Re: [council] Draft minutes from the NC telecon held on 29 June 2001

[Vany Martinez <vany_martinez@yahoo.com>]

Hi to all:

Only for clarification about my participation in the
Search Committee, I am not agree with such a report
made since Search Committee had alternative e-mails to
contact me ( ceo@vany.org ), and no one of them made
an effort to contact me by such a way.   In fact, I
must say that when Roger Cochetti (Budget Commitee)
needed my vote he contacted me through such e-mail.  
Then why others didn't make the same? How easy is to
say that I was inaccesible, but who made the report
doesn't says that in the past all of them used my
alternate e-mail address to contact me.

Anyway, I am here, and willing to continue
participating in the Search Commitee iniciative as I
always actively did.

Best Regards
Vany
 
> Agenda item 11: Call for Secretariat feedback
> 
> E. Roberts informed the NC that a composition of the
> Search Committee was
> modified as follows:
> 
> - E. Porteneuve stepped down during the evaluation
> phase,
> 
> - V. Martinez was inaccessible and therefore could
> not participate,
> 
> - Ph Sheppard joined to replace members unable to
> participate.
> 
> She outlined main parts of the report (see annex 4):
> progress, selection and
> evaluation methodology and establishment of a
> contract.
> 
> A Consultant, Ian Peter, is managing this process.
> Eight responses to the
> DNSO RFP were received. A Search Committee will meet
> on 5th July with the
> consultant to consider candidates. It will send
> recommendations, together
> with a documentation of submitted proposals, to the
> Budget Committee. The
> Budget Committee will then forward a recommendation
> to the NC who may make
> the appointment and authorise ICANN to proceed to
> contract. L. Touton was
> asked to forward to the Search Committee a template
> for the contract.
> 
> Agenda item 12: Status WHOIS Survey
> 
> P. Kane read the following resolution:
> 
>      The Whois Committee of the ICANN Names Council
> is coordinating a
>      consultation process concerning Whois services
> presently provided in
>      connection with the domain-name registration
> system. The current
>      consultation process is due to conclude on the
> 31st July 2001 and more
>      information may be found at
>     
>
http://www.icann.org/dnso/whois-survey-en-10jun01.htm
> 
>      Resolution:
> 
>      The Names Council notes that its consultation
> process raises issues
>      that may be relevant to the policy areas
> concerning which the Address
>      and Protocol Supporting Organizations are
> primarily responsible and
>      that coordination among the supporting
> organizations may be beneficial.
>      The Names Council would welcome collaboration
> with the Address and
>      Protocol Supporting Organizations and invites
> the Address Council and
>      the Protocol Council to contribute to the
> assessment of the Whois
>      system and the development of policy
> recommendations in such a manner
>      as they deem appropriate.
> 
> He stated that he would like to have the NC approval
> to set up collaboration
> with other SOs in order to complete this process. A
> survey questionnaire is
> already available in English, French and German.
> Spanish, Japanese and
> Russian versions will be posted soon.
> 
> M. Mueller had no objection to that as long as this
> collaboration does not
> concern policy issues.
> 
> E. Porteneuve found it extremely appropriate to
> establish links with other
> SOs on this particularly important subject.
> 
> Ph. Sheppard moved the motion, seconded by E.
> Porteneuve :
> 
>      Decision D3: The following resolution was
> unanimously passed with no
>      votes against and no abstentions:
> 
>      'The Names Council notes that its consultation
> process raises issues
>      that may be relevant to the policy areas
> concerning which the Address
>      and Protocol Supporting Organizations are
> primarily responsible and
>      that coordination among the supporting
> organizations may be beneficial.
>      The Names Council would welcome collaboration
> with the Address and
>      Protocol Supporting Organizations and invites
> the Address Council and
>      the Protocol Council to contribute to the
> assessment of the Whois
>      system and the development of policy
> recommendations in such a manner
>      as they deem '.
> 
> Agenda item 13: AOB
> 
> 13.1 Next NC teleconference
> 
> Ph. Sheppard recalled that the next meeting is
> scheduled for August 16th and
> asked if, due to a holiday period, the Council
> members will still be able to
> attend. T. Holmes informed that he would not be
> available.
> 
> E. Roberts reminded that it would be most
> appropriate to have this meeting
> in order to discuss appointment of the DNSO
> secretariat before the
> Montevideo meeting, to take place on September 8th
> 2001.
> 
>      Decision D4: The Council decided to hold its
> next meeting on August
>      16th.
> 
> 13.2 gTLDs representative on NC
> 
> R. Delgado informed the Council that this was her
> last meeting and that from
> 1st July 2001, Cary Karp was designated to represent
> sponsored gTLDs on the
> NC for a two-year term.
> 
> Ph. Sheppard thanked Rosa for her constructive and
> efficient contribution to
> the NC work.
> 
> 13.3 Update on new gTLD contracts
> 
> Asked by P. Kane on a status of gTLDs contracts, L.
> Touton informed the
> Council that there was no news yet.
> 
> 13.4 Posting of meeting documents
> 
> E. Porteneuve reminded the NC members of the seven
> day deadline for posting
> documents prior to a meeting. She invited Council to
> respect this.
> 
> Close
> 
> Ph. Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked R.
> Cochetti and VeriSign for
> sponsoring the call.
> 
> 17:05 end of call
> 
> Next NC teleconference will take place on 16th
> August 2001 at 15:00 CET.
> 
>
______________________________________________________________
> 
> Annex 1
> 
> NCDNH thoughts on dotORG
> 
> 1. The Noncommercial Domain Name Holders
> Constituency has a greater stake in
> the future of ORG than any other DNSO constituency.
> 
> 2. <under discussion>
> 
> 3. We oppose any evictions or refusals to renew
> names currently registered
> in ORG.
> 
> 4. "While we urge that ".org" remain an unrestricted
> TLD, we do favor
> identifying other ways to maintain the
> non-commercial identity of ORG. These
> may include policies related to marketing and
> promotion strategies targeting
> non-commercial users, and may include a
> recommendation that ICANN select (in
> consultation with the NCDNHC) a broad-based
> non-commercial "partnership
> entity" to act in a sponsoring or advisory capacity.
> 
> 5. While the .ORG must, of course, remain a TLD for
> traditional
> non-commercial organizations and non-profits, it
> must also be seen as a TLD
> to support individuals, households, and
> unincorporated
> 
> organizations.
> 
> 6. <under discussion>
> 
> 7. The entity chosen by ICANN as the registry must
> show its commitment to a
> high quality of service for non-commercial
> organizations, individuals, and
> all .ORG users worldwide, including a commitment to
> making registration,
> assistance and others services available in
> different time zones and
> different languages.
> 
> 8. While "restricted" TLDs may play a role in the
> future development of the
> TLD space, we believe that .org's history of
> accessibility and openness,
> combined with the difficulties of establishing a
> globally acceptable
> definition of "non commercial", makes restrictions
> on registration a poor
> fit for .org in the future. We urge that .org
> continue its status as an
> unrestricted TLD.
> 
> 9. The NCC urges ICANN to create additional TLDs
> devoted to civil liberties,
> NGOs, and cultural entities, among others, as soon
> as possible, and to
> ensure that the re-delegation of .org does not
> 
> distract from this process.
> 
> ________________________________________
> 
> Annex 2
> 
> UDRP Review and Evaluation
> 
> Terms of Reference
> 
> The ICANN Board resolved at its October 24, 1999
> special meeting to proceed
> with the implementation of a uniform dispute
> resolution policy (UDRP) set
> forth in its Resolution 99.81 using the
> implementation documents approved in
> its Resolution 99.112 (see
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/
> minutes-24oct99.htm).
> 
> The ICANN Board further resolved that the President
> and General Counsel of
> ICANN monitor the ongoing operation of the
> administrative dispute-resolution
> mechanism described in Paragraph 4 of the UDRP and
> to make such adjustments
> to the UDRP's implementation from time to time as
> they determine
> appropriate, including adjustments to the terms and
> extent of provisional
> approval of dispute-resolution service providers.
> 
> The DNSO Names Council has since adopted in its
> 2001-2002 business plan a
> review and evaluation of the Uniform Dispute
> Resolution Policy, and the
> establishment of an Interim Committee to propose
> terms of reference for an
> NC task force or other group to conduct such review
> and evaluation (see
>
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001-02.NCbusinessplan.html).
> The interim
> committee consists of the following Names Council
> members: Caroline Chicoine
> (IP), Milton Mueller (NCDNH), Oscar Alejandro Robles
> Garay (CCTLD), Miriam
> Sapiro (gTLD) and Ken Stubbs (Registrar). The
> interim committee has met via
> e-mail and their discussions are archived at
>
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/tor-udrp/Arc00/maillist.html.
> Based on these
> discussions, the Interim Committee proposes the
> following UDRP review and
> evaluation schedule:
> 
> June 29 - August 14
> 
> The interim committee shall constitute a Task Force
> to create a
> questionnaire to solicit public comment through a
> bottom up,
> consensus-building DNSO process regarding various
> aspects of the existing
> UDRP. The Task Force shall work on the basis of
> consensus and not majority
> vote. However, to the extent no consensus can be
> reasonably reached on an
> item, majority vote shall rule with all dissenting
> views being made of
> record.
> 
> The interim committee shall solicit one individual
> from each of the
> following interest groups to be a part of this Task
> Force:
> 
> Business Constituency
> 
> ccTLD Constituency
> 
> gTLD Constituency
> 
> IP Constituency
> 
> ISP Constituency
> 
> NCDNH Constituency
> 
> Registrar Constituency
> 
> Complainant (or representative)
> 
> CPR Panelist
> 
> CPR Provider
> 
> eResolution Panelist
> 
> eResolution Provider
> 
> NAF Panelist
> 
> NAF Provider
> 
> Respondent (or representative)
> 
> WIPO Panelist
> 
> WIPO Provider
> 
> GA Member not already included in any of the above
> groups
> 
> Independent ADR expert
> 
> Independent academic expert
> 
> The Task Force shall exclude any participant of the
> drafting committee
> constituted by ICANN to draft the UDRP . Once
> constituted, the Task Force
> shall seek a volunteer to Chair the Task Force. If
> only one individual
> volunteers, he or she will be deemed the Chair. If
> more than each member of
> the Task Force shall cast one vote for one of the
> volunteers with the person
> receiving the most votes being deemed the Chair.
> 
> The questionnaire shall be created with an eye
> toward identifying potential
> areas for reform, including without limitation:
> 
> á forum shopping
> 
> á publication of complaints and answers
> 
> á appeals
> 
> á reverse domain name hijacking
> 
> á quality of decisions
> 
> á speed of decisions
> 
> á precedential affect of decisions within and
> outside of UDRP
> 
> á costs
> 
> á continuity of decisions among and within panels
> 
> á res judicata effect of decisions within and
> outside the UDRP
> 
> á requirements for bad faith (i.e., domain name
> registration and/or use)
> 
> á fairness of Provider's supplemental rules
> 
> á ability to amend complaint
> 
> While the questionnaire will be in English, to the
> extent feasible, the Task
> Force will attempt to have it translated in other
> languages.
> 
> August 15 - September 15
> 
> Questionnaire submitted to public for response at
> least via ICANN's website,
> and via each UDRP provider's website where
> permitted.
> 
> August 15 - October 31
> 
> Task Force reviews results of questionnaire, as well
> as any third party
> studies directed to the UDRP including without
> limitation the Syracuse
> University study, the Max Plank Institute study and
> the Rose Communication
> study. Based on the results of the questionnaire and
> those studies, the Task
> Force shall prepare a Report summarizing the areas
> identified as needing
> reform and the recommendations to implement such
> reform. Again, the Task
> Force will attempt to translate this Report from
> English into as many other
> languages as possible.
> 
> November 1- November 11
> 
> The Task Force's Report forwarded to Names Council
> for review.
> 
> November 12
> 
> Names Council votes on Report at ICANN's annual
> meeting in Los Angeles.
> 
> November 13 - December 13
> 
> Task Force creates implementation schedule.
> 
> Annex 3
> 
> DNSO FUND-RAISING EFFORTS
> 
> As you know, after quite a few months of
> preparation, we are now about to
> launch the fund-raising efforts for voluntary
> donations to the DNSO. These
> funds, which will be matched by donations from
> VeriSign Global Registry
> Services for up to $100,000, are primarily designed
> to cover the costs of
> providing professional support to the Names Council.
> Without them, baring
> any other changes, we will continue to operate on a
> primarily volunteer
> basis.
> 
> The purpose of this note is to alert you to the fact
> that the fund-raising
> effort will now begin and ask that you raise this
> with all of the members of
> your Constituency. A fund-raising document is
> attached. Contributions, which
> are tax deductible in the United States, should be
> made payable to "ICANN
> DNSO ACCOUNT" and mailed to ICANN. Alternatively,
> donors may wire transfer
> their donations as follows:
> 
> Information for wire transfer to ICANN account:
> 
> Account number 09146-11724
> 
> Routing indicator 121000358
> 
> Bank of America Branch 0914
> 
> 4754 Admiralty Way
> 
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA
> 
> Telephone +1/310/247-2080
> 
> When making wire transfers, please send tracking
> information to
> 
> <accounting@icann.org>.
> 
> Raising money for the operation of the DNSO and the
> Names Council is
> important. I think that we all agree that our
> ability to operate
> successfully is hindered by our all-volunteer
> support and that increased
> professional support is necessary to our success.
> While I know that many
> businesses and organizations -including many large
> businesses who benefit
> greatly form the successful operation of the domain
> names system- will claim
> that they have no funds available for such
> donations, if each
> organization/person who attends Names Council
> meetings would only donate one
> fifth of the amount of money that they spend on
> travel and entertainment for
> ICANN meetings to this effort, we will be amply
> funded.
> 
> Please ask each of your members to make a
> contribution and help us push them
> a little on this.
> 
> Roger Cochetti
> 
> Chair
> 
> Budget Committee
> 
>
__________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Annex 4
> 
> DNSO SEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
> 
> MEMBER PARTICIPATION
> 
> Erica Roberts - Chair
> 
> Chuck Gomes
> 
> Vany Martinez
> 
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> 
> Phillip Shepard
> 
> Elisabeth has indicated that she in involved in a
> response to the RFP and
> has withdrawn from the evaluation process.
> 
> Vany has been out of contact and her emails are
> bouncing.
> 
> Phillip recently joined the Committee following a
> request from the Chair for
> a replacement for members unable to participate in
> the evaluation and
> selection process.
> 
> CONSULTANT
> 
> Ian Peter and Associates are managing the selection
> process and will report
> to the Search Committee on their evaluation of
> applicants. Ian will also be
> available to respond to any queries and provide
> guidance required by
> committee members.
> 
> PROGRESS:
> 
> 1. The RFP for providers of DNSO Secretariat
> services (currently provided by
> Elisabeth/AFNIC) has now closed.
> 
> 2. Eight responses have been received and are
> currently being evaluated by
> Ian Peter and Associates.
> 
> 3. The evaluation and recommendations of Ian Peter
> and Associates will be
> forwarded to members of the Search Committee early
> next week (no later than
> Tue, 2 Jul).
> 
> 4. The Search Committee is scheduled to meet on Thu
> next week (5 Jul) to
> consider the report of Ian Peter and Associates and
> determine its
> recommendation(s) for appointment.
> 
> 5. The recommendation of the Search Committee will
> be submitted to the NC
> Budget Committee, which, in its turn, will submit a
> recommendation for
> appointment to the NC.
> 
> 6. The appointee will be offered a consultancy
> contract and it is expected
> that a standard form contract will be used (with
> deliverables included in
> the contract schedule). ICANN, acting on behalf of
> the NC, will be the
> contract signatory.
> 
> EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
> 
> 1. The RFP was divided into two Sections. The first
> Section relates to the
> role of the person or persons undertaking the tasks
> of the Manager, DNSO
> Information and Technical Services. The second
> Section relates to the ISP
> services required to support our information and
> technical requirements
> (e.g. Web hosting, list servers, email, etc).
> 
> 2. The role of Manager is considered as critical
> and, for this reason,
> completion of Section 1 of the RFP was mandatory.
> Applicants were also
> invited to bid for the supply of ISP services but,
> because these services
> are readily available on standard commercial terms,
> completion of this
> Section was optional. The NC reserved the right not
> to appoint any supplier
> of ISP services through this process.
> 
> 3. Selection of Information Manager:
> 
> a. All selection criteria are considered mandatory
> and providers who fail to
> satisfy any of the criteria will be rejected as
> unsuitable.
> 
> b. Where fees are in excess of $7,000 pm applicants
> will be rejected as
> unsuitable;
> 
> c. Evaluation is made against objective selection
> criteria.
> 
> d. The person considered the best candidate for this
> position will be
> recommended for appointment.
> 
> 4. Selection of Internet Services Provider: The
> selection process will
> follow the same principles as above. However, it is
> open to the Search
> Committee not to accept any applicants but to
> appoint a commercial ISP if
> this is deemed a more appropriate and cost effective
> approach. Ian Peter and
> Associates will indicate key options and issues for
> consideration by the
> Search Committee including sponsorship issues.
> 
> 5. Ian Peter is available to attend the meetings of
> the Search Committee and
> respond to any queries from Committee members.
> 
> CONTRACT
> 
> The Search Committee has sought ICANN guidance and
> assistance on the most
> appropriate contractual arrangements and a copy of
> the standards consultancy
> contract used by ICANN. However, no response from
> ICANN has so far been
> received and follow up on this issue is required.
> 
>  
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                  Information from:  © DNSO Names
> Council
> 


=====
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
http://www.sdnp.org.pa e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa

Go to http://www.getpaid4.com/cgi-bin/emailpanel.cgi?userid=659401 to receive FREE newsletters via email!
Go to http://www.getpaid4.com?sheharhore to make $$$ using YOUR OWN computer and sigining subscribers in YOUR OWN emails!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/