Jan 21 "closed" meeting minutes, Part Two

["Antony Van Couvering" <avc@interport.net>]

Jan 21 "closed" meeting minutes - Part 2 of 2

These are non-verbatim minutes, and especially in this second half, there
was a lot of quick back-and-forth, so not all comments were caught.
Participants and sponsoring organizations were noted in Part 1.  [Note:
Theresa Swinehart wrote to note that for the purposes of this meeting, she
was representing WITSA, not MCI].

****************************************************************

[Coffee break concluded, the participants re-assembled].

Marc Chinoy (moderator) - We are not going to recreate the presentations,
nor are we going to craft a new presentation.  We'll try to get into some
points that were raised.  First, are there any points that ICANN should
clarify?

Jay Fenello - ICANN is not in a position to answer.

John Englund - (1) What is the relationship between ICANN and the
registries? (2) What are the funding requirements from ICANN for the DNSO?
(3) Does ICANN expect the DNSO to incorporate?

Kent Crispin - The answer to that last point doesn't matter.

Marc Chinoy - How many feel that clarification on the incorporation issue
would help?

David Johnson - There are legal problems with a contract depending on
whether DNSO is incorporated or not.

Roger Cochetti - The real issue is a strong DNSO vs. a weak DNSO.

Marilyn Cade - Agreed on strong vs. weak.  Incorporation will have liability
issues.  Clarification needed on the scope of work, scope of authority, how
free is any SO to refuse work?  Which questions should we ask the Dept. of
Commerce?

David Maher - What is the relationshipship between ccTLDs and "sovereignty"?

Siegfried Langenbach - ICANN will always come back to us and say that the
answer must come from us.

Michael Schneider - ICANN and the DNSO must work together.

Roberto Gaetano - The problem is that we are not a separate body, we are
required to integrate with ICANN and the other SOs.  (1) The relation
between DNSO and ICANN is not under our control (2) We must reach common
ground; we are getting close to having all parties at the table.  The
proposal, commonly made, will force answers to these questions.

Bret Fausett - Strong vs. weak DNSO?  What does it mean?  The ICANN bylaws
define DNSO's powers.

Marilyn Cade - Strong means: (1) Controls funding (2) able to act promptly
and effectively (3) It has buy-in from the membership - representative
democracy.

Ken Stubbs - Are the ICANN guidelines ones we can live with?  Will they
work?  Are ICANN's marching orders legitimate?  Is there an appeal to the US
Govt if a certain party doesn't like ICANN's decisions?

Roger Cochetti - I don't believe that ICANN has focussed on a lot of issues.
If the ICANN Board and the DNSO groups concurred, there shouldn't be a
problem.

Don Heath - IANA (= Jon Postel) had an elaborate network of people --
informal yet formal method of working.  Jon's view was to create an ICANN
that would work the same way, but more formally.  *But* it would need to be
advised, just as he took advice as IANA.  *But* he believed in checks and
balances as well.  We must achieve a vehicle for providing input to ICANN,
but they have their own identity.

Roger Cochetti - Symptoms of a strong DNSO (1) controls the purse strings,
(2) streamlined decision-making process.  It's not necessarily about
incorporation.

Don Telage - There is the question of a strong vs. weak DNSO.  But there's
also the question of a strong vs. weak Names Council within the DNSO.  These
are completely different issues.  One is about how policy is determined
(Names Council), while the other is about the relative powers of ICANN and
the DNSO.

Fay Howard - You can't collect money if you aren't incorporated.  Also, if
you're part of ICANN, there's no way you'll get a lot of power, since they
are taking the responsibility.

Marilyn Cade - Disagree - there can be a contractual relationship which
covers all these areas.

David Johnson - There is a problem with the enforcement of contracts, if all
the contracts are with ICANN.

John Englund - What are ICANN's powers with regard to ccTLDs?

Jay Fenello - DNSO or the ICANN Board - who's making the decisions.

Antony Van Couvering - The relative strength of ICANN and the DNSO will be
determined by the event, not a prescription.

Roger Cochetti - If the DNSO lacks a funding or decision-making process, it
will be weak.

Bret Fausett - Is there any doubt?  Doesn't it say "ICANN shall accept the
decisions of the DNSO"?

Roger Cochetti - It's ambiguous, there's lots of wiggle room.

Michael Schneider - We must move on.  Let's decide what are the
deal-breakers, and what we can decide to agree on.

Marc Chinoy - What decisions can the DNSO make?

Kent Crispin - It can pay it's own phone bill.

Roger Cochetti - It decides operational matters only - when it meets, etc.
For important matters, the DNSO can either "decide" or "recommend to
ICANN" - same difference.

Antony Van Couvering - The DNSO can elect three people on to the ICANN
Board.

Siegfried Langenbach - getting impatient with the process.

Jay Fenello - If DNSO makes recommendations, not decisions, what is DNSO's
liability?

Roger Cochetti - The ICANN Board members cannot escape liability, whether
they approve or veto.

[General agreement that there is no substantial difference about what ICANN
can tell the DNSO to do, incorporated or not.]

Hal Lubsen - Let's get on with it.

Amadeu Abril i Abril - Whatever people feel about incorporation, it's a
problem for later.  Let's get on with it.

Jay Fenello - The answer may differ now and in five years.

Marc Chinoy - We're talking about the initial start up.

[Following is a series of "straw polls" on various matters identified by
Marc Chinoy as important.  There was lively discussion about whether these
were the important questions, and some of the questions were modified more
than once before being polled.  In all the polling except for Question 4
(q.v.), the following scale was used:

Position 1 - Absolute necessity
Position 2 - Strong value to the proposition
Position 3 - Some value - a solution that *could* work
Position 4 - Won't work - dead against

Participants were allowed to vote only once, and abstentions were not
counted.]


Question 1 - Should the DNSO incorporate separately?

Position 1 - 1 vote
Position 2 - 9 votes
Position 3 - 17 votes
Position 4 - 6 votes

Question 2 - Should the DNSO have substantial control over prices?

Position 1 - 8 votes
Position 2 - 4 votes
Position 3 - 2 votes
Position 4 - 3 votes

[Note: several participants complained that they didn't understand the
question.  As I understood it, the question referred to fees charged to
registries/members or whoever was funding the DNSO, and perhaps therefore
ICANN.]

Bernard Turcotte -- The question is whether ICANN imposes a levy, or DNSO
budgets money for ICANN.

Question 3 - Should the DNSO have substantial control over its budget?

Position 1 - 28 votes
Position 2 - 5 votes
Position 3 - 0 votes
Position 4 - 0 votes

Question 4 - Should the DNSO use a consensus model or a structured
representation system?

[This question used a different scale.  Instead of progressing from strong
agreement to strong disagreement, the four positions were used to indicate a
spectrum, progressing from consensus to structured representation.  Thus a
vote for Position One indicated a strong preference for the consensus model,
while a vote for Position 4 indicated a strong preference for structured
representation.]

Position 1 - 7 votes
Position 2 - 1 vote
Position 3 - 12 votes
Position 4 - 6 votes

Question 5 - Is the primary purpose of the DNSO to make policy
recommendations to ICANN?

[There was a unanimous consensus on this point.]

[Following this were some announcements and discussions about scheduling for
the public meeting the next day]

END













Boundary, n. In political geography, an imaginary line between two nations,
separating the imaginary rights of one from the imaginary rights of
another. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary