ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[council]


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

RE: [council] NCtelecon, 8 February, minutes for validation by the NC


With respect to the statement "C. Chicoine insisted that we should start
paying for some services in a
cautious way." I think there should be a reference that I made this comment
in reference to the "surplus" budget and that I was in favor of not giving
any of it back given that we have been relying on volunteers to fund the
conference calls, and thus I do not believe you can really call it surplus.

-----Original Message-----
From: DNSO Secretariat [mailto:DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 6:30 PM
To: council@dnso.org
Cc: Maca.Jamin@wanadoo.fr
Subject: [council] NCtelecon, 8 February, minutes for validation by the
NC



Colleagues,

These are minutes from the NC held on 8 February, as drafted by Maca Jamin
and reviewed by the NC Chair, Philip Sheppard.

You have up to 7 days to make comments, until 22 February,
if no comments received in 7 days, the Minutes are deemed approved.

DNSO Secretariat
--

[cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/a20010208.NCtelecon-minutes.html]


ICANN/DNSO

        DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 24 January 2001- Minutes
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

revised version February 12th

Proposed agenda and related documents:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000802.NCtelecon-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Peter de Blanc        ccTLD
Elisabeth Porteneuve  ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay    ccTLD
Philip Sheppard       Business
Theresa Swinehart     Business    (left before the end, proxy to Ph.
Shepaprsd)
Grant Forsyth         Business
Hirofumi Hotta        ISPCP       absent (apology, proxy to M. Schneider)
Tony Harris           ISPCP       absent (apology, proxy to M. Schneider)
Michael Schneider     ISPCP       absent
Erica Roberts         Registrars
Ken Stubbs            Registrars
Paul Kane             Registrars
Roger Cochetti        gTLD        absent by intervals (proxy to Ph.
Sheppard, if a vote took place during his absence)
Caroline Chicoine     IP
Axel Aus der Muhlen   IP          absent (apology, proxy to C Chicoine)
Guillermo Carey       IP
Youn Jung Park        NCDNH
Dany Vandromme        NCDNH       absent (apology, proxy to Y.J. Park)
Zakaria Amar          NCDNH       absent
Louis Touton          ICANN staff absent (apology, participation in public
hearing)
Maca Jamin            Scribe





<b>Quorum present at 14:06</b> (all times reported are CET, which is UTC
+1:00
during the winter in the North hemisphere)


<b>Opening of the Meeting</b>

Ph. Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference, which tackled items remaining
from the 24 January call.


K. Stubbs proposed to add under A.O.B.: organising a NC dinner during ICANN
meetings in Melbourne


Proxies received: R. Cochetti forced to leave a call several times, left a
proxy to the Chair. Proxies for H. Hotta and T. Harris given to M. Schneider
- but M. Schneider was absent also.



<b>Agenda item 1:</b> Budget Committee - revisiting the recommendation on
2001
budget and constituency contributions



o      Status of Constituencies Contributions to the DNSO for 1999 and 2000
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001206.ICANN-DNSO-budget.html



Ph. Sheppard clarified that the NC had agreed on the January to the
settlement of the AFNIC payment. Remaining items, this call should be
deciding on, concern 2001 budget and revenues. The Budget Committee will
review options for enforcement of constituencies? dues and provide
information to the NC for the next meeting. Within the budget two sides are
to be considered: costs and revenues. The NC was in favour of the costs side
of the budget $227,600 ($107,600 plus the assumption of *120,000 coming from
voluntary contributions).

R Cochetti confirmed that spending based on voluntary contributions would
depend on amounts the NC will be able to raise.



Ph Sheppard inquired on any funds left from the year 2000 budget.



R. Cochetti responded that a substantive sum left as a reserve would provide
a flexibility to the NC. All categories are based on assumptions for 2001:
targets, spending classified by categories (budget Committee suggested that
funds left from 2000 of $35000 be left in miscellaneous category).



K. Stubbs asked if there is a specific place where a pro-forma budget could
be found and clearly see what items will fall into which category, mandated
spending etc.



R. Cochetti said that the Budget report is on the list serve where the
following  general categories and corresponding amounts are listed:

-Administrative            $12,000
-Telecommunications        $18,100
-Travel                    $25,500
-Web/Listserv/Maintenance  $30,000
-Webcasting                $0
-LanguageTranslations      $10,000
-Professional Services     $12,000





Voluntary funding will cover professional support only.



Th. Swinehart made a more general remark requesting that all links are
regularly posted before the meetings, to facilitate the NC members search
when preparing the meetings.



Ph. Sheppard assured this was current practice.



P. Kane remarked that some expenditure amounts look rather high and pointed
out a difficulty in managing the voluntary part of the budget dedicated to
employment of professional staff. The main difficulty lies in planning and
forecasting.



R. Cochetti agreed that we do not know the level of voluntary contributions
yet. Verisign will renew its offer to match $1 invested with $1 up to
$100,000. Ph. Sheppard summarised: the NC support to a cautious approach in
setting its budget. Any available surplus will be put into reserves. The Non
Comm. and ISP Constituencies? confirmed their promise to settle outstanding
1999 and 2000 dues soon and at the latest by the end of March.



P. de Blanc informed on ccTLDs situation. ccTLDs are making no payments
before the contract with ICANN has been defined. He will make an attempt and
propose to the constituency to separate DNSO contribution from overall
discussion with ICANN. and ccTLDs, trying to come to an agreement to pay
their fee by March.



R Cochetti insisted on a conservative approach, spending only ?money in
hand?. Surplus could be allocated to a number of spending such as reducing
constituencies? dues for 2002, hire of other professional service or keeping
the money without allocating those funds.



P. Kane agreed to this concept, which ensures good contingency funds.



C. Chicoine insisted that we should start paying for some services in a
cautious way.



K. Stubbs recalled a simple rule where any activity relies on a certain
budget mechanism . We, therefore, need to ensure people?s commitment and put
in place rather professional way of working ensuring basic working
structure.



Ph. Sheppard agreed and stated that enforcement is being seen on various
sides as necessary and as such is on the agenda of the Budget committee



Th. Swinehart was in favour of taking a cautious approach and supported
suggestions made by C. Chicoine and R. Cochetti.



Ph. Sheppard invited the NC to take a decision on DNSO budget as follows (K
Stubbs second):



<b>Decision D1:</b> The Names Council adopts a Budget Report submitted on
January
24th comprising categories of spending, allocations of dues and the
recommendation that due per Constituency for 2001 will amount to $15,371.

Decision was accepted by 12 votes in favour: P. de Blanc, E. Porteneuve
(hesitated because of the ccTLDs current situation), O. Robles Garay, Ph.
Sheppard, Th. Swinehart (calling for a establishing a management methods),
E. Roberts, K. Stubbs, P. Kane, R Cochetti, C Chicoine, A. Aus des Mühlen
(by proxy to CC), G Carey.

Three abstentions: Y.J Park, D Vandromme (by proxy to YJ Park), and G.
Forsyth. No votes against.





<b>Agenda item 2:</b> Review Process.

o      NC Review Task Force update and timetable

o      Working Group - clarification on deadlines, clarification of terms of
reference)

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



Th. Swinehart recalled current status: the Interim report was posted for
public comment on January 8th (closing date February 11th). All comments
received will be incorporated and a report sent to ICANN Board. Current
wording is a selection of analysis made and comments received. Next step
will comprise a prioritisation process of items to be returned to the NC and
be considered as a part of the DNSO Business Plan. A timetable will be
re-circulated.

The process was that the Board would look at the recommendations,  and
respond to the NC for implementation.

At this point Y.J. Park was invited by the Chair to speak on the WG review
and the way it will most efficiently fit into the whole process.



Y.J. Park said that the WG is constructively organising discussions. Some
input expected by February 11th, but more time is still needed. She asked
the secretariat who is going to deal with the comments received after that
deadline.



E. Porteneuve informed that all comments sent to the list are recorded.



Ph. Sheppard added that all comments received in time would be reviewed.



Y.J. Park asked about the transfer process of the recommendations coming out
of the Review Process into DNSO Business Plan.



Ph. Sheppard clarified: he will be presenting the Business Plan to the NC at
a future meeting. Review implementation is a part of the Business Plan.

Ph. Sheppard reminded the participants that the Review Task Force is
composed of representatives of each Constituency: A. Aus der Muhlen, R
Cochetti, H. Hotta, P. KaneY.J. Park, E. Porteneuve, Th. Swinehart and GA
Chair R. Gaetano.

After some discussion it was agreed that Review implementation would be led
by a new task force with new Terms of Reference.



Ph. Sheppard asked Y.J Park, if she does not see a difficulty in two-stream
process:

- Report send to ICANN by NC,

- Continuing of the WG activities.

As we are in presence of parallel activities addressing the same questions
that could diminish impact of the message we want to pass



Y.J. Park suggested that a convergent process could consist in WG Chair
providing recommendations to the Board at the same time as the Task Force
Chair at the Melbourne meeting.



Th. Swinehart pointed out that there is going to be an overall open ICANN
comment period and she suggested using that channel for further input.



E. Roberts insisted that we have to stick to the process, as defined
otherwise we could cause some confusion.



Ph. Sheppard suggested that all WG comments received after February 11th
deadline, should be a part of the ICANN public comment process.



Y.J. Park said that more chance should be given to come up with more
recommendations and reach a compromise.



E. Roberts thought that more effective for the WG would be to contribute
subsequently and send the input before the Board takes in the comments.



C. Chicoine expressed another concern about the WG mandate, based on
experience of previous WG activity. It should be made clear that this WG
activity is not mandated by the NC and that no frustration should be felt if
the impact of the WG conclusions is not as high as wished by its
participants.



Decision D2 : proposed by Ph. Sheppard, Seconded Th. Swinehart:

It was agreed that Th. Swinehart with Y.J. Park and the NC Chair would draft
a communication to the WG to confirm the present timetable and that WG
Review input NOT received by the DNSO by Feb 11 would form a part of the
ICANN public comment period and that would complete the work of WG Review.





Agenda item 3 : Establishment of an NC task force on WhoIs? Policy issues

P. Kane proposed setting up a task force to consider DNSO policy issues
arising from the forthcoming ICANN WHOis report .



At14h56 R. Cochetti left a call hoping to rejoin a call later. He left a
proxy to Ph. Sheppard and stated that in case of vote he was in favour of
ccTLD constituency remaining a part of the DNSO.



E. Roberts wanted clear Terms of Reference for such a task force.



P. Kane suggested ICANN might be asked to develop a website to publish the
report and to be a focus for comments. He felt that any task force should
comprise at least one representative per constituency.



E. Porteneuve questioned the approach. To have a substantial work done on
WHOis issue, we need a substantial material first such as the ICANN report
and an analysis of the legal issues. She said she did not understand a
procedure in recommending to ICANN to develop a website while WG procedures
we have are quite clear.



P. Kane repeated he was proposing:

-establishing a NC committee on Whois,

- the committee would first establish Terms of Reference for the future work
of an NC task force,

- seek NC validation to those terms .



E. Porteneuve recalled that WG A used a similar approach by having a
preliminary work done by WIPO.



C. Chicoine agreed that a bottom-up approach is needed but she also point
out the necessity of involving experts in areas such as legal issues.

 Ph. Sheppard asked Should members of each constituency belong to a
preliminary team?



P. Kane responded:

this decision should be left to the constituency itself.



15:08 R Cochetti rejoined the meeting.



E. Porteneuve underlined that we are facing an important preliminary work in
setting up the Terms of Reference. As to a data protection issue we should
make all the effort to allow participation from different countries.



Ph. Sheppard proposed P. Kane chair a committee and launches a call for
nominations from the Constituency of its members.



G. Carey insisted we should be integrating more people with expertise.



Ph. Sheppard suggested that the committee comes up with some recommendations
on that subject.



Th. Swinehart proposed to send to P. Kane literature on data protection
issue.



Y.J. Park informed about the interest expressed by a group of people within
Non-Commercial Constituency on December 13th to take part in such a
committee work.



P. Kane stressed that at this preliminary stage only NC will participate and
comments will later be requested from larger circles.



The following motion moved by K. Stubbs (seconded by Th. Swinehart and E.
Porteneuve)

Decision D3: 1. NC requests from ICANN a copy of the report on WHOis issues.
2.  The NC will set up a Whois committee to propose Terms of Reference for a
future Who Is task force.

This decision was unanimously adopted. No abstentions and no votes against.



Agenda item 4: ccTLD relations



o      Is the DNSO channel an adequate place for ccTLD ?

o      Shall ccTLD build up a separate organization within ICANN, such as an
SO?

o      Shall ccTLD build up a separate organization outside of ICANN, such
as an Advisory Group?



P. de Blanc proposed to take an informal straw poll on a few questions, on
ccTLDs, communicated to the NC members shortly before the meeting. A meeting
between ICANN (M. Roberts, L. Touton) and the ccTLDs, recently held in
Hawaii, brought up issues such as: funding, support to ICANN, relationship
ICANN - ccTLDs, participation within ICANN Board (one third of ICANN budget
paid by ccTLDs) a possibility of changing a current structure. It would
therefore, be valuable to have simple opinions of the NC members.



R. Cochetti said that he would be happy to answer those questions, if this
does not imply NC action



C. Chicoine said she was uncomfortable with the procedure itself. She felt
that constituency representatives are not so familiar with budgetary details
and would need to be educated on these matters.



Th. Swinehart agreed that more information is needed on the issue She
suggested a        short summary could be drafted outlining the issues to
enable the NC to make more relevant response.



E. Roberts questioned the use of a straw poll because: opinion is minuted.



K. Stubbs recognised the value in moving the subject from private
discussions to public. An open discussion is needed in this confusing
situation. He recalled that in the past the ccTLDs were not inclined to
discuss those issues, impact of which is significant not only on a budget
but also on relationship with registrars. We have to foster discussion now.



R. Cochetti said that a casual conversation is acceptable and mentioned the
possibility of creating a committee to tackle the issue.



P. Kane felt uncomfortable in answering such questions while DNSO review
process is going on. He therefore, urged the ccTLDs to submit their comments
for inclusion for a review by the Board and enable us to move forward



At 15:32 Th. Swinehart left the call (proxy to Ph Sheppard)



P. de Blanc emphasised the informal aspect of the discussion. ccTLDs will
meet in Geneva on 19th February and in Melbourne, the day before ICANN
meetings in March. There is a willingness to get the issues on the table and
explore alternatives to $1,5 million contribution, a 30% of the $5M ICANN
budget. Different levels of the ccTLDs contributions and the overall ccTLDs
contributions, smaller or bigger, to the ICANN budget should also be
considered..



Y.J. Park pointed out that we have to highlight DNSO / ccTLD relationship,
but need to learn more about the issue. We have to accommodate our agenda to
ccTLDs issue, as this item has not been on the NC agenda before. Not
tackling it might look irresponsible.



K. Stubbs inquired if the Geneva meeting is only for ccTLDs administrators
or also open to observers, as this would help a personal understanding of
the ccTLD process and with discussions within ones own constituency.



P. de Blanc informed that ICANN staff would have to decide on allowing
observers in a meeting or not. The main subjects are presentations, made by
ICANN and ccTLDs, aimed at finding a common ground and favouring
participation of all parties, producing a position paper. Hopefully, we will
have observers at that meeting and he suggested consulting M. Roberts on
that.



Ph. Sheppard summed up by thanking P. de Blanc for raising the issue and
inviting him to send a proposal for a future agenda item to the Intake
Committee. He asked for concise background information in advance of future
discussion.





Agenda item 5: New TLDs

o      Update on negotiations on new TLDs and explanation of means of
charter enforcement



As L.Touton could not attend this call due to his business commitments
(public hearing), this item was deferred to the next meeting





Agenda item 6: Non-commercial constituency - results and implications of the
constituency vote on four resolutions made at the constituency's Marina del
Rey meeting.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00618.html (2-UDRP)

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00619.html (4-new TLDs)

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00620.html (5-sunrise)

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00621.html (7-freedom of
speech)



D. Vandromme could not attend this call and the item was deferred to the
next meeting





Agenda item 7: Request from GA for NC to consider an Individuals
Constituency

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00527.html Ken Stubbs note .



K. Stubbs clarified that the substance of the document referenced above (and
described as a supporting document) was not in ?support? of the request.



Ph. Sheppard recalled that a discussion took place within the Review Task
Force and WG to address this issue.





At 15:45 K Stubbs had to go to another meeting and left a call



Y.J. Park suggested forming a WG on the formation of new constituencies.



E. Roberts expressed concern about the process and suggested the NC consider
first:



- the  need,

- a process to avoid a case-by-case approach,

- the level of support and commitment to pay fees,

- the issue of representation .





C. Chicoine mentioned other concerns about the WG where everybody is making
the best effort, but the problem faced is effectiveness representativeness
ness. Consensus based view is expressed solely by those having time to work.
We need to focus on WGD final report.



Ph. Sheppard stressed a need in defining clear objectives and a process for
achieving them.



P. Kane also objected a multiplying WG process, insisting that people who do
not contribute get no voice in the process. He also proposed to wait until
the review process comes up with some conclusions.



Y.J. Park expressed her understanding of all those concerns, and suggested
to wait for the WGD recommendations.



Ph. Sheppard stressed that broader view is needed (B. Fausett is helping
with this process). He hoped the NC could come up with the decision quickly
.





Agenda item 8: A.O.B.



8.1 On behalf of the NC, Ph Sheppard welcomed Grant Forsyth a new
representative of the Business Constituency, replacing Masanobu Katoh.



8.2 Ph Sheppard forwarded K. Stubbs proposal to organise a NC dinner in
Melbourne



E. Porteneuve informed that three receptions are already kindly organised by
local hosts on 9th, 10th and 11th March.



E. Roberts volunteered to make necessary arrangements for NC dinner to take
place on the eve of the NC meeting and co-ordinate timing and venue with the
relevant reception.



Y.J. Park came back to a WGD issue: a report will go for public comment
before final version is issued. This will cause delays in setting up a new
individuals constituency. She therefore requested putting in place a fast
track procedure.



Ph. Sheppard said he would ensure WG D was on the agenda of the next meeting



P. Kane invited all NC members to forward to the Intake Committee proposals
for agenda items of the next meeting as soon as possible.



Ph Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked the NC members for their
participation.





Next NC teleconference will be held on 26 February 2001 at 22:00 (CET)





  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Information from:İ DNSO Names Council





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