<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] DRAFT minutes, NCtelecon 26 Feb, for validation
Hello, All.
Maca: You need to make some minor corrections in statements attributed to me.
ORIGINAL:
M. Mueller asked about the rotation process of the NC chair position.
CORRECTION:
M. Mueller asked whether the group has considered rotating the NC Chair position among constituencies.
ORIGINAL:
M. Mueller informed that there had been questions raised about the legitimacy of the process for these decisions and that he believed the purpose of the agenda item was to state to the NC that the process had indeed been legitimate.
CORRECTED:
M. Mueller noted that there had been questions raised about the legitimacy of the process for these decisions. M. Mueller pointed out that the resolutions had been posted online 5 weeks prior to the Marina del Rey meeting, discussed online, discussed at the constituency meeting, and passed by majority vote at the meeting and later ratified by a full vote of the membership online.
ORIGINAL:
M .Mueller left the meeting at 22:35
CORRECTED:
M. Mueller left the meeting at 22:55.
FROM the MINUTES:
Ph. Sheppard asked participants to avoid putting on the NC agenda internal constituency issues.
RESPONSE:
I understand Philip's concern here, but unfortuantely the whole incident was NOT an "internal" issue. Internally, we passed the resolutions overwhelmingly and peacefully. The attempt to de-legitimate our resolutions involved letters sent to the entire Names Council and ICANN Board. A member of the Names Council not from the Non-commercial constituency participated in this process. That is why Dany felt it necessary to put it on your agenda.
I'm sure no one on the Council would be so unfair as to suggest that it is OK for NC members and others to question the legitimacy of our decisions before the NC but refuse to permit constituency representatives to respond to such questions.
--Milton
Agenda item 4: Melbourne Meeting Agenda
Ph. Sheppard recalled that the Melbourne meeting is a public meeting.
He proposed that the main item on the agenda would be the DNSO Business
Plan and presentations will be made on its components. The Business
Plan objectives had been posted to constituencies and a good feedback
received. A new draft incorporating this feedback and adding strategies
will be circulated in a few days to the NC.
C. Chicoine informed the Committee, as she is not going to attend
Melbourne meeting, that she will be posting her comments prior to the meeting.
Y.J. Park inquired on the members of the Task force.
Ph. Sheppard replied: G. Carey, E. Roberts, P. de Blanc, H. Hotta,
R. Cochetti, D. Vandromme and Ph. Sheppard.
Y.J. Park said that due to the D. Vandromme?s leaving the NC she would
like to replace him as a member of the Business Plan Task Force.
Ph. Sheppard asked her to consult with her the constituency reps and
inform the NC of the replacement for D. Vandromme.
E. Roberts underlined that the discussion on budget should be
discussed in Melbourne as well. R. Cochetti informed that a progress
report on fund raising, on professional support and enforcement
of constituency dues, would be provided in Melbourne.
P. Kane asked the NC members to submit as soon as possible any other
issue they would like to see on the agenda of the Melbourne meeting
C. Chicoine inquired on further developments of WHOIS report.
P. Kane informed that we are awaiting ICANN report. As to the NC task
force to be formed, the ISP Constituency and Registrars have not
designated their representative yet and are kindly asked to do so.
Agenda item 5: DECISION of NC to invite the GA to manage an election
process to select a nominee for appointment by the NC to the position
of Chair of the GA
E. Porteneuve described the previous process and confirmed that the
practice of the NC, in order to comply with the by-laws, was to
ask the GA to propose nominations to the NC for approval.
E. Roberts expressed her concern, as to a general view expressed
at the last GA meeting, to invite GA to nominate the GA Chair by
election leaving to the NC to appoint a chosen person only.
She also stressed that according to the ongoing discussion on the
GA list serve, Roberto Gaetano has resigned which implies the
GA will not have a chairperson for the upcoming meeting in Melbourne.
E. Porteneuve reassured the participants that R. Gaetano would remain
as chair until after the Melbourne meeting.
E. Roberts suggested to invite GA to nominate a person and that a
clear description of a process in place be communicated.
E. Porteneuve informed that the DNSO Secretariat initiated the
process in the past and she proposed to manage it again this time.
L. Touton recalled that there was a procedure in place used for the
last election: nomination of a candidate by GA, endorsement by
10 members required, 2 candidates presented to the NC for election.
E. Porteneuve inquired if the previous procedures should be followed:
- Call for nominations
- Call for endorsements
- Election by the NC
Decision D5: Ph. Sheppard proposed to proceed as
last year, without changing the Bylaws: E. Porteneuve
will send an e-mail to GA mailing list and move the
process forward.
This was unanimously approved with no votes against and no abstentions
Agenda item 6: New TLDs
o Update on negotiations on new TLDs and explanation
of means of charter enforcement
L. Touton recalled the ICANN Board decision allowing General
Counsellor and ICANN CEO to carry on further negotiations with the
applicants chosen at November meeting in LA. Due to the limited ICANN
resources and a time consuming process, the current negotiations
focused on four applicants for non-sponsored TLDs Negotiations
will be completed in 24 hours and achieved agreements posted.
There is a uniform agreement, restrictions being specified in
appendices. Most of the appendices will also be posted before the
Melbourne meeting.
Discussions on sponsored/chartered TLDs are still in a preliminary
phase. Agreement structure is different and it is not certain that
they will be posted before Melbourne.
Ph. Sheppard questioned about the earliest and the latest possible
launching dates
L.Touton admitted that it is difficult to give a satisfactory answer,
as all four non -sponsored will proceed by several stages:
- Public announcement, expected as early as May time frame,
- Setting up a registry service, at the latest in summer.
C. Chicoine inquired if the purpose of publishing of reports is
only for information or is it also intended for public comment process.
L.Touton responded that public discussions would be possible during
public forum meeting in Melbourne and on-line of course.
E. Roberts inquired on reporting process on a proof of concept.
L. Touton reminded that a reporting on a proof of concept was
included in each proposal right from the beginning. In order to take
into account relevant elements of each concept, most of the reports
will be made available, except for some strictly competitive
information that will be kept confidential. Reports will not be
available during the first four months.
Ph. Sheppard questioned on differences from UDRP needed for
different TLDs, eg dotBIZ .
L.Touton agreed that some enforcement mechanism is included in
initial proposals.
C. Chicoine asked if the enforcement mechanism means a revision
of the UDRP and would there be a uniform process applied to
chartered TLDs as well?
L.Touton underlined diversity as one of the goals. He said that
his understanding is that restrictive enforcement mechanism will be
handled according to what is proposed. DNSO will be given
particular responsibilities in this area.
E. Roberts asked for more information as to the NC role in the process.
L.Touton explained that the NC could set up a group to examine
proof-of-concept, thus providing additional instructions for
further evaluations.
Ph. Sheppard recalled that the Business Plan incorporates evaluation
of new TLDs and additional candidates, and is going to be discussed
in Melbourne
Agenda item 8: ccTLDs - report on issues arising from the 2001
Hawaii and Geneva meetings
E. Porteneuve reported on recent ccTLDs meetings held in Hawaii and Geneva.
244 ccTLDs operate worldwide (set-up according to the ISO 31-11 codes)
while 98 (40%) contribute to the ICANN process. In voting procedures for NC,
95 ccTLDs took part, representing approximately the same percentage.
Last meeting in Geneva was very well attended, 70 ccTLDs were represented
The topics discussed concerned
- Discussions with ICANN,
- Agreement with ICANN + GAC,
- Financial contribution to ICANN (ccTLDs contribute 30% of overall ICANN budget).
It was strongly felt that the ccTLDs have little chance to have a
representative elected to the ICANN Board and are therefore, seeking
new ways to get Board representation. This does not preclude their
participation within DNSO. The same topics will be discussed in
Melbourne to fulfil ccTLDs goal to outreach to a largest possible
number of ccTLDs in different regions of the world.
P. de Blanc added that the Geneva meeting was a significant success
and attracted ccTLDs from African countries, which was rather positive.
The ccTLDs want to support ICANN process and are very much interested
in NSI contract and discussions on gTLDs. But they would like ICANN
to move away from US centric and gTLD issues and have more resources
dedicated to ccTLDs matters.
Th. Swinehart asked about those ccTLDs who market themselves
non-geographically and those who do not, and how this difference is
being handled.
P.de Blanc assured that the percentage of commercial ccTLDs is
insignificant. Some are operating as gTLDs and are not subject to the UDRP.
O. Garay said that the current situation is caused by a lack of formal
agreement with ICANN. This should be achieved.
Y.J. Park asked what is the status now with the 244 ccTLDs.
P. de Blanc responded that the status quo would remain. Priorities
will come up for economic reasons: smaller ccTLDs will have to do
some outreach.
Y.J Park said that many of them do not know what is in the ICANN contract.
P.de Blanc informed that 20 or 30 contracts would be in hand by the
time the contract with US government will be extended. ccTLDs
recommended to ICANN to start with draft contracts instead of
coming with a new contract as most ccTLDs would certainly agree to sign.
Agenda item 9: Streamlining - DECISION on closure of working groups
that have completed their task (A, B, C) and use of their e-mail lists
Ph. Sheppard proposed that in preparation of a new Business Plan and
of setting up of a new Secretariat, the NC take a decision to
formally close WG A, B &C. One question arising is therefore use of
the subscribers? list database. He therefore proposed to close
WG A, B & C, transfer the e-mail addresses to the GA announce
list in order to maintain optimal outreach.
P.de Blanc agreed adding opt out instructions should be provided and
a thank you for contributions.
Th. Swinehart suggested also providing a link to the DNSO site,
which will be the easiest source of information for participation
in future, DNSO groups.
The following motion was moved by Ph. Sheppard (seconded by P. de Blanc):
Decision D6: The NC closes WG A, B &C, moves all subscribers
to the GA announce, and will inform the groups where to find
information for future participation. This motion was unanimously
passed with no votes against and no abstentions.
Agenda item 10: WG D - final report, use for Review process and next
steps and agenda item 11: WG E - next steps with final report were
differed to the Melbourne meeting, where they will be included
within the Business Plan discussions.
Agenda item 12: Budget Committee update
In absence of R. Cochetti, E. Roberts, a member of the Budget
Committee, informed that current discussions are about a suitable
process to recover constituencies? dues and put in place penalties
for those who do not pay. A several stage process is envisaged such
as loss of voting rights, but nothing definite has been decided yet.
A more detailed report will be provided in Melbourne.
Agenda item 13: A.O.B.
13.1 NC dinner in Melbourne
E. Roberts informed the Council on dinner arrangements made for
the evening of 10th March 2000. Following a timing conflict the
time was changed to 8:30 p.m. instead of 7:30 originally planned.
To enable her to choose appropriate venue, she urged the NC
members to confirm their participation (accompanying persons are welcome),
NC members will make transportation arrangements individually.
Ph. Sheppard thanked Erica for kindly taking care of the NC dinner arrangements.
13.2 Multilingual domain issue
Y.J. Park asked L. Touton if ICANN is planning a session on
multilingual domain issue, as M. Katoh made believe at the recent
meeting in Kuala Lumpur
L. Touton said that subject is not currently scheduled and mentioned
listed topics scheduled for public forum:
- New gTLDs
- ccTLDs
- DNSO review
-At Large Study Committee Report
Subsequently to the meeting L.Touton informed the Council
? Following up on Y.J. Park's question, the topic of
internationalized domain names has been added to the
agenda of the Public Forum to be held 12 March 2001 in
Melbourne. A topic paper consisting of a series of
questions designed to prompt public comment has been posted
at http://www.icann.org/melbourne/idn-topic.htm>
and an associated web-based public comment forum has been
established.?
Ph. Sheppard mentioned that multilingual domain names will be a
part of the NC discussions in Melbourne.
Close
Ph. Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked all participants for
their participation
24:15 end of call
Next public NC meeting will be held on 11 March 2001, in Melbourne
______________________________________________________________
Annex 1
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR WORKING GROUP REVIEW
Future timetable for the groups input
Status
1. The DNSO comment period on the draft DNSO Review Report v. 2.0a
ended Februaryary 11th.
Next steps
2. Comments submitted from WG Review and others have been
incorporated asappropriate by the chair of the Names Council Review
Task Force (NCRTF) into a draft version 3. NCRTF comprises one
representative from each of the seven NC constituencies.
Version 3 has been validated by remaining members of the NCRTF
3. DNSO Review Report version 3 was received 18 February by the
ICANN Board. This is in preparation for the Board's meeting in March
in Melbourne and to allow full time for an ICANN public comment period.
4. As was mandated, the task of the Names Council Review Task Force,
including a DNSO public comment period, is now complete.
5. In order to ensure coherent input to the ICANN Board, all
further comments from WG Review should be directed to the ICANN
public comment website, when the ICANN public comment period begins.
6. At the closure of the ICANN public comment period the task of
WG Review will be complete.
Implementation
7. The Names Council will be reviewing both the input from the
final WG D report and from the Review process to develop a new
process to implement the recommendations of the Review process.
Full participation in this implementation phase is envisaged.
It is understood that the structure of participation will be
an improvement on the present structure of DNSO working groups!
Kind regards,
Theresa Swinehart, Chair, DNSO Review Task Force
Philip Sheppard, NC Chair
Information from:* DNSO Names Council
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|