<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] NCtelecon 16 August 2001, minutes
[ To council@dnso.org ]
[ To: ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org ]
[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010816.NCtelecon-minutes.html ]
ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 16 August 2001 - minutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scribe version amended v.2 (27th August 2001)
Proposed agenda and related documents:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010816.NCtelecon-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD
Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD (left at 16:17, proxy to E. Porteneuve then P. de Blanc)
Philip Sheppard Business
Marilyn Cade Business
Grant Forsyth Business
Greg Ruth ISPCP
Antonio Harris ISPCP
Tony Holmes ISPCP (absent apologies, proxy to T. Harris)
Erica Roberts Registrars
Ken Stubbs Registrars
Paul Kane Registrars
Roger Cochetti gTLD
Richard Tindal gTLD
Cary Karp gTLD
Caroline Chicoine IP
Axel Aus der Muhlen IP
Guillermo Carey IP (absent, apologies, proxy to C. Chicoine)
Milton Mueller NCDNH (left the meeting and returned at 15:42)
Youn Jung Park NCDNH (joined the meeting later)
Vany Martinez NCDNH
Louis Touton ICANN staff
Maca Jamin Scribe
Quorum present at 15:05 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +2:00
during the Summer in the Northern hemisphere)
Agenda item 0: NC Chair position
P. Kane took over chairmanship for this item.
Ph. Sheppard's first term as the NC Chair was from February to July 2001 and
NC had to consider this position again according to:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00664.html
P. Kane moved the following motion, seconded by E. Porteneuve to re-elect
Ph. Sheppard:
Decision D1: "The NC resolves to re-elect Philip Sheppard as Chairman
for a further term of six months starting from this meeting."
This motion was unanimously passed.
Ph. Sheppard chaired the rest of the teleconference.
Agenda item 1: Approval of the Agenda
Ph. Sheppard suggested adding the following items under AOB
* ICANN Group on Evaluation Process of new TLDs
* Recompense for B. Fausset's recording services
Including these changes the agenda was unanimously approved.
Agenda item 2: Approval of summary of 29 June 2001 meeting
* http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010629.NCtelecon-minutes.html
P. Kane moved a motion to approve the summary of 29th June, seconded by K
Stubbs:
Decision D2: The Minutes of June 29th 2001 were approved by 20 votes in
favour, no votes against and one abstention (A. Aus der Muhlen)
Agenda item 3: DNSO Election Timetable
Ph Sheppard opened a discussion by summarising different stages of this
election process:
* there are five candidates currently running for the ICANN Board
election. Four of them have got the necessary ten endorsements,
* endorsement period will end August 28th 2001,
* remaining question is deciding on a date of the election, taking into
account two important aspects:
o according to the Bylaws ICANN has to be notified of the result on
September 16th 2001
o the NC is having its next physical meeting in Montevideo in early
September
Ph. Sheppard proposed holding this election between August 29th and
September 1st.
E. Porteneuve stated the ccTLD constituency's willingness to take the
opportunity at the Montevideo meeting to meet with the candidates and
therefore expressed her opposition to hold election before Montevideo.
P de Blanc was supportive of E. Porteneuve's suggestion and added that
candidate running for such a position should be able to make this effort and
attend the Montevideo meeting.
M. Mueller left the meeting and gave his proxy to Ph. Sheppard stating that
in case of a vote he was in favour of holding the election before the
Montevideo meeting
M. Cade pointed out several aspects of the problem:
* Due to the robust schedule in Montevideo and important discussion
topics on the agenda, it is important each NC representative had enough
time to participate actively;
* All representatives would like to consult with their constituency
between the rounds, a rather time consuming task easier to perform from
the office,
* The election should be fair. Enabling candidates to express their views
through electronic means of communication gives them all equal chance
to talk to all parties, participate in teleconferences. Not all of them
will be able to make the Montevideo meeting,
* Having had the election before Montevideo would give an opportunity to
the elected candidate to participate actively in issues with the DNSO
at Montevideo.
* E. Roberts stressed the practical difficulties related to travel
arrangements. She opposed the idea of having the election in
Montevideo.
* K. Stubbs also expressed his concern about the timeline and insisted
that this situation could have been avoided, if we had made a more
careful planning beforehand.
Ph. Sheppard put forward the motion, seconded by E. Roberts
Decision D3: The NC will hold election of the ICANN Board director
prior to the Montevideo meeting between 28th August and September 1st
2001.
First round of vote gave the following results:
Ten votes in favour (M. Cade, G. Forsyth, K Stubbs, M. Mueller, E.
Roberts, T. Harris, T. Holmes by proxy to T Harris, G. Ruth, V.
Martinez, Ph. Sheppard) ;
Nine votes against (C. Chicoine, A. aus der Muhlen, G. Carey, by proxy
to C. Chicoine, Y.J. Park, P. de Blanc, E. Porteneuve, R. Cochetti, R.
Tindall, C. Karp)
One abstention (O. Robles).
The vote failed.
At 15:48 Y.J. Park had joined the meeting, (she had been untill then a
listen only participant) and took part in the vote.
Due to the closeness of the result P. de Blanc requested to call the
question and take a motion again.
Ph. Sheppard asked that two opinions be expressed : one in favour and one
against.
P. de Blanc and M. Cade re-iterated their statements.
Second round result
Ph. Sheppard proceeded to the second round of the vote on the motion.
Decision D4: The NC will hold election of the ICANN Board director
prior to the Montevideo meeting between 28th August and September 1st
2001
and the following result was obtained:
Nine votes in favour (M. Cade, G. Forsyth, K Stubbs, E. Roberts, T.
Harris, T. Holmes by proxy to T Harris, G. Ruth, C. Chicoine, Ph.
Sheppard)
Eight votes against (Y.J Park, V. Martinez, P. de Blanc, E. Porteneuve,
O. Robles , R. Cochetti, R. Tindall, C. Karp)
Three abstentions (A. aus der Muhlen, G.Carey, by proxy to C Chicoine,
M. Mueller)
This motion failed.
L. Touton confirmed the imperative of providing final results to ICANN not
later than September 16th 2001, as requested by the Bylaws:
Section 9. SELECTION AND TERM
(b) Prior to October 1 of each year beginning in the year 2000, each
Supporting Organization entitled to select a Director (other than an
Original Director selected by the Supporting Organization under Section
2 of this Article) shall (i) make its selection according to the
procedures specified by Article VI (including Articles VI-A, VI-B, and
VI-C), and (ii) give the Board and the Secretary of the Corporation at
least fifteen days written notice of that selection. The term of such a
Director shall commence on the October 1 after the Secretary's receipt
of such written notice.
Any infringement to this would imply changes of the Bylaws and so
substantial delay.
The NC further discussed various possibilities and dates and it was commonly
agreed to take the opportunity of most NC members being in Montevideo and
start the election there.
P. de Blanc moved the motion
Decision D5: the Names Council will hold election of ICANN Board
Director according to the following calendar:
September 8th first round
September 10th second round
September 13th third round
September 14th fourth round, if necessary
September 15th NC teleconference will be organised to affirm the
result to be communicated to ICANN by September 16th midnight Los
Angeles time.
This motion was passed with 19 votes in favour, no votes against and
one abstention (M. Mueller)
Agenda item 4: Report from Budget/Search committees on secretariat services
provision
4.1 Search Committee report
E. Roberts summarised the Search Committee report (annex 1) and the process
of selecting candidates (eight proposals were received) for provision of
secretariat services to DNSO according to transparent evaluation criteria.
On its meeting on August 2nd Search committee:
* Noted the report of the Interview Panel that:
o All three short listed applicants could be expected to do a good
job;
o Lodger Inc is recommended for appointment subject to their
agreement to contract terms.
* Noted that the Lodger Inc proposal involved the provision of Part A and
B services. Part A (Information and Technical Services Manager)to be
provided by Ms Glen Van Oudenhove de Saint Géry and Part B (ISP/web
hosting, etc) to be provided by AFNIC
* Noted that after the closure of the RFP four expressions of interest
had been received from members of the registrars constituency to
provide Part B services (ISP/hosting services) on a sponsorship basis
(at a potential saving to the DNSO of $20-30,000 pa);
* Agreed that expressions of interest for the supply of ISP/Hosting
services on a sponsored basis should be followed up and that, if
appropriate, the ISP/hosting services should be transitioned to a new
supplier at the conclusion of the proposed 12 month contract with
Lodger Inc.
* Endorsed the recommendation of the Interview Committee that Lodger Inc
be appointed to provide Part A and Part B services subject to their
agreement to contract terms;
* Agreed: that Chuck will prepare initial draft of key terms to be
incorporated into proposed contract by ICANN.
Y.J Park asked about the possibility of communicating the evaluation table.
E. Roberts restated that the whole evaluation process was led according to
widely distributed evaluation criteria.
As far as the contract is concerned, detail is yet to be determined . M.
Cade clarified that this contract will bring the usual guarantees on quality
of services, business performance and means for appeal if not provided.
Ph. Sheppard proposed to vote on the following motion moved by P. de Blanc
and seconded by K . Stubbs
Decision D6: Accept recommendations stated in a Search Committee report
as to the recommended service suppliers and proceed with further work
to prepare a contract with the chosen candidate. (The NC will approve
the terms of the contract subsequently).
This motion passed with 19 votes in favour, one vote against (V.
Martinez against the recommendations) and one abstention (E.
Porteneuve).
Ph. Sheppard thanked E. Roberts for a valuable work she has done.
4.2 Budget Committee Report
R. Cochetti reminded that the full report was sent to the members of the NC
prior to this meeting (see annex 2 ) and drew attention to the need for
approval of changes in cost lines within the DNSO Budget.
The original 2001 DNSO Budget is
Administrative $12,000
Telecommunications $18,100
Travel $25,500
Web/Listserv Maintenance $30,000
Language Translations $10,000
Professional Services $12,000
Contingency $35,000
The proposed DNSO 2001 Budget is:
Administrative $12,000
Telecommunications $18,100
Travel $10,000
Information Management & Technical Services $70,000
Language Translations $5,000
Professional Services $5,000
Contingency $22,500
There was no further request for funds required. In addition to date $8,000
had been raised by the fund-rising process, which will be matched, by
another $8,000 by VeriSign.
P. de Blanc moved the following motion seconded by K. Stubbs:
Decision D7: The NC adopts the Budget Committee Report and proposes
revision of the spending allocation accordingly to the Committee's
recommendations.
This Motion passed with 19 votes in favour, no votes against and two
abstentions (M. Mueller, Y.J Park).
Agenda item 6 & 7 : Reported problems in TLD transfers & Reported problems
in lapsed TLDs renewals
Ph. Sheppard invited K. Stubbs to inform the Council on the subject and
actions required.
K. Stubbs mentioned a letter sent by Registrar Constituency to Stuart Lynn
(see annex 3) on existing transfer policy and the restrictions that appear
in these areas causing confusion and registrant's dissatisfaction.
G. Forsyth asked about the contractual aspects of the issue (see the BC
contribution sent by e-mail to the Names Council)
C. Chicoine pointed out that ICANN 's second advisory stated: ICANN's Domain
Name Supporting organization has already been advised of the situation and
has begun to discuss possible measures for handling expiring names and
queried L.Touton since she unaware of any such formal measures.
L. Touton stressed that this reflects typically a bottom-up approach:
subject launched by the constituency and spreading for larger input.
Ph. Sheppard suggested the registry-registrar dialogue be carried on and
brought up in Montevideo.
K. Stubbs informed that the Registrar Constituency will review a document
and does welcome input from other parties and promised on C. Chicoine's
request, to provide URL containing all useful information.
R. Tindall informed that Registry Constituency has a task force on a
subject.
The NC agreed to seek further briefing by Constituencies and further
discussion in Montevideo.
Agenda item 8: Montevideo agenda
Ph. Sheppard asked the Council to provide ideas to be put forward to the
Intake Committee for finalising the Montevideo Agenda. The topics should
enable putting forward DNSO views during the ICANN Public Forum Session and
enable plans for the future action.
M. Cade proposed discussion on the At-Large Study report.
M. Mueller suggested discussing ccSO. C. Chicoine thought the subject needed
to be dealt with separately.
Ph. Sheppard inquired about the ccTLD invitation to the NC to attend their
meeting in Montevideo and the conflicting time with other Constituencies'
meetings. To remedy this situation P. de Blanc invited the Council members
to mail him their time availability and he will try to make necessary
arrangements as ccTLDs are holding two-days meeting and would like to have
other constituencies position on the future of the ccs.
M. Cade suggested to group several topics under common topic on
re-structuring and reviewing process such as:
* At Large report
* Individuals Constituency
* cc SO
The Intake Committee will note the above suggestions.
Agenda item 9: Updates on business plan task forces
* UDRP TF formation update
C. Chicoine, informed that they have received nominees for all
categories and once she receives all bios, M. Mueller and her will
review and make final selections, hopefully early next week. M. Mueller
informed that they are running two weeks behind schedule.
* IDN TF formation update
Y.J. Park informed the Council that she has stepped down as a Chair of
this TF and that there is currently no activity due to a lack of
leadership. Ph. Sheppard proposed to contact by e-mail all TF members
inviting them to elect the Chair and proceed with their work
* Dot org TF formation update
M. Mueller informed that the group is still in its initial stage and
still missing some members He had a chance to have some face-to face
meetings with the BC and IPC. There is some disagreement on a draft and
the whole process may take longer than planned and the report will most
probably not be ready for the Montevideo meeting but for November
Annual Meeting. Ph. Sheppard invited him to report at Montevideo on the
areas of agreement.
* WHO Is survey update
P. Kane informed that 2,800 responses to the WHOIs survey in different
languages had been received. Committee will meet in Montevideo to
propose a process to analyse results.
* Review TF update
Ph. Sheppard informed that the TF would shortly be circulating a set of
guidelines for DNSO working groups, that the TF was evaluating use of
web-based for a by using one for the work of the TF. Work had started
on defining guidelines for new constituencies, evaluating
auto-translations and seeking a practical definition of consensus.
Agenda item 10: A.O.B.
10.1 ICANN TLD Evaluation Group
L. Touton informed the Council that this group comprises nine members: six
representatives coming from the DNSO, together with IETF, GAC and PSO
representatives. S. Lynn, ICANN CEO is chairman. Initial report is expected
for the Montevideo meeting. The purpose of this group is to design a process
for evaluating the new TLDs.
10.2 Recompense for B. Fausset's recording services.
K. Stubbs recalled that B. Fausset is now providing MPEG recordings of NC
teleconferences. He proposed that all costs incurred by this activity be
reimbursed to B. Fausset. Ph. Sheppard said that his understanding was that
the issue of voluntary services and recompense had already been referred to
the Budget Committee.
C. Chicoine raised the question on 'conflict of interests' and the NC role
concerning this. Ph. Sheppard said that disclosure was the key.
M. Cade agreed adding that the nature of ICANN is that people participating
are those with vested interests.
K. Stubbs inquired why there is no representative from the Registrar
Constituency on the ICANN new TLD Evaluation Group. Ph. Sheppard responded
that he has received no response from the Registrars Constituency even
though at least three requests had been sent.
Close
Ph. Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked R. Tindall and NeuStar for
sponsoring the call.
17:15 end of call.
Next NC meeting will be held on 8 September 2001, in Montevideo, Uruguay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annex 1
16 August 2001, Search Sub-Committee report by Erica Roberts
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010816.Search-RFP-DNSO-report.html
SEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
1. Search Committee Task:
o To undertake an objective selection process for an entity or
entities to provide DNSO Secretariat information and technical
services on a contractual basis. (Similar such services are
currently being provided by Elisabeth Porteneuve and AFNIC under
legacy arrangements).
2. Search Committee Membership:
o A sub-committee of the NC Budget Committee;
o Members: Erica Roberts (Chair), Chuck Gomes, Vany Martinez,
Elisabeth Porteneuve. Phillip Shepard joined the committee at the
beginning of the evaluation process.
3. Consultant
The Domain Name Supporting Organisation of ICANN Search Committee
engaged Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd on 24 May 2001 to manage a
Request for Proposal process to engage a Information and Technical
Services Manager and optionally Internet Services Provision.
The task, as outlined in the agreement was to manage a request for
proposal process (RFP) for DNSO, including
o Activation of the bid process
o Preparation of documents
o Preparation of evaluation criteria
o Handling of information requests
o Evaluation of submitted documents
o Preparation of a short list
o Final report to DNSO NC
o Any recommendations for contractual conditions, further actions,
etc arising from the process.
o A consultant (Ian Peter and Associates) was identified and
appointed in late May to manage the RFP selection and evaluation
process.
4. Processes
The requirements of DNSO were primarily determined by the Search
Committee before the Consultant was engaged, as were the Selection
Criteria for successful applicants. These were refined and clarified by
the Search Committee with the Consultant, and a document outlining the
RFP requirements was posted on the DNSO web site on 5 June 2001. At the
same time Chairs of all DNSO constituencies were requested to inform
their members and other interested parties that the process was
underway. It was also announced at the Stockholm meeting of DNSO NC
(June 3).
It was agreed before the process began that it was mandatory for
respondents to offer Section A, and that Section B was an option at
this stage which DNSO NC may or may not pursue.
At the close of the evaluation period (extended to 23 June 2001) eight
complete responses had been received.
Five of the eight respondents (Z,Y,W, V, and T) responded to Part A
only. Three respondents (S, R, and Q) responded to both sections.
5. Evaluation
First Round Evaluation: was conducted by the consultant and resulted in
an initial shortlist of five applicants..
Second Round Evaluation:
o Conducted during a teleconference including the consultant and the
Search Committee
o A shortlist of three applicants was agreed. :
o Of the three applicants short listed, one offered Part A services,
the other two offered both Part A and Part B services.
o The fees charged by all three were comparable for the services
offered.
(Apology received from Vany providing late advice she was unable to
attend teleconf))
Third Round Evaluation:
o Conducted by Interview Committee comprising Philip Shepard and
Chuck Gomes. (Elisabeth and Erica withdrew from the evaluation
process on the ground of potential conflict of interests.)
o Proposals from shortlisted applicant were forwarded to the
Interview Committee.
o Interview Committee reported that:
+ All three shortlisted applicants could be expected to do a
good job;
+ Lodger Inc recommended for appointment subject to their
agreement to contract terms.
6. Search Committee Meeting 2 Aug 2001.
Apology received from Vany providing late advice she was unable to
attend teleconf. Committee members present:
o Noted the report of the Interview Panel that:
+ All three shortlisted applicants could be expected to do a
good job;
+ Lodger Inc is recommended for appointment subject to their
agreement to contract terms.
o Noted that the Lodger Inc proposal involved the provision of Part
A and B services and that these cannot be separated. Part A
(Information and Technical Services Manager)to be provided by Ms
Glen Van Oudenhove de Saint Géry and Part B (ISP/web hosting, etc)
to be provided by AFNIC
o Noted that four expressions of interest had been received from
members of the registrars constituency to provide Part B services
(ISP/hosting services) on a sponsorship basis (at a potential
saving to the DNSO of $20-30,000 pa) after the closure of the RFP;
o Agreed that expressions of interest for the supply of ISP/Hosting
services on a sponsored basis should be followed up and that, if
appropriate, the ISP/hosting services should be transitioned to a
new supplier at the conclusion of the proposed 12 month contract
with Lodger Inc.
o Endorsed the recommendation of the Interview Committee that Lodger
Inc be appointed to provide Part A and Part B services subject to
their agreement to contract terms;
o Agreed: that Chuck will prepare initial draft of key terms to be
incorporated into proposed contract.
In discussion following the last meeting of the Search Committee, Vany
has requested that it be noted that she does not support the
recommendation of the Interview Committee to appoint Loder Inc.
Erica Roberts
Chair, Search Committee
16 August 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annex 2
8 August 2001, Budget Committee report by Roger Cochetti
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010808.NCbudget-report.html
REPORT OF THE NAMES COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE
8 August 2001
The Names Council Budget Committee met twice since that last Council meeting
and addressed three important topics:
1) The status of dues payments by Constituencies pursuant to the new
procedures adopted by the Council for failures to pay; and
2) The status and outlook of the campaign to generate voluntary
donations to the DNSO; and
3) Revisions to the spending allocations under the DNSO's 2001 budget.
A brief report on each follows.
1. STATUS OF DUES PAYMENTS BY DNSO CONSTITUENCIES
In an effort to improve the payment of DNSO mandatory dues by
Constituencies, on the Committee's recommendation, the Council adopted the
following procedures earlier this year:
NC PROCEDURES FOR CONSTITUENCIES PAYMENT OF DUES
(Published at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010409.NCbudget-report.html)
Regarding the procedures of the Budget Committee, the Committee decided
that its meetings should not be routinely open, but rather should be
open to members of the Committee and any member of the Names Council
who would like to observe. The Committee reached this conclusion
because:
(1) it often discusses financially sensitive information; (2) members
felt that the work of the Committee would benefit greatly by an
atmosphere in which innovative ideas could be floated; and most
importantly, (3) all of the Committee's reports to the Council and
actions by the Council are publicly accessible.
Regarding procedures to address the failure of DNSO Constituencies to
pay their assessed dues, the Committee discussed this matter during
three different meetings and in its January meeting agreed to propose
to the Council the following procedures:
From the date that invoices are mailed/e-mailed to representatives of
Constituencies, if payment is not received by the DNSO or its agent by:
** 30 days, the Constituency is sent a reminder letter and another
invoice
** 60 days, the Constituency is sent a delinquency notice and the
delinquency notice is posted on the DNSO Website
** 90 days, the Constituency is sent a "show cause notice" (in
which they are asked to show cause as to why their voting rights
in the Names Council should not be suspended) and they are charged
a 5% late payment fee to cover the cost to the DNSO of the cost of
money. The 5% penalty is added to that Constituency's dues for the
next (not the current) DNSO budget year.
** 120 days, the Constituency is sent a "final notice to pay" and
charged an additional 5% late payment fee, which is also due as a
added payment for their next year's DNSO dues
** 180 days, the voting rights, but not the right to participate,
of that Constituency's representatives to the Names Council are
suspended until such time as the DNSO or its agent receives all
past due amounts including the varies late payment fees.
On July 11th, ICANN management reported the following status of dues
payments by DNSO Constituencies for 2000 and 2001 (The DNSO operates on a
January-to-January, calendar year. So, 1st Call refers to 1999, 2nd Call to
2000, and 3rd Call to 2001):
(Published at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010711.ICANN-DNSO-budget.html)
Amounts in US$.
Receipts:
1st Call 2nd Call 3d Call Total Recd
Business Constitutency $5,000.00 $13,642.86 $0.00 $18,642.86
ccTLD Constituency $5,000.00 $1,292.59 $0.00 $6,292.59
gTLD Constituency $5,000.00 $13,642.86 $15,371.00 $34,013.86
IP Constituency $5,000.00 $13,642.86 $15,371.00 $34,013.86
ISP Constituency $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00
NCDNHC $5,000.00 $0.00 $50.00 $5,050.00
Registrars Constituency $5,000.00 $13,642.86 $16,857.14 $35,500.00
Total Paid $35,000.00 $55,864.03 $47,649.14 $138,513.17
Total Called For $35,000.00 $95,500.00 $107,597.00
Other Donations $9,050.00
Constituency Donations $138,513.17
Total Donations $147,563.17
Earned Interest &
(Bank Charges) $1,487.46
Disbursements $(14,008.16)
Total Funds on Hand $135,042.47
In addition, ICANN management reported that invoices for all DNSO
Constituencies, except the Non-Commercial Constituency, had been sent out on
April 18, 2001. (The NCDNHC invoices is being sent out by ICANN management
this week.) According to this report, three Constituencies ( ccTLDs, ISPs,
and NC) have failed to pays their dues from 2001 and the same three
Constituencies, along with one more (Business Constituency) have failed to
pay their deus for 2001.
Importantly, the Committee took note of the fact that since the 2001
invoices were sent out on April 18th, the DNSO had failed to send out to
Constituencies 30, 60, or 90 day notices as provided in the procedures
(There was some confusion with ICANN management on this matter, which
resulted in the failure by the DNSO to act.)
Under these circumstances the Committee addressed two questions: (1) Did the
Council intend that arrearages resulting from Constituencies failure to pay
dues that were invoiced during 2000 would trigger the new procedures (or do
the new procedures only apply to dues invoiced in 2001 and later/). On this
question, the Committee concluded that the new procedures do not apply to
invoices prior to 2001; and (2) Does the failure by four Constituencies to
pay their 2001 dues trigger any of the actions envision in the new plan
notwithstanding that the DNSO failed to provide the follow-up notices that
were contemplated under the plan. On this question, the Committee concluded
that since the DNSO had failed to provide 30, 60, and 90 day notices as
contemplated under the plan, then Constituencies that were invoiced on April
18, 2001 should not be held liable under the terms of plan. Accordingly, the
Committee decided to have the 30 day notices sent out as soon as possible by
ICANN management and recognized that the 60, 90, 120, and 180 day penalties
would kick in over 30 day increments after the 30 day notices were actually
sent.
2. STATUS AND OUTLOOK OF THE CAMPAIGN TO GENERATE VOLUNTARY DONATIONS TO THE
DNSO
The Committee discussed the state of the current campaign to generate
voluntary donations to the DNSO. (These will be used by the DNSO to cover
the costs of providing professional support for the DNSO and such donations
will be matched by the VeriSign Registry on a dollar-for-dollar basis up to
$100K.) Unfortunately, no donations had been recorded as of July. The
Committee again encourages each Constituency to request that its members
donate funds to the DNSO to permit it to operate more professionally and
competently. (If each member organization of each Constituency would donate
to the DNSO one tenth of the amount of money that they spend on
travel/entertainment for ICANN meetings, then the Budget Committee's goal of
raising $60,000 --or $120,000 after the VeriSign Registry match-would easily
be met!!)
The Committee gratefully accepted four volunteers who stepped forward and
agreed to serve as DNSO fundraising chairs: One will focus on donations from
outside of the DNSO and three will focus on donations from members of the
Constituencies. Together, they make up a new fund-raising work group of the
Budget Committee.
3. REVISIONS TO THE SPENDING ALLOCATIONS UNDER THE DNSO'S 2001 BUDGET
The Committee re-examined the spending categories and allocations that were
approved by the Council for the DNSO's 2001 Expense Budget and recommends
several changes to the Council in light of changed circumstances. (Thus far
this year, the DNSO has spent around $37,000, mostly in charges from AFNIC
for the provision of technical management services) These proposed changes
DO NOT CHANGE THE TOTAL DNSO SPENDING and THEY DO NOT CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF
DUES. The proposed changes re-name of category and re-allocate spending
among the several categories.
The original 2001 DNSO Budget is
Administrative $12,000
Telecommunications $18,100
Travel $25,500
Web/Listserv Maintenance $30,000
Language Translations $10,000
Professional Services $12,000
Contingency $35,000
The proposed DNSO 2001 Budget is:
Administrative $12,000
Telecommunications $18,100
Travel $10,000
Information Management & Technical Services $70,000
Language Translations $5,000
Professional Services $5,000
Contingency $22,500
Essentially, these changes re-label the category "Web/Listserv Maintenance"
to Information Management & Technical Services and re-allocate an additional
$40,000 to that category, with the reductions coming from Contingency,
Travel, and Language Translations. The under-spending in these categories
mainly reflects the fact that the increase in professional support that was
envisioned for the DNSO has not occurred by mid-year.
Roger Cochetti, Chair
Names Council Budget Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annex 3
16 August 2001, Registrar Statement on Transfer Problems,
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010816.RegistrarsStatement-xfer.html
Registrar Constituency Statement on Transfers
From: "Michael D. Palage"
To: "Ken Stubbs" ; "M. STUART LYNN" ;
"Louis Touton" ; "Roger J. Cochetti"
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:18 AM
Subject: Registrar Constituency Statement on Transfers
Dear Ken:
Attached please find the Registrar Constituency Statement regarding domain
name transfers. I have been advised that the DNSO Names Counsil has set
aside some time in its agenda for this topic. At this time the Registrar
Constituency would just like to submit this letter which it believes more
accurately addresses the issue from the viewpoint of the Registrar
Constituency. The Registrar Constituency is actively engaged in resolving
this issue internally. However, if it cannot be resolve in the next couple
of weeks, the Registrar Constituency will be submitting proposed solutions
to the Names Counsil in Montevideo.
Please note that Register.com, NSI Registrar and NameSecure expressed stated
their non-support of this letter.
Best regards,
Michael D. Palage
Registrar Constituency Chairperson
16 August 2001, Registrar Letter to Stuart Lynn,
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010816.RegistrarsLetter-xfer-2.7.html
Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart Lynn
August 16, 2001
Mr. Stuart Lynn
President and Chief Executive Officer
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA
Dear Stuart;
The Registrar Constituency respectfully submits this letter to express its
concerns regarding recent correspondence that Mr. Roger Cochetti, Senior
Vice President of Policy at VeriSign, submitted to you. The Registrar
Constituency (Constituency) believes that these letters do not accurately
convey the underlying issues facing the constituency involving transfers.
Additionally, the approach that VeriSign is implementing attempts to
circumvent the bottom-up effort to develop consensus solutions to these
problems that the Constituency has been engaged in to date.
Existing Transfer Policy
The existing transfer process is documented in Exhibit B (Policy on Transfer
of Sponsorship of Registrations Between Registrars) of the ICANN
Registry/Registrar License and Agreement.
The key elements of this process are as follows:
For each instance where a domain name holder wants to change its Registrar
for an existing domain name (i.e., a domain name that appears in a
particular top-level domain zone file), the gaining Registrar shall:
Obtain express authorization from an individual who has the apparent
authority to legally bind the SLD holder (as reflected in the database of
the losing Registrar).
a) The form of the authorization is at the discretion of each gaining
Registrar.
b) The gaining Registrar shall retain a record of reliable evidence of the
authorization.
Request, by the transmission of a "transfer" command as specified in the
Registry Registrar Protocol, that the Registry database be changed to
reflect the new Registrar.
a) Transmission of a "transfer" command constitutes a representation on the
part of the gaining Registrar that:
(1) the requisite authorization has been obtained from the domain name
holder listed in the database of the losing Registrar, and
(2) the losing Registrar will be provided with a copy of the authorization
if and when requested.
In those instances when the Registrar of record denies the requested change
of Registrar, the Registrar of record shall notify the prospective gaining
Registrar that the request was denied and the reason for the denial.
Instances when the requested change of sponsoring Registrar may be denied
include, but are not limited to:
1) Situations described in the Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
2) A pending bankruptcy of the domain name Holder
3) Dispute over the identity of the domain name Holder
4) Request to transfer sponsorship occurs within the first 60 days after the
initial registration with the Registrar
In all cases, the losing Registrar shall respond to the e-mail notice
regarding the "transfer" request within five (5) days. Failure to respond
will result in a default "approval" of the "transfer."
Upon receipt of the "transfer" command from the gaining Registrar, the
Registry will transmit an e-mail notification to both Registrars.
The Registry shall complete the "transfer" if either:
1) the losing Registrar expressly "approves" the request, or
2) the Registry does not receive a response from the losing
Registrar within five (5) days.
When the Registry's database has been updated to reflect the change to the
gaining Registrar, the Registry will transmit an email notification to both
Registrars.
Problem
A small number of registrars, representing a very large portion of the total
market, have recently adopted procedures to require domain name registrants
to explicitly acknowledge to the losing registrar that the registrant has
authorized a transfer request. These changes are restricting the ability of
a gaining registrar to transfer the domain at the request of the registrant.
More specifically, the procedures employed by the small number of registrars
in question are as follows:
Following the email from the registry to a losing registrar seeking
confirmation of a domain name transfer initiated by the gaining registrar,
the losing registrars are contacting the domain name holder directly to seek
confirmation within the 5 day window set by the registry. If the domain name
holder DOES NOT RESPOND, the losing registrar is denying the transfer on the
grounds that there is a dispute over the identity of the domain name holder.
This is a deviation from the spirit of the existing policy (note the
registry assumes approval if the losing registrar does not respond within 5
days, and so it would be reasonable if the losing registrar assumed approval
if the domain name holder does not respond within 5 days).
The emails sent by the registrars who are changing the procedures, are
generally confusing to the domain name holder (and in some cases in the
wrong language), and it is typical for the domain name holder not to
respond. The domain name holders assume that the transfer will go ahead as
they have explicitly approved that action to the gaining registrar, or the
domain name holder has simply not had time to read and respond to the email.
Registrar's Efforts to Date
This transfer issue first emerged on the Registrar Constituency's agenda at
the Stockholm meeting in June. Because of the significant impact that this
issue was having on most operational registrars, an emergency meeting was
called on Sunday to further discuss the issue.
During this meeting by a vote of 23 to 2, the registrars in attendance
expressed their strong desire to adopt a procedure that would automatically
acknowledge a transfer when a registrant failed to respond to a losing
registrars inquiry (autoACK). Although most registrars acknowledged an
ambiguity in the current language, it was believed that relying on the
status quo was the most prudent course of action until a more thorough
analysis of the problem could be undertaken. The registrars agreed to work
on solutions as a follow up to Stockholm.
Following the Stockholm meeting, there was a follow-up teleconference for
the benefit of those registrars that were unable to attend the Stockholm
meeting. This meeting further reinforced the consensus that had been forged
in Stockholm. In an attempt to resolve this matter internally, those
registrars advocating an autoNACK policy engaged in consultations among
themselves and with other registrars in an attempt to seek a compromise
position.
During these negotiations a straw poll was conducted among the Constituency
to further define the issues. This vote reaffirmed for the third time the
strong support within the Constituency for an autoACK policy. Although the
straw poll supported moving this issue forward to the Names Council for
discussion and suggested resolution, it was decided that those registrars
supporting the autoNACK policy would be given additional time to resolve
this matter
On June 29th, one of the registrars that had been advocating an autoNACK
policy, submitted to the Registrar list a proposed compromise. Although
there was some concern regarding the potential implementation of this
solution voiced by certain registrars, the attempt to proactively engage in
dialog with the Constituency was true to the ICANN bottom-up consensus
building effort.
On July 13th, Paul Kane, a Registrar Constituency Names Council
representative posted an email to the Constituency list inquiring about
VeriSign's much anticipated document so that the Constituency could engage
in further consensus building efforts. Regrettably, rather than responding
to this request from the Registrars, on July 16th, VeriSign instead
submitted its first letter directly to ICANN. Only after public inquiries to
the Constituency list did a VeriSign representative provide any further
explanation to the Registrars.
A Registrar meeting was held on July 23, 2001 to discuss the options.
The Constituency is concerned that VeriSign sought to go directly to ICANN
on this issue, ignoring the bottom-up consensus building efforts that had
been engaged in for several weeks. Moreover, there is an important issue
that Mr. Cochetti did not make clear in his July 16th letter, that is
significant.
During both Constituency meetings in Stockholm, Dan Halloran, ICANN
Registrar Liaison, stated that he was not aware of any complaints that ICANN
had received about domain name slamming. Mr. Halloran latter qualified this
statement in an email to the Registrar Constituency stating, that ICANN has
received reports of unauthorized transfers but that they were usually
associated with domain name "hijacking" (an issue that the Registrar
Constituency takes seriously and has addressed in the past). Additionally,
Mr. Halloran also indicated that he had been informed of one other registrar
that had raised concerns about transfers deceptively initiated by resellers
or registrars without the registrant's informed consent. The Registrar
Constituency has requested that ICANN provide the constituency with any and
all information they have on this subject, and looks forward to working with
ICANN staff in resolving this matter.
The Registrar Constituency would like to thank VeriSign for making public
its previously private survey on July 26th.
Clarification From ICANN
The Constituency universally agrees that protecting a registrant's'
interests is paramount; unfortunately there is a disagreement on how to best
achieve this end result. We are seeking clarification from ICANN: what are
our options in addressing this situation. If ICANN deems this to be a policy
change, we assume that it would require DNSO approval and that we should
bring it before the DNSO. If ICANN believes this to be a procedural
interpretation of existing ICANN Policy, we assume that the Constituency can
implement their preferred solution, without full DNSO review. In any case,
the Registrar Constituency would look to ICANN staff for support in
enforcement of any solution arrived at by the parties.
As time is of the essence, the Registrar Constituency would like to move
forward down one of the above two paths within the next couple of weeks. If
the Constituency does not receive guidance from ICANN on this issue during
this time, the Constituency will advise its Names Council representatives to
bring proposed solutions to this issue before the full Names Council for
consideration and action in Montevideo.
Conclusion
The Constituency is clearly concerned that certain registrars are employing
new and onerous transfer policies that create confusion and registrant
burdens and dissatisfaction. Further frustrating to the Constituency is that
this argument ignores the very fact that this radical departure from adopted
policy and procedure has created the very consumer confusion that they claim
to be protecting against. The Constituency eagerly awaits guidance from
ICANN on how to proceed in implementing its consensus-based solution, and,
if necessary, stands willing to participate with the other DNSO
constituencies in resolving this problem.
Best regards,
Michael Palage,
Registrar Constituency Chairperson
Cc: Louis Touton
ICANN DNSO Names Council
Rodger Cochetti
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information from: © DNSO Names Council
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|