven TLDs by end December as originally hoped.
P. Kane announced that Rebecca Nesson is doing a good job as co-ordinator of an informal ICANN consulting group on WHOIS issues.
L.Touton added that the group will send a report to ICANN staff by the end of January who will then refer issues of policy to the NC for discussion.
R. Cochetti apologised for not being able to provide a written report to the NC (he had his laptop stolen). He informed the NC:
i) the budget committee has reviewed an invoice sent by AFNIC for NC secretariat services 2000 and it recommends paying the full subject to:
- provision of services at no cost during an interim period not to exceed March 31st 2001,
- a satisfactory solution to questions of intellectual property rights in mail lists, databases, web site content etc
- provision of greater detail on certain cost items.
ii) the budget committee is completing a proposed budget for 2001 based on certain assumptions:
- the money collected in year 2000 and the dues outstanding
- expenditures in 2000
- a presumption that voluntary funds raised in 2001 will cover an estimated cost of $120,000 to hire an NC secretary.
Depending on the final outcome of budget committee discussions the proposed budget for 2001 is not expected to result in a call for NC constituency contributions in excess of $13,000 each. A full report will be circulated to the NC in January.
Ph. Sheppard informed that some names had now been forwarded to the NC Secretariat.
L.Touton stated that the NC was charged to appoint two people.
E. Roberts requested more details on the role of the nominating committee. L. Touton will send necessary information.
It was agreed that the Intake Committee will add a point for the January agenda to recommend two names at that meeting.
This item was postponed to the next meeting.
As P. de Blanc had to leave the meeting earlier, the discussion was postponed to the next meeting.
NC Chair
The term of office for Ken Stubbs expires 6 months after the July meeting in Yokohama and so a new Chair will be required following the NC meeting in January. To help with the choice, E. Porteneuve will communicate to all NC members the statistics about the past chairs. Members of the NC are requested to send nominations.
GA Chair
E. Porteneuve will send an e-mail to the Names Council updating the NC on the status of the election of the GA Chair.
Ph. Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked all attendees for their participation.
End of meeting at 16:40 CET. Next Names Council Teleconference is scheduled for Wednesday January 24th 2001
| Information from: | © DNSO Names Council |