[council] NC telecon, 19 December 2000, minutes
[ To: firstname.lastname@example.org ]
[ To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org ]
[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001219.NCtelecon-minutes.html ]
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 19 December 2000 - minutes
21 December 2000.
Proposed agenda and related documents:
List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD (left early, proxy to Porteneuve)
Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD absent (apology)
Philip Sheppard Business
Theresa Swinehart Business (left early, proxy to Sheppard)
Hirofumi Hotta ISPCP
Tony Harris ISPCP
Michael Schneider ISPCP
Erica Roberts Registrars
Ken Stubbs Registrars absent (apology, proxy to Kane)
Paul Kane Registrars
Roger Cochetti gTLD
Caroline Chicoine IP (left early, proxy to aus der Muhlen)
Axel Aus der Muhlen IP
Guillermo Carey IP absent
Youn Jung Park NCDNH
Dany Vandromme NCDNH
Zakaria Amar NCDNH absent
Louis Touton ICANN staff
Maca Jamin Scribe
Due to family emergency Ken Stubbs was prevented from chairing this meeting.
Philip Sheppard chaired the entire session on his behalf.
Quorum present at 14:10 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +1:00
during the winter in the North hemisphere)
Note: BC has not yet replaced Masanobu Katoh, newly elected at-large
Director. The BC aims to do so before the next NC meeting in January. L.
Touton confirmed that according to the ICANN Bylaws M. Katoh cannot
participate in NC meetings anymore and consequently his proxy cannot be
Minutes of the meeting.
* Agenda Item 1. Approval of the Agenda
Two items were added under AOB:
i) Call for nominations for the NC Chairman
ii) Election of the GA Chair
Including the above modifications the agenda for the meeting was
* Agenda Item 2. Approval of the summary of the meetings on 19th October
and 14th November
October 19th teleconference
Y.J. Park pointed out that the motion concerning the approval
process of the minutes (minutes to be approved by the NC first and
then published) does not figure in the text of the 19th October
teleconference minutes. She requested setting up a formal process
and tracking different versions to settle controversial points.
E. Porteneuve clarified that the only change after the draft
initially circulated concerned the discussion of the required
number of votes to adopt Decision D3 and L. Touton stated that
change was made in a e-mail E. Porteneuve had sent to the whole
NC. Y.J. Park was still unhappy with the version and to move the
meeting forward Ph. Sheppard proposed to continue the discussion
concerning the 19th October minutes off-line.
E. Roberts suggested putting in place a simple process: scribe
sends the minutes to the Chair who amends or approves and asks the
Secretariat to release a draft. Any subsequent change to this
draft is recorded and approved by the Chair until a final version
is approved by the NC.
14th November meeting
C. Chicoine requested adding a reference to an e-mail from Y J
Park (3 Oct 2000
clarify the intent of the motion Chicoine had proposed.
L. Touton expressed his concern about the procedure of using the
Berkmann Center notes as minutes: they are not generated for this
purpose and we should be taking this fact into account.
P. Kane suggested using the session videotape to check on
E. Roberts remembered C. Chicoine's intervention and supported the
idea of adding this reference to the minutes.
Y.J. Park expressed a desire to consult the videotape of the
meeting and make amendments later.
The minutes of Oct 19 were approved. The minutes of 14 November
were approved, with the insertion of the e-mail reference. The
reservation expressed by Y.J. Park was noted.
* Agenda Item 4. Secretarial support to DNSO prior to recruitment of
permanent staff and openess and recording of NC meetings
4.1 Status of AFNIC support
E. Porteneuve described the current functioning of the
Secretariat now that she was an NC member. Her role is that
of a Project Manager consisting in managing administrative
and technical matters. A third party takes minutes of the
E. Roberts questioned if the primary task consisted in
maintaining the DNSO web page.
E. Porteneuve provided detailed description of the tasks:
monitoring mailing lists, managing security tools, ensuring
back-up functions, updating the site, providing support to
the GA, etc.
E. Roberts suggested discussing this under the item on the
4.2 Recording secretary
L. Touton pointed out that arrangements should be made to
compensate a third party for taking minutes. The question was
raised if the interim recording scribe is needed to work in
tandem with E. Porteneuve until we recruit a full time
P. de Blanc recalled that there were some suggestions to hire
a stenographer. R. Cochetti developed this idea by suggesting
that the NC Chair or ICANN staff ensure that the minutes are
taken and audio recording made at reasonable cost.
P. de Blanc said that a certain degree of formality should be
added in case of controversial points. The latter will not be
approved until a portion of a tape was circulated to all NC
R. Cochetti suggested giving a responsibility to the Chair
and a practical part to the Project Manager and ICANN staff
to provide recording secretary and audio tape recording for
P.Kane added that this should be on an interim basis until a
permanent support has been put in place.
Y.J. Park raised the issue of procedures for eventual
transcripts, and impacted cost.
Th. Swinehart stressed that a tape transcription could be
The following motion was approved by all with Y.J. Park
Until such time as the DNSO has internal staff support that
is sufficient to provide these services, the Chair, or in the
Chair's absence, the ICANN Secretary in conjunction with the
AFNIC Project Manager, are requested to procure and, at
reasonable cost, compensate, a scribe for each teleconference
or other Names Council meeting. The scribe will prepare
minutes of each meeting and the taking and maintenance of an
audio recording of each meeting provided that if any NC
member disputes what he or she has said in the resulting
draft minutes, a transcript of the relevant portion of the
audio recording shall be prepared and made available to the
NC before its formal approval of the minutes. The NC Chair
and ICANN Secretary are further requested to report
periodically to the NC on the costs incurred.
C. Chicoine states she had to leave the meeting and asked to switch
item 6 with item 5.
* Agenda Item 6. LA follow-up - proposed "Review Working Group"
C. Chicoine restated that her intention in proposing a group
during the NC meeting in Marina del Rey was limited to the
proposals made in YJ Park's e-mail of 3 October (referenced
Ph. Sheppard recalled that since then there had been
misunderstanding on what had been intended in the request made of
Y J Park. Nevertheless the NC now had a revised proposal (December
10 e-mail from Y J Park Subject: Terms of Reference[version 0.2] :
Review Working Group) for a Review Working Group (WG) and needed
to react to that proposal. He noted that the terms of reference
proposed in that proposal included:
+ Prepare a repsponse to the questionnaire prepared by the
Review Task Force
+ Review DNSO responsibilties and performance
+ Develop recommendations for making DNSO work as designed
Y.J. Park referred to discussions in Yokohama to form a Working
Group. Following informal discussions with selected parties she
had proposed terms of reference for a Review Working Group with a
+ respond to the questionnaire of the NC Review Task Force
+ Review DNSO procedures
+ Send comments to the ICANN Board.
P. Kane expressed his support of a Working Group as a means of
outreach. As a representative of the Registrars constituency he
wanted though to find out if the intention was to provide answers
to the Review Task Force Questionnaire or NC as this would be
preferable, instead of forwarding comments to the ICANN Board
Y.J. Park agreed that the WG output would go to the NC.
C. Chicoine supported the idea that all results should come out of
the collaborative work within the NC Review Task Force and not as
a separate initiative.
In order to find a proper balance Y.J. Park suggested that Th.
Swinehart, a leader of the NC Review Task Force helps to
co-ordinate the two activities.
Th. Swinehart expressed some concern about this idea and briefly
reviewed the whole process:
+ She expressed concern that the practice that has been
followed by the group convened by YJ is not consistent with
+ She stated that any NC liaison to a Working Group should be
formally appointed by the NC.
P. Sheppard stated that the second and third tasks proposed for
the Working Group overlapped with the tasks assigned to the Task
Force. Therefore, the Working Group should focus on the first task
(answering the Task Force's questionnaire).
R. Cochetti recalled that it was approved at the Marina del Rey
meeting, that there was to be a close link between the Working
Group and the DNSO Review Task Force. A mechanism is needed to
provide broad comments and the GA could play an important role
here. There is no point in a Review Working Group and Review Task
Force reporting separately to the NC.
Th. Swinehart informed that GA is preparing comments R. Gaetano,
GA Chair, is working on that, and she observed time is limited. We
are going through the second round of consultation right now and
we have no possibility of extending the January 9 deadline. A
report has to be sent to the ICANN Board before the meeting in
After this intervention Th. Swinehart had to leave the call
Y.J. Park pointed out the timing difficulty in conducting this
work by January 9, as the WG had not been created after the
Yokohama meeting. She also stressed that certain GA members she
had spoken to were not happy with the process, which they saw as a
P. Kane remarked that if GA members are talking to Y.J. they are
taking part in the process, and that that together with the two
calls for Constituency consultation, means we cannot speak of a
top-down but definitely of a bottom-up approach. He also raised
the question: Does the Working Group propose to review answers to
the Review Task Force questions only or are there any other issues
the group is interested to address?
Y.J. Park explained that if we had not had more responses by now,
it is because people are suspicious. The main goal of the Working
Group is to enable those people to take an active part in the
P. de Blanc insisted that sufficient credibility should be given
to the process itself, aimed at providing a sound DNSO
contribution to the Board. He supported the idea of the Working
Group because of its inherent promotional value ensuring that the
highest importance is given to the issue.
P. de Blanc left the call after his intervention at 15:31 - proxy
given to E. Porteneuve.
E. Roberts restated that comments are due by January 9th. The
possibility of extending that deadline could only be envisaged if
it also allowed enough time for the Review Task Force to draft its
report. The working group will therefore, have to conclude by
Y.J. Park noted the practical problems of a short life time of the
WG especially given the likely period of inactivity during the
C. Chicoine rejoined a call at 15:36 and recommended that
responding to the Review Task Force Questionnaire would be a valid
and useful role for the WG.
T. Harris seconded C. Chicoine's point.
Ph. Sheppard summarised debate as centered around two questions:
- do we need a Review Working Group ?
- if yes to define a clear objective and timetable.
P. Kane stressed the importance of the outreach in raising
awareness on any issue. He suggested producing a press release in
order to reach the largest possible audience.
Ph. Sheppard reminded the NC that the key objective is twofold:
get the largest possible response to the RTF questionnaire and
provide input to the Board according to a set timetable.
E. Porteneuve was in favour of setting up of a Working Group even
for a short period of time and to stimulate participation by
issuing a press release.
Ph. Sheppard proposed a possible solution to the debate:
- set-up a Working Group immediately with a mission to
provide additional answers to the Review Task Force
questionnaire and report them back to the Review Task Force
- give it a deadline of January 15th
- issue a press release to increase participation.
Y.J. Park noted that the discussion is taking place on a different
ground, as it is unrealistic that these objectives be achieved by
D. Vandromme supported that idea because in his view it seems
rather difficult to get high quality work done in such a short
period of time. He suggested extending the lifetime of the Working
L. Touton reminded the NC of the problems in setting up a
different schedule from the one stated by Th. Swinehart as
necessary to get the report to the ICANN Board in time for the
E. Roberts supported the idea of coping with the timetable as set.
Two rounds of constituency and GA outreach had already been done.
Establishing a Working Group is a great idea, but extending the
time table past January 15 will prevent us complying with the
request of the ICANN Board.
D. Vandromme insisted that it is better to have more time and
produce a good report instead of providing an empty shell on time.
E. Roberts said that the report would not be an empty shell as
there are lots of comments already available.
Ph. Sheppard urged not to extend the timeline too far and make
sure the process stays on track.
D. Vandromme pointed out that the Review Working Group covers a
T. Harris opposed the idea of extending the timeline for
questionnaire replies as that would reduce the time for public
comments on the NC final report itself.
Ph. Sheppard made the following proposal:
- establish a Review Working Group, chaired by Y.J. Park
- make the "terms of reference" "responding to the RTF
- make the lifetime of the WG January 15th
- ask the group to report by January 15th to the NC Review
- issue a press release immediately to encourage
participation in this WG.
The following members voted in favour: Chicoine, aus der Mühlen,
Roberts, Hotta, Harris, Cochetti, Sheppard, Swinehart (by proxy),
de Blanc (by proxy), Porteneuve, Kane, Stubbs (by proxy), YJ Park
(with the reserve that the given timeframe is too short to
accomplish this task properly).
Ph. Sheppard offered to draft the press release, to liase with YJ
Park and to ask Ken Stubbs as NC Chair (assuming availability) to
approve it on behalf of the NC.
C. Chicoine left the meeting and gave her proxy to A. aus der
* Agenda Item 5. LA follow up - Business Plan
Ph. Sheppard informed participants that a Business Plan Task Force
(TF) had been established comprising one representative from each
of the NC constituencies. The TF had agreed on a draft set of
objectives for the business plan and this draft will now be sent
to the NC with a request to circulate the plan for comments by
Constituencies. Following the comment period - which will be
focused only on the proposed top-line objectives for the NC, the
TF will revise the business plan and add detail of the strategies,
actions and measures of success necessary to fulfill the agreed
objectives. After that revision the final plan will be presented
to the NC for approval.
* Agenda Item 7. New TLDs
The discussion on this subject was postponed until the January
meeting. On a request, L. Touton briefly reported on negotiation
over new TLDs. More work is needed and ICANN does not expect to
finalise agreements for all seven TLDs by end December as
* Agenda Item 8. LA follow-up -WHOIS
P. Kane announced that Rebecca Nesson is doing a good job as
co-ordinator of an informal ICANN consulting group on WHOIS
L.Touton added that the group will send a report to ICANN staff by
the end of January who will then refer issues of policy to the NC
* Agenda Item 9. Budget Committee status report
R. Cochetti apologised for not being able to provide a written
report to the NC (he had his laptop stolen). He informed the NC:
i) the budget committee has reviewed an invoice sent by AFNIC
for NC secretariat services 2000 and it recommends paying the
full subject to:
- provision of services at no cost during an interim
period not to exceed March 31st 2001,
- a satisfactory solution to questions of intellectual
property rights in mail lists, databases, web site
- provision of greater detail on certain cost items.
ii) the budget committee is completing a proposed budget for
2001 based on certain assumptions:
- the money collected in year 2000 and the dues
- expenditures in 2000
- a presumption that voluntary funds raised in 2001 will
cover an estimated cost of $120,000 to hire an NC
Depending on the final outcome of budget committee discussions the
proposed budget for 2001 is not expected to result in a call for
NC constituency contributions in excess of $13,000 each. A full
report will be circulated to the NC in January.
* Agenda Item 10. Independent review panel nomination committee proposal
- status report
Ph. Sheppard informed that some names had now been forwarded to
the NC Secretariat.
L.Touton stated that the NC was charged to appoint two people.
E. Roberts requested more details on the role of the nominating
committee. L. Touton will send necessary information.
It was agreed that the Intake Committee will add a point for the
January agenda to recommend two names at that meeting.
* Agenda Item 11. Request from GA Chair for NC to consider an individuals
This item was postponed to the next meeting.
* Agenda Item 12. Duke University Law Report
As P. de Blanc had to leave the meeting earlier, the discussion
was postponed to the next meeting.
* Agenda Item 13. Any Other Business
The term of office for Ken Stubbs expires 6 months after the
July meeting in Yokohama and so a new Chair will be required
following the NC meeting in January. To help with the choice,
E. Porteneuve will communicate to all NC members the
statistics about the past chairs. Members of the NC are
requested to send nominations.
E. Porteneuve will send an e-mail to the Names Council
updating the NC on the status of the election of the GA
Ph. Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked all attendees for their
End of meeting at 16:40 CET. Next Names Council Teleconference is scheduled
for Wednesday January 24th 2001
Information from: © DNSO Names Council