DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] Draft minutes of NCtelecon, 24 Jan 2001, for validation by the NC

These are minutes drafted by Maca Jamin, reviewed by the meeting Chair
(Ken), for validation by the NC before being published (no later 
than 14 Feb).


DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 24 January 2001 - minutes 

24 January 2001 (Scribe's version 0.1 of 29th Jan) 

Proposed agenda and related documents:


List of attendees: 

   Peter de Blanc          ccTLD
   Elisabeth Porteneuve    ccTLD    
   Oscar Robles Garay      ccTLD
   Philip Sheppard         Business
   Theresa Swinehart       Business
   Hirofumi Hotta          ISPCP       (arrived late)
   Tony Harris             ISPCP       (joined at 22:10, proxy for M.Schneider)
   Michael Schneider       ISPCP
   Erica Roberts           Registrars
   Ken Stubbs              Registrars
   Paul Kane               Registrars
   Roger Cochetti          gTLD
   Caroline Chicoine       IP
   Axel Aus der Muhlen     IP
   Guillermo Carey         IP          (left at 23:39 and rejoined later) 
   Youn Jung Park          NCDNH
   Dany Vandromme          NCDNH
   Zakaria Amar            NCDNH       absent
   Louis Touton            ICANN staff
   Maca Jamin              Scribe

Quorum present at 22:09 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +1:00 during 
the winter in the North hemisphere)

Minutes of the meeting.

K. Stubbs, who chaired a NC meeting for the last time, opened the meeting by 
welcoming all participants. He expressed his pleasure in working as a Chair 
trying to help DNSO process to move forward. Due to a rather heavy agenda, he 
urged the participants to respect time slots allocated to each item.

*	Agenda Item 1. Confirmation of scribe and audio recording of the meeting 

Scribe was confirmed and it was decided to explore further possibilities of 
arranging audio recordings of the NC teleconference meetings.

*	Agenda Item 2. Approval of the Agenda 

Y.J. Park wished to add an agenda item on establishment of a working group on 
individuals constituency. 

K. Stubbs recalled that there is an item 13 on the Agenda examining GA request 
for "NC to consider an Individuals Constituency", and not a setting up of a 
working group. 

To clarify a discussion Ph. Sheppard quoted Agenda procedure document (version 
August 4th, 2000) concerning last minute suggestions: 

Last minute. In case of issues arising subsequent to the above timetable, NC 
members will be able to propose items for any other business at the start of an 
NC meeting. Such items will be accepted for discussion that day or deferred to 
the IC at the discretion of the NC chair.

It was decided to consider Y.J. Park's suggested item under A.O.B. and, if no 
time available, to postpone a discussion to the next meeting. 

*	Agenda Item 3. Nominations for NC Chair for period February - July 2001 
(New Chair will propose NC meeting dates for March - Dec 2001 by end January) 

C. Chicoine moved the motion, second by E. Porteneuve, to elect Ph. Sheppard as 
the Names Council Chair for the period February - July 2001. 

Decision D1:
Ph. Sheppard was unanimously elected as Names Council Chair for the period 
February - July 2001 by 15 votes in favour, no opposition and no abstentions. 

Ph. Sheppard thanked the Council for their confidence and informed that calendar 
of the NC meetings for the whole period of his mandate will be provided at the 
end of January 2001. 

He also mentioned objectives the NC is to achieve during this coming period 
after having had, up to now, successfully consolidated its procedures and 

*	Move strongly forward on issues the NC and DNSO consider as essential to 
its role and impact on further development of ICANN 
*	Develop and put in place the DNSO business plan 

*	Agenda Item 4. Approval of the Summary of the 19th December Meeting 


Decision D2:
The minutes of the Names Council teleconference of December 19th were approved 
by 16 votes in favour, no opposition and no abstentions. 

*	Agenda Item 5. NC Minutes - approval and publication process 

E. Roberts described her proposal designed to ensure a simple approval process 
for publishing of the NC meetings Minutes and to comply with ICANN Bylaws:

*	require scribe to provide a Chair with the notes within 7 days 
*	3 days for chair to finalise a text and send it to the NC 
*	if no comments received in 7 days, the Minutes should be deemed approved. 
In case of a disagreement it would be the Chair's responsibility to complete the 
process within the 21 days time frame and submit them for agreement. 

No additional approval by the NC is needed and the Chair is ultimate authority 
and the objections could be raised at the next meeting. 

E. Porteneuve observed that 21 days time limit is rather short and that setting 
up of such a strict scheme could become a considerable constraint. She spoke in 
favour of more flexible approach. 

P. Kane suggested accepting E. Roberts' idea on a temporary basis and reviewing 
a process later, if needed. 

On C. Chocoine's question which time slot seemed more problematical, 
E.Porteneuve responded that 2 or 3 days given to the secretariat to publish the 
Minutes is rather short, taking inot account travel, weekends, holiday period 

C. Chicoine pointed out that the period of time that looks short is one 
allocated to a Chair, who has a great responsibility in the process. 

Ph.Sheppard found timetable 7+3+7 rather realistic and he proposed to test and 
respect the scheme during his mandate. 

K. Stubbs suggested giving more time to Chair: 5 days instead of only 3. 

C. Chicoine stressed that if objections occur a Chair will have to work with 
other parties, but a calendar, set in advance, could help in planning different 
stages of the process. 

L. Touton recalled two requirements of the Bylaws : 

Article VI section 2h (requires publishing but not formal approval of the 
Minutes not later than 21 days): 

"The NC shall post minutes to a web site that is available for public access as 
soon as practicable following the meeting, and not later than 21 days following 
the meeting" 

And Article III section 2a: 

"All minutes of meetings of the Board, Supporting Organizations (and any 
councils thereof) and Committees shall be approved promptly by the originating 

E. Roberts suggested putting in place on-line approval process. 

Ph. Sheppard proposed public posting of the Minutes within 21 days. 

L.Touton suggested that to satisfy the Bylaws include into the decision: 
"approval by the Names Council at the following meeting". 

Decision D3:
The NC is taking a temporary motion, to be changed if necessary (moved by P. de 
Blanc second Ph. Sheppard). 

The NC Minutes approval and publication process will be as follows: 

*	Not later than 7 days - a scribe will draft and send notes to the Chair, 
*	Not later than 5 days - a Chair will finalise a text, 
*	Not later than 7 days - a chair will resolve conflicting points, 
*	Notes will be made public within 21 days and approved by the NC. 

The motion was adopted with 16 votes in favour, no opposition and no 

*	Agenda item 6: Nominations for the Independent Review Panel nominations 

(see http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00622.html Independent 
Review Panel Nominating Committee).

*	http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00577.html, Louis Pouzin 
and Olivier Iteanu (proposal by Elisabeth Porteneuve supported by Dany 
*	http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00578.html, Scott Hemphill 
(proposal by Ken Stubbs supported by Caroline Chicoine) 

As the party to a nomination process of DNSO candidates, K. Stubbs stepped dawn 
as a Chair and asked Ph. Sheppard to moderate discussions on this topic. 

L. Touton, who has provided a written information on the matter, as requested by 
E. Roberts at the December 19th Call, informed the Council about the nominations 
already made by other Supporting Organisations: 

*	ASO has nominated two people from Asia/Pacific Region 
*	PSO has nominated one person from Asia/Pacific Region 

He reiterated that two persons from DNSO are needed and that it is the Names 
Council responsibility to make final nominations (there are no requirements 
concerning a regional diversity). 

K. Stubbs provided information on Scott Hemphill, a candidate he proposed to 
become a member of the IRC Nominating Committee. 

S. Hemphill is an attorney with an extensive knowledge of DNS and ICANN process. 
As a general counsel for an ICANN accredited registrar, he will contribute to 
development of ICANN work 

E. Porteneuve also briefly presented the two candidates she has proposed: 

*	Louis Pouzin, involved with the French packed network, active within 
standardisation bodies, Internet Society and familiar with ICANN work would move 
forward ICANN matters. 
*	Olivier Iteanu, French lawyer specialised in Internet matters, president 
of French Chapter of Internet Society, an experienced person, will bring new 
dynamics to ICANN work. 

She also suggested, as there are three candidates 1 form USA and 2 from Europe, 
to choose one from each region. 

L.Touton asked if there are any other nominations to be made at this meeting. 

No other names were proposed as candidates for IRC Nominating Committee. 

E. Porteneuve suggested to choose S. Hemphill and O. Iteneau as members of the 
IRC Nominating Committee and to consider L. Pouzin as a potential candidate for 
the Independent Review Panel. 

P. de Blanc supported the motion. 

L. Touton recalled that IRPNomCom's responsibility is to nominate members to the 
Independent Review Panel. To complete a process all nominations are subject to 
confirmation by the ICANN Board. 

Decision D4:
The NC appointed Scott Hemphill and Olivier Iteanu as members of the IRC 
Nominating Committee. 

Decision was adopted unanimously by 16 votes in favour, no opposition and no 

*	Agenda item 7: Budget Committee - recommendation on 2001 budget and 
coinstituency contributions 

*	Status of Constituencies Contributions to the DNSO for 1999 and 2000 

K. Stubbs asked R. Cochetti to moderate this agenda item. 

R. Cochetti recalled three points on which the NC should decide: 

7.1 liability to AFNIC (services provided during year 2000) 

7.2 Proposed budget for year 2001 

7.3 Constituencies? dues 

7.1 Budget Committee has reviewed liability to AFNIC and proposes to pay AFNIC 
for provided services amounting to $59,400 on the receipt of the invoice and 
under the following conditions (accepted by AFNIC): 

*	Provision of services at no cost during a three-month transition period 
*	A satisfactory report to the NC on the intellectual property rights that 
the DNSO has acquired from AFNIC's work. 
*	Provision to the NC by AFNIC of a report on how AFNIC's costs should be 
allocated among the elements of the DNSO 

K. Stubbs drew the attention of the Council not to open Pandora?s box and have 
other organisations also claim money for the services provided in the past, as 
no formal agreement exists between the two parties. 

R. Cochetti stressed the transparency aspect of the services provided by AFNIC 
and a notice sent in advance stating their intention to end provision of 
services. Both sides failed to take the steps they should have to set up a 
formal relationship. He agreed that we cannot guarantee that no one will claim 
payments, but thought this will not prejudice to the NC. 

K. Stubbs underlined a superior quality of AFNIC services and made clear that 
his remark does not reflect their appreciation but only concerns the process as 
such. He invited the Council to formalise arrangements for services provided in 
the future 

P. Kane insisted that AFNIC should be paid once clarifications made. He also 
questioned when the three-month AFNIC transition period begins and asked whether 
there was time available to select a new provider of web and listserv hosting 

R. Cochetti mentioned different possibilities: 

*	3-month transition period starts on January 1st 2001, 
*	3-month transition period starts upon the receipt of a payment. 

P. de Blanc informed that the AFNIC services ended on December 31st 2000 and 
that DNSO should be paying for them as soon as possible. 

E. Porteneuve confirmed that the transition period starts as of January 1st 

K. Stubbs supported P. Kane's proposal to pay AFNIC. 

Decision D5:
(motion moved by K. Stubbs and second by Ph. Sheppard) 

The Names Council Chair (Ph. Sheppard according to the results of the election 
at this meeting) will instruct ICANN to make a payment upon a receipt of two 
compliant reports and after the following conditions have been met: 

*	Services provided at no cost during interim period, 
*	A satisfactory report from AFNIC on the IP acquired by the DNSO, 
*	Additional report on how AFNIC'S costs should be allocated within the 

7.2 Proposed budget for year 2001 

R. Cochetti commented operating budget for year 2001 divided into two 

i.	Voluntary contributions 

It is difficult to estimate the amount of voluntary contributions as no clear 
process on how to raise those contributions is in place yet. The Budget 
Committee has therefore not maid any recommendations. 
ii.	Funding by dues is the basis of the 2001 budget. They take into account 
all late payments yet to come. Contingency will permit more flexibility in 
allocating money to different actions considered important and not forecasted. 

In order to meet expenses amounting to $ 107,600 and expecting the number of 
DNSO Constituency staying unchanged (7) due per Constituency for 2001 will 
amount to $15,371. 

T. Harris found the provisional budget excellent but pointed out that the amount 
of $30,000 allocated to web site and list serve maintenance seemed rather high 
compared to only $10,000 allocated for translation of documents. 

R. Cochetti insisted that this should be considered as an approach showing 
budget categories only. The Budget Committee recommends that NC develop some 
criteria for translations. As to the list serve, not all the money have to be 
spent but it must kept in mind that the management of the lists serve is not 
only a silent process but includes management of the rather costly voting 
process for ICANN Board Directors. 

Ph. Sheppard asked for the clarification as to the increase of Constituency 

K. Stubbs responded that this budget is based on existing Constituencies and any 
newly formed Constituency will pay its due on pro rata based conditions. 

D. Vandromme reiterated his request, already made at the Marina del Rey meeting 
for a 50% reduction for Non Commercial Constituency due. 

The NC has taken a note of this request. 

L. Touton inquired if there is a practical report on voluntary funding. 

R. Cocheti recalled the NC decision to accept voluntary donations. Budget 
Committee will submit a complete plan on how to employ this part of the revenue 

P. Kane suggested that NC examine specific expenses in more details and takes 
budget expenses listed here as information. 

R. Cochetti restated that these are only budgetary category items, and when the 
NC will have a professional support the more specific financial reports will be 
provided regularly. 

First attempt to vote on the budget failed and those who have abstained provided 
explanation of their vote: 

*	D. Vandromme: cannot commit the Non Commercial constituency with such a 
high due. 
*	Ph. Sheppard: Budget Committee reached a decision in principle on an 
assumption to collect the 2001 dues from the Constituencies who have not paid 
their 2000 dues yet. 
*	H. Hotta: due to his late arrival has not had a chance to follow a 

E. Roberts suggested taking separate votes on constituencies' dues and on 
indicative budget for year 2001. 

R. Cochetti disagreed explaining that those two points are linked as we have to 
start collecting the money and start sending out invoices for year 2001. 

K. Stubbs called the NC to vote on a Budget Committee report: 

The motion did not pass: with 7 votes in favour (de Blanc, Porteneuve, Caray, 
Cochetti, Stubbs, Chicoine, Aus der Muhlen), 9 abstentions (Sheppard, Hotta, 
Harris, Schneider (by proxy) Swinehart, Roberts, Kane, Park, Vandromme), and no 
vote against. 

K. Stubbs expressed his deep disappointment in not reaching a decision on this 
topic. He also inquired on when the report was circulated to the Council 

E. Porteneuve informed that it was on 24th January. 

Due to a short time given to the NC to consider this issue, K. Stubbs suggested 
to organise a special teleconference very soon, aimed at reaching an agreement 
on a DNSO budget. 

P. de Blanc invited the Council to come up with some kind of agreement on a 
budget first and see later about the Constituency contributions. In his opinion 
there is an urgent need to do something concerning this matter. 

R. Cochetti suggested differing further discussion to the next meeting allowing 
NC members to study a report more thoroughly. 

Th. Swinehart thanked the Budget Committee for a valuable work they have done. 
She also indicated that as a Constituency representative she could not commit 
the Constituency by a vote before checking that the Constituency can pay its 
due. She agreed with K Stubbs? proposal to schedule another call within a week 
and recommended that everybody participating in that call make a decision on 
Constituency funds 

At this point (23:39) G. Carey left a call for a half an hour. 

*	Agenda item 8: Review Process. 

*	Preliminary report of NC Review Task Force (Theresa Swinehart) - 30 mins 
*	Working Group - request for extension of deadline, clarification of terms 
of reference (YJ Park - 10 mins) 

Documents referenced in http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/wgreview-

Th.Swinehart summed up briefly different stages of the Review process. (E. 
Porteneuve prepared WG review - History in the Making to be found on: 
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review-history.html ) 

An interim report was circulated on 21st January 2001, which included all 
contributions received from: Constituencies, individual contributors and WG 

She thanked all those, who by their contributions moved a process forward and 
mentioned main points expressed in comments such as : 

*	DNSO structure and its overall performance, 
*	Discussion of Constituencies (additional information needed), 
*	GA interest in forming an individuals Constituency, 
*	WGs their drawbacks and benefits, 
*	NC structure and procedures, 
*	Secretariat, 
*	Outreach and translation of documents. 

As stated in a press release issued after the December 19th call, WG submitted 
comments on 15th January (extension of the initial schedule set for January 
6th). Additional comments will be added to the first version and version 2 
posted for public comment (January 26th - February 6th).Comments received will 
be incorporated and report sent to ICANN Board who will post a document for 
another public comment period. 

K. Stubbs opened a discussion inviting participants to make brief interventions. 

C. Chicoine proposed to send her comment by e-mail to Th. Swinehart (copy to the 

Y.J. Park requested the extension of a deadline to enable WG Review to continue 
their work. She insisted that the draft version should not go for public comment 
and the process should be continued in order to come up with some conclusions. 

Th. Swinehart recalled that the Task Force collected information based on a 
Questionnaire and incorporated all of them into the Interim report (reference is 
given to all comments encouraging readers to consult them). She indicated that 
the WG Review has done a tremendous job, but objected appreciation of the 

T. Harris and P. Kane congratulated Theresa for her work and offered to send 
their comments by e-mail. 

Th. Swinehart said, as this is a DNSO report, that more time to comment on 
Interim report will be available. 

P. Kane urged the WG Review to send comments on Interim report and by doing so 
permit their inclusion into the final version. 

Y.J. Park stated that the WG Review would like to provide recommendations, which 
could not be finalised by 26th January. 

P. de Blanc, as a participant in WG discussions, suggested to append to Th. 
Swinehart?s document those issues on which the WG Review has reached polling 
stage, without looking for resolutions. 

Discussion focused on timetable, which apparently cannot be changed, and K. 
Stubbs reminded the participants on the decision taken on December 19th Call: 

Decision D4 (December 19th): 

- establish a Review Working Group, chaired by Y.J. Park 

- make the "terms of reference" "responding to the RTF questionnaire" 

- make the lifetime of the WG January 15th 

- ask the group to report by January 15th to the NC Review Task Force. 

- issue a press release immediately to encourage participation in this WG. 

Ph. Sheppard invited the meeting to make a distinction between the WG action in 
responding to the Questionnaire and the solutions finding process. He also 
mentioned the excellent job the WG has done in making outreach and in increasing 
the DNSO review process. 

Th. Swinehart reminded that we have to follow the schedule in order to meet 
public comment period (an extension of a deadline was already provided by the 

Y.J.Park expressed some observations as to the Review Task Force rules. 

K. Stubbs noted the diversity of opinions and stressed that we have to follow 
the agreed timetable. He encouraged further comments, in particular those coming 
from the WG Review , be submitted during the public comment period. 

P. de Blanc proposed, when posting the report, prepared by Th. Swinehart, to 
DNSO, to append existing 6-9 polling items of the WG Review (second by P. Kane). 

E. Portenueve appreciated P. de Blanc's initiative and thanked both Th. 
Swinehart and Y.J. Park for their work. She also said, that this is certainly 
not the last time the DNSO has put in place a review process. 

Y.J. Park mentioned that Greg Burton was elected a WG co-Chair (she will be 
acting as a liaison Chair). 

K.Stubbs pointed out excellent job G. Burton has done and invited him to take 
this opportunity and incorporate excellent contributions the WG has collected. 

Th. Swinehart said that during phase two the WG could come up with resolutions 
on specific issues. 

Decision D6:
(Motion moved by P. de Blanc) 

Append to Th. Swinehart Interim report whatever topic items exist, or 6-9 
polling items, of the WG Review and post them together for public comment, 26th 
January - 9th February 2001. 

K. Stubbs suggested that G.Burton forwards information to Th. Swinehart. 

The motion passed with 15 votes in favour (including G. Carey who rejoined the 
meeting at 00:14), one vote against (Y.J. Park) and no abstentions. 

Y.J. Park stated that it is impossible for Review TF to come up with its Interim 
report within two days from now. The current version should be posted in the 
name of an individual, Theresa Swinehart, instead of a Review TF, who doesn't 
provide proper, open and formal channel of discussion among the full members and 
excludes some member's comments upon her own decision rather than seeking Review 
TF's full agreement. 

Subsequent to the meeting Y.J. Park has sent her apologies and asked to withdraw 
the observation (see above) she made at this point at the meeting. 

Due to the late hours, K. Stubbs proposed to close this meeting and to call 
another one very soon to tackle all Agenda items not covered at this meeting, 
including the DNSO budget. He insisted that the items have to be taken up before 
a month period (P. de Blanc second that motion). 

Th. Swinehart suggested choosing a date. 

Ph. Sheppard agreed to arrange a call in two weeks time. 

E. Porteneuve drew the NC attention to numerous meetings the ccTLDs will hold 
during the coming month, the main reason why she had suggested February 26th as 
a date for the NC meeting in the first place. 

K. Stubbs concluded that an hour call be organised in one week time and 
encouraged everybody to come up with decisions. 

He closed the meeting by expressing his pleasure in continuing to work as a 
member of the NC and thanked all participants for their contributions. 

End of the meeting 00:22 CET. 


Information from:
	 DNSO Names Council

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>