- Proposed NC resolution by Philip Sheppard (amended):
- Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC)
has published its second implementation report
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-report-02sep02.htm
- Whereas the NC has previously commented on the need to make
geographic diversity a reality within the proposed Generic
Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) Council.
- Whereas the NC has previously commented on the need for
constituencies to have sufficient council members to share
workload and allow for substitution where required.
- Whereas the ERC's supposition that a 21 member council is
too big to be efficient is unproven and does not accord with
the experience of the Names Council.
- Whereas the ERC has acknowledged the above in its proposal
to allow three representatives per constituency on the
proposed GNSO council for the first year only
The Names Council resolves that:
The proposed GNSO council should have three representatives
per constituency in perpetuity but that this situation
be reviewed 12 months after the formation of the council,
so that an intelligent judgement may then be made based
on the merits of the competing arguments and 12 months experience.
A further review may also be neccesary should new constituencies be created.
- Proposed NC resolution by Philip Sheppard (amended):
- Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC)
has published its second implementation report
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-report-02sep02.htm
- Whereas the basis for stakeholder representation in
ICANN SOs to date has been to give equal votes to each
affected stakeholder constituency;
- Whereas the report suggests a significant change in
the voting balance of ICANN stakeholders to be represented
in the new Generic Name Supporting Organisation (GNSO)
council whereby it gives twice as many votes to the two
stakeholders who have contracts with ICANN (gTLD registries
and registrars);
- Whereas the 4+4+3 proposed voting structure gives a veto
to the contracted suppliers over all ICANN consensus policies,
thus negating the balancing role of the three neutral council members;
The Names Council resolves that:
Any variation from the principle of equal stakeholder
constituency representation and votes in the proposed GNSO
council is unacceptable.
- Proposed NC resolution by Elisabeth Porteneuve (amended):
- Whereas the ccTLD Managers have been seeking an efficient process
for updating the IANA database, as previously provided before ICANN
took on the stewardship of the IANA function, as explicitly specified
in the Amendment 2 to the MoU of 11 September 2000, requesting
for "Documentation of IANA procedures for root zone editing,
root zone generation, and root zone WHOIS service."
- Whereas the ccTLD IANA Service Requirements has been restated
once more in Bucharest on 25 June 2002 and approved unanimously
by the active ccTLD Managers within the ICANN community
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/cctld/ccTLDbucharest-communique.html
- Whereas the global interoperability and stability of Internet
depends on the TLD name servers,
- Whereas the recent bankruptcy of KPNQwest which provided secondary
services to several ccTLD Registries resulted in the need for
prompt actions by IANA to update the name servers records
as requested by the ccTLD Managers,
- Whereas there has been excessive delays in updating nameserver information
resulting from disagreements between ICANN staff performing IANA function
and ccTLD Managers over the procedures to be followed at the time
of nameserver updates.
The Names Council resolves that:
That ICANN promptly process the backlog of nameserver change requests in
the root zone and make the appropriate recommendations to the United States
Department of Commerce (which must approve changes to the root zone),
subject to external checks to verify that the name servers are
authoritative for the appropriate ccTLD.
The Names Council also recommends that the ccTLD Managers and
the ICANN Committee for Security and Stability
(http://www.icann.org/committees/security/), with input from the ICANN staff
performing the IANA function, jointly develop procedures
at the interface between the IANA function and the ccTLD Managers that
improve the quality of DNS data at the top level of the DNS.
- Proposed NC resolution by Bruce Tonkin (amended):
- Whereas the stability of the DNS depends on the quality of the nameserver
information contained in the zones at all levels of the DNS hierarchy.
- Whereas Stuart Lynn and Vint Cerf have written to the Names Council
on 21 September seeking the opinion of the Names Council on the
suggestion to ask the Committee on Security and Stability
(http://www.icann.org/committees/security/)
to develop a recommendation on
the most sound technical practices to follow to improve the DNS data quality
at all levels in the system,
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cerf-lynn-letter-to-names-council-20sep02.htm
- Whereas the responsibility of the DNS data quality is
a shared responsibility, which comes in addition to the core IANA function,
and methods to improve the DNS data quality need to consider the increased
cost on Registries and Registrars and Registrants altogether, in the TLD
space.
The Names Council resolves that:
The ICANN Board should ask the Committee on Security and Stability to work
cooperatively with the ICANN staff responsible for performing the IANA
function, the TLD managers, and registrars, to develop a
recommendation on the most sound technical practices to follow to improve
the DNS data quality at all levels of the DNS hierarchy.