ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 24 April 2002 - minutes |
24 April 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.NCteleconf-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles/ Elisabeth Porteneuve Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD Philip Sheppard Business Marilyn Cade Business Grant Forsyth Business Greg Ruth ISPCP Antonio Harris ISPCP Tony Holmes ISPCP Philipp Grabensee Registrars absent, apologies Ken Stubbs Registrars Bruce Tonkin Registrars Roger Cochetti gTLD Richard Tindal gTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Roger Cochetti Cary Karp gTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Richard Tindal, Roger Cochetti Ellen Shankman IP Laurence Djolakian IP J. Scott Evans IP Harold Feld NCDNH Chun Eung Hwi NCDNH Erick Iriate NCDNH
17 Names Council Members
Thomas Roessler invited as GA Chair Alexander Svensson invited as GA Alternate Chair Glen de Saint Géry NC Secretary Alix Guillard MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
Invited ICANN staff and Board member
Alejandro Pisanty Vice Chairman ICANN Board Lynn Stuart ICANN CEO Louis Touton ICANN senior Counsel Joe Sims ICANN senior Counsel
Due to a technical failure there was no MP3 recording.
Quorum present at 14:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during summer time in the northern hemisphere).
Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.
Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.NCteleconf-agenda.html
The Chair added two items:
1. Waiting List Service issue referred by the Board to the Names Council.
2. Request to the Names Council to comment on Request for Proposal (RFP) materials
for Dot ORG.
The agenda was approved.
Agenda item 1: Discussion points on v6 conclusions
Ph. Sheppard proposed adoption of the clarifications made in v6 and started discussion on the e-mail input from the constituencies.
"users of the global internet"
The gTLD Registry constituency has not come back to Council with new wording so it was decided to accept the wording as it stands and note the gTLD Registry constituency derogation. The gTLD Registry constituency felt that it should not reflect the content of public comment in the ICANN mission but that the more complex structure of Registry, Registrar Registrant relationship should be captured.
"all stakeholders"
The Business Constituency supported the proposed wording believing the term stakeholders was clear and in itself limiting.
The gTLD Registry constituency proposed: "led by those most affected by the consensus".
Discussion followed centering around the meaning of "led" but
this change was not supported. Agreed to adopt the phrase:
ICANN policy
advisory bodies should formulate policy recommendations based on a bottom-up,
consensus process of all stakeholders.
The gTLD Registry constituency's derogation is noted.
Bruce Tonkin said that it was important the process was clear and
J. Scott Evans said that It is important for the Board to be active
in the consensus process. A new sentence was adopted:
There must be a clear process and that process should be managed by the ICANN
Board.
It was agreed that the process of policy making needed further discussion and that there should be a future work session on this.
Received broad support from the Business and Registry and Non Commercial with the latter adding, provided there is a discussion on how policy is formulated.
The gTLD Registry constituency felt that recommendations 12 and 13 should be
linked, adding:
"which would be comparable to the body envisaged above"
Elisabeth Porteneuve disagreed saying that there was no symmetry between ccTLDs and gTLDs in that gTLDs have mechanisms to make policy such as ICANN and the DNSO while the ccTLDs only operate in their national community.
It was agreed to adopt 12 and 13 as re-drafted:
Create a new advisory body for the ccTLDs. This would need means of collaborative decision making with the gTLD advisory body on relevant areas of policy.
Create a new advisory body for gTLDs. This would need means of collaborative decision making with the ccTLD advisory body on relevant areas of policy.
The Non Commercial Constituency wanted it noted that it does not support 13
without added detail on user representation.
Time limits did not allow for discussion of new items.
Agenda item 4: Discussion with Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty, Joe Sims
Philip Sheppard formally welcomed Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty and Joe Sims on the call, and asked Stuart what he hoped the dialogue would produce.
Stuart Lynn said that he appreciated the time spent, and careful discussion of the Names Council towards the future decision making process. The purpose of the reform document was to stimulate community discussion and move forward rapidly to debate. If there is criticism it is aimed at the process and not the participants. Divisions in the ICANN community are recognised. The concern with regard to the Names Council is that it brings together different kinds of constituencies greatly varied within which makes the task difficult. It is difficult for an organisation to change itself, and it is important to find out how a clearer view and a coming through process can be achieved to bring about change.
Alejandro Pisanty said that it was important to find out key expectations, to hear from Names Council members, read constituency positions and drafts and find out where there is agreement and disagreement.
Joe Sims said he was there to listen.
Questions from Names Council members:
Marilyn Cade:
Could you share with us feedback on areas of support and no support?
Stuart answered that the diversity of private and public opinions made it difficult
to answer. Most criticism and misunderstanding was about government
representation, nominations, public interest representation
and government funding.
Harold Feld:
The Non Commercial constituency
is thinking along two separate lines:
a. delineate what lies outside the scope of ICANN
b. consider options such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
Tony Holmes commented that his experience in working with the ITU did not encourage him at all to recommend this approach. Philip Sheppard commented that his experience in general with inter-governmental organisations was that they were universally slower and less efficient than even the present ICANN structure. There was no support from other constituencies for the ITU proposal.
Stuart Lynn said that it is important to arrive at a documented process that works. Functions that lie outside of ICANN can be considered if assurance is given that a changing internet can be anticipated. The concept of a thin ICANN concentrates on issues different groups care about. There is a need therefore to define realistically and flexibly what should be inside ICANN.
Government Advisory Committee (GAC) involvement was discussed and Stuart Lynn hoped that there would be specific suggestions for strengthening the interaction with the GAC. Tony Harris said that not all governments by a long way represent public interests. Stuart Lynn commented that individuals talk on their own behalf to get things done and are not representative of the wider group. For example, it is odd that universities are hardly involved in the NCDNHC and a distinction should be made between representativeness and representative models. Stuart favoured a multiplicity of entities to represent users.Tony Holmes enquired about the April 29 deadline and the envisaged planning thereafter.
Stuart Lynn and Alejandro Pisanty stated that an extensive and concrete proposal for Bucharest was intended.
Ellen Shankman asked about the role of the nominating committee and who would sit on the Board?
Stuart Lynn replied that the nominating committee was intended to focus on making ICANN an overall effective credible organisation that can move fast.
Tony Harris asked about funding saying that he saw good support for a model using a small proportion of registrant fees to fund ICANN. The BC had proposed this at Accra.
Philip Sheppard reminded the call of the NC recommendation that core ICANN funds should indeed come from the revenues of Registrants as they do today - all that is in question is the transmission mechanism and related contractual arrangements.
Alejandro Pisanty said there needs to be a clear model, how it should be implemented and what support it has.
Stuart Lynn was of the opinion that funding in itself would not solve the problems as such. He agreed with an analysis posted by Elisabeth Porteneuve that conference fees could only ever provide a small part of funding and they were not therefore a key issue .
Harold Feld raised the point of involvement in the ICANN process. Some saw no necessity to be involved as the reward for involvement was often unclear.
Stuart Lynn considered this an important point; some do not get involved because the ICANN process puts them off. The end user often delegates policy issues and the need for involvement is not great. If ICANN is successful, there should be little need for involvement
Philip Sheppard asked for opinions on the workable size of the Board, saying the key question is the balance between a board big enough to be representative and small enough to be workable. If the board is large and has an executive committee the key is to find a group that adds to efficiency while not concentrating political power unfairly.
Alejandro Pisanty said any input with regard to a Board with a smaller executive committee would be welcome. He agreed the concept could streamline and/or putt power in the hands of a few.
Stuart Lynn said that his concept of forums was to add flexibility and increase the diversity of voices advising the Board. Council members were sceptical about the process of unstructured fora and any meaningful impact they would have on policy development. How would forums add to efficiency? The GA after all was intended to be that broad group. If it does not work as intended, is it not better to reform it so it does?
Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty, and Joe Sims said that it had been an important, helpful discussion. Philip Sheppard thanked the invited ICANN members for their valuable participation.
Other Business
Louis Touton explained that on March 21, Verisign had requested a Registry agreement amendment for .com and .net. There have been increasing concerns about deletes. The Board is looking for assurance on the WLS recommendation that it will be made in the general context of the delete issue.
See:
General Counsel's Analysis of VeriSign Global Registry Services' Request for Amendment to Registry Agreement
http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm
VGRS Response to General Counsel's Analysis of VGRS's Request for Amendment to Registry Agreement
http://www.icann.org/minutes/response-vgrs-wls-21apr02.htm
Philip Sheppard said there were 4 options:
1. ignore the requestIt was decided to refer it to the existing Transfer Task Force. It was agreed that the present work of the task force should not be slowed down. Timeline: Work Status report June 10, 2002.
Decision 1: Refer the WLS issue to the Transfer Task Force.
Philip Sheppard acknowledged the request to the Names Council on the RFP for Dot Org. He recommended reactivating the dot ORG task force with the addition of members to replace Milton Mueller NCDNHC and Guillermo Carey ISPC, and the ISP if they would like to nominate. Elisabeth Porteneuve was chosen as the task force interim chair to act as a facilitator to start the work immediately as the deadline was extremely tight.
Decision 2: reactivate dot ORG task Force for the single task of providing comments to the NC on the Dot Org RFP.
AOB
Marilyn Cade proposed a work session on policy development to be scheduled for May 2, 2002.
Philip Sheppard concluded and confirmed the next teleconference on May 2, 2002 at 15:00 Paris time
The teleconference ended at 17:10
Next NC teleconference May 2 at 15:00 Paris time, 13:00 UTC.
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 |