ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 10 April 2001 - minutes |
20 April 2001
Proposed agenda and related documents:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010410.NCtelecon-agenda.htmlList of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD
Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD (absent, apology - proxy to P.de Blanc
and in his absence to E. Porteneuve)
Philip Sheppard Business
Theresa Swinehart Business (absent, apology - proxy to G. Forsyth)
Grant Forsyth Business
Hirofumi Hotta ISPCP (absent)
Tony Harris ISPCP
Michael Schneider ISPCP
Erica Roberts Registrars
Ken Stubbs Registrars (absent, apology - proxy to P. Kane
and in his absence to E. Roberts)
Paul Kane Registrars (left the meeting earlier, proxy to E. Roberts)
Roger Cochetti gTLD (left the meeting at 16:40)
Caroline Chicoine IP (absent)
Axel Aus der Muhlen IP (absent, apology, proxy to C. Chicoine
and in her absence to G. Carey)
Guillermo Carey IP
Milton Mueller NCDNH (absent, apology, proxy to YJ. Park)
Youn Jung Park NCDNH
Vany Martinez NCDNH (absent, apology, proxy to YJ. Park)
Louis Touton ICANN staff
Maca Jamin Scribe
Roberto Gaetano GA Chair (join at 16:30)
Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +2:00 during the summer in the Northern hemisphere)
Opening of the Meeting
Ph. Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference
Agenda item 1: Approval of the Agenda
Two additional items were added to the Agenda under AOB:
- 12.1 Sponsoring of Stockholm meeting web casting
- 12.2 Alternative technical means for NC teleconferences (proposal made by Vany Martinez)
Including the above amendments the agenda was approved.
Agenda item 2: Approval of Summary of NC Meeting of 26th February 20001
A change was made in the wording of the agenda item 1 of the NC meeting Summary 26th February 2001:
Y.J. Park expressed her concern about the validation process of Version 3 of the DNSO Review report by the Names Council Review Task Force.Decision D1: The minutes of February 26h Meeting, including the above amendment, were approved unanimously by 17 votes in favour, no votes against and no abstentions.
Agenda item 3: Approval of ChairŐs Summary of NC Meeting 11 March 2001
Decision D2: The report of the meeting March 11th 2001, prepared by Ph Sheppard was unanimously approved by 17 votes in favour, no votes against and no abstentions.
E. Porteneuve thanked Philip for this excellent initiative.
Agenda item 4: Feedback from NC Communication to the Board on VeriSing Agreement
Ph Sheppard invited participants to comment on a follow-up of the NC input reflected in recent correspondence between ICANN and VeriSign.
M. Schneider observed that contrary to advice received in Melbourne, events had shown that amendments to the revised agreement where clearly possible. It would have been more productive and resulted in more input if this had been made clear from the very beginning. This experience should be kept in mind for future issues.
R. Cochetti pointed out that there was no logical inconsistency and that substantial changes to plan B will be extended by ICANN to all new registries and validation of registry/registrars organisational conflict of interest applied.
E. Roberts expressed registrars' concern (draft letter communicated to the NC prior to the meeting), about both process and substantive issues. Registrars will be seeking better and earlier consultation processes. The registrars are looking to strengthen certain provisions and will be pleased to see NC support on the substantive changes they will propose.
M. Schneider re-iterated discomfort with the process itself.
Ph. Sheppard asked for specific detail of three items proposed in the NC resolution and reflected in the subsequent letter from Vint Cerf:
Other concerns expressed during the meeting were:
In his response L. Touton underlined that general provisions contained in Appendix F prevent inappropriate exchange of information between registry and registrars, require protective firewalls and require separate accounts to prevent or expose cross-subsidisation.
He informed that the responses to these questions could be found in the wording of Organisational Conflict of Interest Compliance Plan of the Agreement, notably in:
"The Registry business accounts for its own costs, revenues, cash flow, etc as a separate P&L center, using separate and distinct systems and accounting functions. Reasonable and independently auditable internal accounting controls are in place to ensure the adequacy of these systems and functions. The individual financial statements of each P&L center are then consolidated at the corporate level for tax and SEC reporting."
He also mentioned other paragraphs such as: VI "Information Control", VII "Training", full text of which could be found in appendix F of ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement http://www.icann.org/nsi/nsi-registry-agreement-appf-04nov99.htm
He confirmed that precise detail on questions 1 and 3 raised by the Chair are under negotiation and will form a part of the revised agreement which will be sent to the US DOC.
Agenda item 5: Statement on ICANN Consultation Periods and Request for Matching Funds
E. Roberts introduced the issue. She highlighted the gap between the responsibilities NC has in fulfilling its mission:
The DNSO is a Supporting Organisation of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). It advises the ICANN Board with respect to policy issues relating to the Domain Name System.and the means available to build a consensus. The hiring a professional staff is vital in enabling DNSO to provide input on substantive matters. The proposed motion looks at two aspects:
The motion is asking only for an amount representing just 25% of the funding for the at-large study. This would enable DNSO to set up a professional secretariat rapidly and plan future actions.
Following the e-mail discussions, Ph. Sheppard invited participants to comment.
R. Cochetti said that the spirit of the voluntary funds was to demonstrate community support for the DNSO.
T. Harris noted the difficult economic situation many companies are facing now and expressed a concern on the ability of companies to provide funds.
P. Kane felt uncomfortable with asking ICANN for funding of DNSO work. He was in favour of a call for sponsorship. Asking ICANN for loan may be better.
G. Forsyth suggested the NC should do both: donations and ICANN subsidies.
R. Cochetti wondered what the impact would be on the ASO and PSO.
Ph. Sheppard stressed the broader nature of the DNSO.
E. Roberts was concerned about the time frame. The DNSO has to input on major issues and has to have professional staff helping the NC to do so. We should not delay and come up with a solution for the DNSO rapidly.
E. Porteneuve stressed the importance of the DNSO GA, and the legitimacy it gives to the ICANN process.
L. Touton mentioned that both ASO and PSO have open GAs.
P. de Blanc was in favour of asking for a loan for start-up services.
E. Porteneuve stressed the need for long-term financial support to the DNSO.
An amended motion was moved by E. Roberts and P. de Blanc and seconded by T. Harris and voted in two parts as follows:
Whereas, There have been occasions where ICANN Staff publishes documents while constituents are in transit on the way to meetings.
Whereas, this practice does not allow proper time for consultation and comment, particularly for non-native English speakers.
Whereas, there has been criticism from some Board members of the lack of input from the DNSO on issues of substance,
Whereas, the NC can understand that the urgencies of the moment do not always allow for long lead times but nevertheless DNSO input is actively sort by the Board,
Whereas, the 'bottom up' process of ICANN is substantially dependent on the effective operation of the DNSO/NC, and the effective operation of the DNSO/NC requires professional staff support,
Whereas, the NC will be able to react quicker to tight Board deadlines with professional staff support,
Whereas, It is essential that the DNSO and the NC has the resources required to facilitate consensus building and provide well considered advice to the Board and to do this the support of professional and dedicated staff is critical to ensuring that the NC is able to do its job.
Whereas, VerSign has offered matching funding of $100,000 to allow the NC to hire such professional staff,
Decision D3: "The NC encourages the Board and ICANN staff to ensure that reasonable time is allowed in future for constituencies to consider issues and to resolve differences".
Motion voted by 16 votes in favour, no votes against and one abstention (R. Cochetti).
Decision D4: The NC requests the Board to provide a $100,000 start-up fund for DNSO secretariat support.
Motion passed with ten votes in favour (P. de Blanc, E. Porteneuve, O. Robles Garay by proxy to P. de Blanc, Ph. Sheppard, G. Forsyth, Th. Swinehart by proxy to G. Forsyth, T. Harris, E. Roberts, K. Stubbs by proxy to P. Kane, V. Martinez by proxy to YJ. Park), three votes against (YJ. Park, M. Mueller by proxy to YJ Park, P. Kane). And four abstentions (R. Cochetti, M. Schneider, G. Carey, Aus der Muhlen by proxy to G. Carey).
Agenda item 9: Budget Committee (advanced in order)
Based on the report communicated to the NC prior to the meeting R. Cochetti addressed two items:
The Budget Committee has formally asked ICANN to administer DNSO voluntary contributions. ICANN have five days to reply favourably (Note: ICANN have done so April 13) otherwise the NC will establish an independent entity in France. Voluntary funds will be separately accounted from the constituency-fee based funds also administered by ICANN. Establishment of a collection point for voluntary funds allows the Budget Committee to immediately call for sponsors and to activate the recruitment process for professional staff.
The Budget Committee proposed a mechanism for the enforcement of Constituency fees: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010409.NCbusiness-report.html
Ph. Sheppard mentioned M. Mueller's e-mail on the legitimacy of the NC removing voting rights.
R. Cochetti pointed out that the Bylaws are quoted in the report and that the Budget Committee felt comfortable as to the compliance of its proposal.
Y.J. Park inquired if D. Vandromme's request, as a former member of the Budget Committee, for a 50% reduction of the NCDNHC fee for 2001, had been discussed. R. Cochetti informed that D. Vandromme had put in no formal proposal, even though he had mentioned this idea during working sessions. E. Porteneuve stressed the importance of the consequence of any budgetary decision as this implies a strong responsibility regarding employment of professional staff. P. de Blanc added that diminishing the amount of one constituency fee would automatically raise dues of the 6 others. There was not agreement from the other constituencies they will support such additional cost.
R. Cochetti said that in the proposal no sanctions are retroactive. They are proposed for adoption for year 2001 and beyond.
Decision D5: Motion, moved by R. Cochetti, seconded by P. Kane, to accept Budget Committee report, passed by 14 votes in favour (P. de Blanc, E. Porteneuve, O. Robles Garay by proxy to P. de Blanc, Ph. Sheppard, G Forsyth, Th. Swinehart by proxy to G. Forsyth, T. Harris, E. Roberts, K. Stubbs by proxy to P. Kane, P. Kane, R. Cochetti, M. Schneider, G. Carey, Aus der Muhlen by proxy to G. Carey), no votes against and three abstentions (YJ. Park, M. Mueller by proxy to YJ. Park, V. Martinez by proxy to YJ. Park).
It was also decided that the Chair would inform ICANN on this resolution and seek clarification on compliance with Bylaws.
R. Cochetti left the meeting at 16:40
E. Roberts discussed the third part of the report:
AFNIC will continue to provide services until 30 June 2001. The Search Committee will hire a recruitment consultant (maximum sum of $5000), to assist in the formulation of selection criteria, draft job description and manage selection process. An advertisement will be put on the DNSO website and sent by e-mail to all constituencies. A recruitment consultant will communicate a short list of eligible candidates to the Search Committee. The latter will make recommendations to the NC. The type of a person the DNSO is looking for is more an information manager than an infrastructure & technical support provider. The process is expected to be completed by the ICANN Stockholm meetings but the timeframe is tight. If necessary the Budget Committee will ask the NC to consider extending AFNIC's provision of services beyond June 30.
Agenda item 6: New Registry Contracts - Means of Enforcement Contingency for failure
L. Touton said that ICANN is continuing discussions with the four non-sponsored gTLDs and hopes to provide a new status report soon. Discussions continue with sponsored TLDs as well. No final date has been envisaged yet for signature of agreements.
Agenda item 7: Business Plan- update on membership and first meetings of the new interim committees, formal closure of existing NC Task force (Outreach, review, Business Plan)
Ph. Sheppard asked for information on planned Business Plan interim committee meetings:
The Chair will contact each interim committee chair to accelerate the completion of the first phase of work (terms of reference for the relevant part of the business plan).
The NC agreed to the formal closure of the following NC task forces which have now completed their tasks as a result of the implementation phase of the business plan: Outreach, Review, Business Plan.
Agenda item 8: Reports from WG D, E and formal closure of WG D, E and Review
The NC thanked the participants of WG D for the final version of the WG D report, together with Chair's notes received prior to the meeting. This report, together with the reports of WG E, WG Review and any last minute ideas from WG Review will be forwarded to the Interim Committee developing strategies to implement the business plan and this committee will take particular care over the proposals within these reports.
The NC agreed to the following motion (proposed by Ph. Sheppard):
Decision D6: The NC formally closes WG D and E (immediately), notes the closure of WG Review that will take place on 16 April 2001 (end of ICANN public comment period) and instructs that the reports of WG D, E, and Review are forwarded to the NC Review Interim Committee.
Motion passed with 14 votes in favour, no votes against and three abstentions (Y.J. Park, M. Mueller by proxy to YJ Park, V. Martinez by proxy to YJ Park).
Y.J. Park inquired if the NC is going to take any action following recommendations given in the reports, in particularly regarding the WG D recommendations. Ph. Sheppard confirmed that this report together with the reports of WG E and Review are the prime input for the work of the new NC review interim committee. This is the start of phase 2 of the review process: the implementation phase.
E. Porteneuve reminded that initially WG A, B and C were set up to provide answers to the ICANN Board and WG D and E were intended to respond to internal DNSO questions.
Agenda item 10: GA Chair Election Update
R. Gaetano, GA Chair, joined the meeting for discussion on this item. H. Alverstand could not attend the NC call. E. Porteneuve thanked them both for the tremendous work they have done in making the GA work and providing useful input to the NC.
As a result of a ranking vote by the GA http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-ranking.html two candidates are proposed:
The Bylaws require the NC to elect the GA Chair. Following previous practice, the NC asked the GA to hold preference elections and to recommend candidates to the NC for formal election.
Ph. Sheppard invited R. Gaetano to confirm he was satisfied with the GA election process and to comment on a question raised by e-mail by Th. Swinehart on concern expressed on the GA lists about a conflict of interest of the second nominee.
R. Gaetano said that the election was lead in a fair and transparent way, using the same election system used for the ICANN at-large election. More than 100 people took part in the vote. As to the conflict of interest, he thought that involvement of the candidate in some association work should not be an obstacle to his appointment. Besides, the alternate chair works under the authority of the chair.
P. de Blanc felt that NC should not make political selection.
L. Touton asked if the possible conflict of interest had been disclosed in a due time.
R. Gaetano clarified that information had circulated on the GA list before the start of voting. Action could be taken in the future if the conflict of interest becomes an obstacle.
Y.J. Park reminded that the NC in one of its previous meetings decided to ratify GA choice and invited participants not to change that principle, in particular when all the information was known prior to the election.
E. Porteneuve, as AFNIC and ccTLD member, expressed her concern about alternative roots versus a one-root-system (the essence of the alleged conflict of interest).
E. Roberts pointed out that this a different problem and the decision here concerned endorsing GA choice of alternate Chair of DNSO GA. She also found R. Gaetano's arguments on existing mechanism for GA Chair to control alternate chair actions convincing, and said the NC has sound reasons to endorse GA candidates.
E. Porteneuve supported R Gaetano's arguments too, and invited the NC to support a unique root system.
At this point Ph. Sheppard proposed to proceed with the vote to endorse the GA recommendations but as only eight NC members were still physically present, the vote was deferred to an e-mail vote, which will be organised by the Secretariat.
Agenda item 11: Timetable for expansion of membership in the gTLD constituency
In absence of M. Mueller this item was deferred to the next meeting.
Agenda item 12: Any Other Business
Ph Sheppard drew the NC's attention to e-mail message he has sent asking for help in seeking a sponsor for the web casting of the forthcoming Stockholm meeting.
Ph Sheppard found V. Martinez' proposal interesting and volunteered to test it together with E. Roberts.
E. Roberts reminded P. Kane's proposal to write a press release calling for sponsors and offering a possibility of publicising sponsors' logos on DNSO site. Ph. Sheppard offered to help in carrying out this action.
Close
Ph. Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked Michael Schneider for sponsoring the call.
17:35 end of call
Next NC teleconference will be held on 9 May 2001 at 15:00 (Paris time)
| Information from: |
© DNSO Names Council |