<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] 21 September' teleconference minutes
Council,
Louis Touton and myself were working together last week by email
and on phone on the 21 September minutes, revised them and completed.
We feel it is almost impossible to do a detailed account of
free-ranging discussion in a way that no one objects to. We hope
the result below is satisfactory to you.
Elisabeth
--
[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000921.NCtelecon-minutes.html ]
ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 21 September 2000 - minutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 September 2000.
Proposed agenda and related documents:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000921.NCtelecon-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Dennis Jennings ccTLD absent (appology)
Patricio Poblete ccTLD
Nii Quaynor ccTLD
Philip Sheppard Business
Masanobu Katoh Business proxy to Theresa
Theresa Swinehart Business
Hirofumi Hotta ISPCP proxy to Michael or Tony
Tony Harris ISPCP arrived 14:35
Michael Schneider ISPCP arrived 14:20
Erica Roberts Registrars arrived 14:20
Ken Stubbs Registrars left 15:15
Paul Kane Registrars
Roger Cochetti gTLD arrived 14:35
Caroline Chicoine IP arrived 14:35
Axel Aus der Muhlen IP proxy to Caroline
Guillermo Carey IP proxy to Caroline
Youn Jung Park NCDNH
Dany Vandromme NCDNH
Zakaria Amar NCDNH proxy to YJP
Louis Touton ICANN staff
Andrew McLaughlin ICANN staff
Roberto Gaetano GA Chair (part time)
Elisabeth Porteneuve DNSO Secretariat
Chair Ken Stubbs (Registrars) until 15:15, then Caroline Chicoine (IPC)
Quorum present at 14:20 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +2:00)
Minutes of the meeting.
Ken Stubbs expressed concerns that the conference bridge for the call did
not provide listen-only ports, so no facility had been provided for the
general public to listen in real time.
1. Minutes from September 15th NC teleconference
Decision D1: Unanimously approved by a vote of all present (eight NC
attendees, quorum with proxies).
2. Los Angeles DNSO Meeting (NC and GA) (Andrew McLaughlin)
DNSO point of contact
Decision on the webcast
Andrew McLaughlin urged the NC to select a DNSO coordinator for the
November meeting, to serve as a single point of contact to schedule all
DNSO activities (NC, GA, WGs Committees or Task Forces, liaison between
Constituencies secretariats, etc.). Paul Kane volunteered to do this
work, he shall be provided input from each Constituency, from the GA
Chair, and from the DNSO Secretariat for liaison meeting.
Ken Stubbs reported that the meetings on Tuesday will include a meeting
of the General Assembly and a Names Council meeting. The IANA is
planning a meeting with ccTLD personnel on Tuesday afternoon, so that
the Names Council meeting cannot run into late afternoon.
Action A1: Paul Kane to coordinate the LA meeting agenda.
Andrew stressed that the DNSO must commit promptly to cover the cost
(estimated at $10,000) of webcasting for Tuesday, or arrangements
cannot be made. Paul Kane reported that Roger Cochetti (who was not yet
in attendance at the call) had secured NSI's "in principle" commitment,
but needed to verify the amount.
Action A2: Paul Kane to coordinate with Roger Cochetti to firm up
funding commitment for webcast.
3. Financial report from ICANN staff
Louis Touton indicated there were no material change in the financial
status. Several checks have been received from the NCDNH members, but
when bank accounts are in A currency and checks drafted in B currency,
the banks are charging quite a high cost for cashing, sometimes above
the drafted check value. The constituencies are requested to work out
how to accumulate funds, and send out a lump sum to the ICANN.
The ISPCP Constituency, which is not formally incorporated, met last
week and found a mechanism on how to legally collect funding. Michael
Schneider reported the ISPCP will have in the future the budget larger
than just for the DNSO fees, and they will consolidate payments
through. They expect to pay their dues shortly.
During last item Michael Schneider and Erica Roberts joined the call.
Ten NC attendees.
4. Update on the new TLD Application Process (Louis Touton)
Louis Touton reviewed the mechanics of the ongoing process for
receiving applications for new TLDs. Questions from applicants are not
being answered privately, but rather questions submitted are posted
with responses on ICANN's public web site. ICANN staff will receive the
applications and will post significant parts of these (without
confidential parts) for public comment. It was noted that some
companies are offering pre-registrations in possible new top- level
domains, some of them even charging money for the pre- registrations.
Two companies raise problems, first being registrar, second claiming to
be working through registrars.
The members of the NC discussed speculations issue, and how to deal
with irresponsible practices. They are worried for consumers and
general users of the Internet, looking for the way to discourage
abuses. Louis reminded that one of criteria of selection for new TLDs
is "how you will deal with registrations on startup". Paul and Philip
volunteered to draft a press release and pass an information to the
newspapers and public using ICANN communication channels.
Action A3: Paul Kane and Philip Shepard to draft a press release to be
circulated through ICANN distribution channels. It should be approved
by Ken Stubbs and be circulated to the NC before distribution.
(On 29 September the Announcement has been posted at
http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr29sep00.htm and released to
the press.)
At this point, Tony Harris, Roger Cochetti, and Caroline Chicoine
joined the call.
5. Proxy vote proposal (Paul Kane)
Paul Kane reported on a proposed proxy policy that had been circulated.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000920.NCproxy-vote.v0.html, Version
0, 20 September 2000
The issue of quorum was discussed, in which situations only physically
present members count and when proxies are counted. Louis Touton stated
nothing is explicated in Bylaws. It was felt that 4 weeks for
"incommunicado" may be a long time, and in the assumption of one NC
telecon per month, a Constituency may miss a vote for one meeting.
Elisabeth Porteneuve stressed that at some point it is assumed the
Secretariat is working 24 hours a day. It was agreed Paul Kane would
work with Andrew McLaughlin and bring back a revised proposal for the
next meeting.
Action A4: Paul Kane to work with Andrew McLaughlin to prepare and
report back with a revised proxy vote proposal.
6. Business Constituency dues problem (Philip Sheppard)
Philip Sheppard raised an issue regarding whether the DNSO should
temporarily return a $13,000 dues payment made by the Business
Constituency. The ICANN staff has indicated that this return of funds
would not be made without NC instructions.
Philip explained that the ICC manages the Business Constituency
finances, making payments based on approvals by the BC Secretariat. The
dues payment was made without Secretariat approval. This results in a
cash flow problem, including difficulties in paying the Secretariat.
The question was whether in such a situation ICANN can reimburse or
not.
It was noted that a return of the funds at this point could create an
unfortunate precedent and complicate the payment of dues by other
constituencies. After discussion, the BC agreed that a request for
reimbursement should not be pursued.
7. ICANN staff report for status on independent review panel nominations
and
8. Discussion regarding individual outreach and representation
ICANN is awaiting two nominees from the DNSO to the Nomination
Committee, which will nominate the members of the independent review
panel (retired judges, etc., not paid). PSO already provided one
nominee, ASO will do it on Oct 28th in Brisbane. The DNSO nominees may
not have any conflict of interest.
There was various discussion about possible sources of nominees for the
Nomination Committee positions.
Paul Kane suggested as part of outreach program to encourage people
from Africa, Latin America, and all regions for the independent review
panel. Patricio Poblette noted that a request for retired judges,
familiar with English language and American law may be unrealistic.
Action A5: The NC to provide 2 nominees to the ICANN Nomination
Committee.
9. DNSO Review report
Theresa Swinehart presented a draft document for the DNSO review that
had previously been circulated to the NC.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000919.NCreview-report.v1.2.html,
Version 1.2, 19 September 2000
The draft summarizes questions and issues to be included in the review.
It is a preliminary document and is open for improvements and feedback
from the NC. ICANN staff was asked for guidance on how specific a
report the Board expects from the NC. In response, Louis Touton noted
that the degree of specificity should be limited only by the extent to
which consensus can be achieved. The review report should provide an
evaluation on what was well done by the DNSO and less well done, noting
any consensus on proposals for revision the Board should consider.
At this point Ken Stubbs left the call because of an emergency and
Caroline Chicoine assumed the role of chair.
A discussion followed about the extent of consideration of the review
issues within the DNSO so far. YJ Park reported initiating work in the
NCDNHC. Roberto Gaetano, GA Chair, used this document as starting point
for discussion on ga list.
Roberto Gaetano questioned whether a Task Force rather than a Working
Group should prepare the Review report. He indicated that such a choice
is not responsive to the GA's motion in Yokohama calling for creation
of a Working Group and subsequent decision to merge the issue of
Constituency for Individuals into DNSO review Working Group. The NC
discussed this and decided to continue following the procedure the NC
decided on in Yokohama.
YJ Park expressed dissatisfaction that in the review process the NC was
not being sufficiently responsive to concerns that have been raised by
various DNSO participants. The NC discussed the need to improve
communications with the entire community on this issue.
The first draft of DNSO Review report is expected by the Board by
October 13th, with the final report to be ready one week prior to the
Los Angeles meetings. Theresa Swinehart's work will be completed and
reviewed, questions will be prepared, then comments solicited, and the
final summary drafted by the NC and send out to the ICANN Board. Nii
Quaynor suggested incorporating some quantitative questions as a means
to evaluate a level of involvement in the constituencies and GA, etc.
Action A5: Theresa Swinehart to lead the drafting of the first DNSO
review report for 13 October 2000. Nii to send by email suggested
questionnaire.
10. Intake Committee report
Philip Sheppard presented the first portion of the report of the Intake
Committee, which covers intake/agenda procedures.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/200008.NC-intake.v4.html, Version 4,
August 2000
According to the proposed intake procedures, the topics of the agenda
will be defined 21 days in advance, the agenda sent out 14 days in
advance, and reports 7 days in advance. The chair has the possibility
to add last-minute new items.
Theresa Swinehart expressed concerns that an Intake Committee should
not become a gatekeeper for agenda determination. Roberto Gaetano
stated that the intake procedures should not result in an impaired flow
between GA and NC. Roger Cochetti stated that the procedures do not
prevent an individual NC member from raising new business items. Nii
agreed with this view.
Erica Roberts proposed to adopt the recommendations of the Intake
Committee and, consistant with thise recommendations, review the process
after three months. The motion was seconded and passed with unanimous
approval of all present and proxies (Philip, Paul, Theresa, YJP,
Caroline, Axel, Katoh, Erica, Nii, Tony, Hotta, Roger, Dany, Zakaria)
Decision D2: The recommendations of the Intake Committee are adopted
for 3 months, and shall be reviewed at the end of that period.
At this point, Erica Roberts departed from the call.
11. Budget Committee update (Roger Cochetti)
The Budget committee has several tasks:
(a) create a system for voluntary contributions to the DNSO may be
solicited. Solicitation documents are nearly completed.
(b) Also, a mechanism for collecting and holding the voluntary
contributions (unincorporated association) has been developed.
(c) develop a job description for the DNSO secretariat and other DNSO
support functions. This is also well underway.
(d) develop a plan for recruiting.
12. Any other business
Roger Cochetti raised the topic of NC work on IP protection in new
TLDs.
Roberto Gaetano asked about formation of a working group to discuss an
individual constituency.
End of meeting. Next Names Council Teleconference: Thursday October 19th
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information from: © DNSO Names Council
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|