DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[council] NC teleconf minutes April 24,2002

[ To: council@dnso.org ]
[ To: announce@dnso.org, ga@dnso.org ]
[ To: liaison7c@dnso.org ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.NCteleconf-minutes.html ]


  DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 24 April 2002 - minutes
24 April 2002.

Proposed agenda and related documents

List of attendees:

Peter de Blanc         ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles/
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD

Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business
Greg Ruth              ISPCP
Antonio Harris         ISPCP
Tony Holmes            ISPCP
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars  absent, apologies
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
Richard Tindal         gTLD  absent, apologies, proxy to Roger Cochetti
Cary Karp              gTLD  absent, apologies, proxy to Richard Tindal,
Roger Cochetti
Ellen Shankman         IP
Laurence Djolakian     IP
J. Scott Evans         IP
Harold Feld            NCDNH
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH
Erick Iriate           NCDNH

17 Names Council Members

Thomas Roessler        invited as GA Chair
Alexander Svensson     invited as GA Alternate Chair

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Alix Guillard       MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat

Invited ICANN staff and Board member

Alejandro Pisanty      Vice Chairman ICANN Board
Lynn Stuart            ICANN CEO
Louis Touton           ICANN senior Counsel
Joe Sims               ICANN senior Counsel

Due to a technical failure there was no MP3 recording.

Quorum present at 14:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summer time in the northern hemisphere).

Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.

Approval of the Agenda

The Chair added two items:

     1. Waiting List Service issue referred by the Board to the Names
     2. Request to the Names Council to comment on Request for Proposal
     (RFP) materials for Dot ORG.

The agenda was approved.

Agenda item 1: Discussion points on v6 conclusions

Ph. Sheppard proposed adoption of the clarifications made in v6 and started
discussion on the e-mail input from the constituencies.

   * Recommendation 1 - Mission.
     "users of the global internet"

     The gTLD Registry constituency has not come back to Council with new
     wording so it was decided to accept the wording as it stands and note
     the gTLD Registry constituency derogation. The gTLD Registry
     constituency felt that it should not reflect the content of public
     comment in the ICANN mission but that the more complex structure of
     Registry, Registrar Registrant relationship should be captured.

   * Recommendation 9 - Policy making.
     "all stakeholders"

     The Business Constituency supported the proposed wording believing the
     term stakeholders was clear and in itself limiting.

     The gTLD Registry constituency proposed: "led by those most affected by
     the consensus".

     Discussion followed centering around the meaning of "led" but this
     change was not supported. Agreed to adopt the phrase:
     ICANN policy advisory bodies should formulate policy recommendations
     based on a bottom-up, consensus process of all stakeholders.

     The gTLD Registry constituency's derogation is noted.

     Bruce Tonkin said that it was important the process was clear and J.
     Scott Evans said that It is important for the Board to be active in the
     consensus process. A new sentence was adopted:
     There must be a clear process and that process should be managed by the
     ICANN Board.

     It was agreed that the process of policy making needed further
     discussion and that there should be a future work session on this.

   * Recommendation 12 - ccTLDs.

     Received broad support from the Business and Registry and Non
     Commercial with the latter adding, provided there is a discussion on
     how policy is formulated.

   * Recommendation 13 - gTLDs.

     The gTLD Registry constituency felt that recommendations 12 and 13
     should be linked, adding:
     "which would be comparable to the body envisaged above"

     Elisabeth Porteneuve disagreed saying that there was no symmetry
     between ccTLDs and gTLDs in that gTLDs have mechanisms to make policy
     such as ICANN and the DNSO while the ccTLDs only operate in their
     national community.

     It was agreed to adopt 12 and 13 as re-drafted:

   * Recommendation 12 - ccTLDs.

     Create a new advisory body for the ccTLDs. This would need means of
     collaborative decision making with the gTLD advisory body on relevant
     areas of policy.

   * Recommendation 13 - gTLDs.

     Create a new advisory body for gTLDs. This would need means of
     collaborative decision making with the ccTLD advisory body on relevant
     areas of policy.

     The Non Commercial Constituency wanted it noted that it does not
     support 13 without added detail on user representation.

     Time limits did not allow for discussion of new items.

Agenda item 4: Discussion with Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty, Joe Sims

Philip Sheppard formally welcomed Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty and Joe
Sims on the call, and asked Stuart what he hoped the dialogue would produce.

Stuart Lynn said that he appreciated the time spent, and careful discussion
of the Names Council towards the future decision making process. The purpose
of the reform document was to stimulate community discussion and move
forward rapidly to debate. If there is criticism it is aimed at the process
and not the participants. Divisions in the ICANN community are recognised.
The concern with regard to the Names Council is that it brings together
different kinds of constituencies greatly varied within which makes the task
difficult. It is difficult for an organisation to change itself, and it is
important to find out how a clearer view and a coming through process can be
achieved to bring about change.

Alejandro Pisanty said that it was important to find out key expectations,
to hear from Names Council members, read constituency positions and drafts
and find out where there is agreement and disagreement.

Joe Sims said he was there to listen.

Questions from Names Council members:

     Marilyn Cade: Could you share with us feedback on areas of support and
     no support?
     Stuart answered that the diversity of private and public opinions made
     it difficult to answer. Most criticism and misunderstanding was about
     government representation, nominations, public interest representation
     and government funding.

     Harold Feld: The Non Commercial constituency is thinking along two
     separate lines:
     a. delineate what lies outside the scope of ICANN
     b. consider options such as the International Telecommunication Union

     Tony Holmes commented that his experience in working with the ITU did
     not encourage him at all to recommend this approach. Philip Sheppard
     commented that his experience in general with inter-governmental
     organisations was that they were universally slower and less efficient
     than even the present ICANN structure. There was no support from other
     constituencies for the ITU proposal.

     Stuart Lynn said that it is important to arrive at a documented process
     that works. Functions that lie outside of ICANN can be considered if
     assurance is given that a changing internet can be anticipated. The
     concept of a thin ICANN concentrates on issues different groups care
     about. There is a need therefore to define realistically and flexibly
     what should be inside ICANN.

     Government Advisory Committee (GAC) involvement was discussed and
     Stuart Lynn hoped that there would be specific suggestions for
     strengthening the interaction with the GAC. Tony Harris said that not
     all governments by a long way represent public interests. Stuart Lynn
     commented that individuals talk on their own behalf to get things done
     and are not representative of the wider group. For example, it is odd
     that universities are hardly involved in the NCDNHC and a distinction
     should be made between representativeness and representative models.
     Stuart favoured a multiplicity of entities to represent users.

     Tony Holmes enquired about the April 29 deadline and the envisaged
     planning thereafter.

     Stuart Lynn and Alejandro Pisanty stated that an extensive and concrete
     proposal for Bucharest was intended.

     Ellen Shankman asked about the role of the nominating committee and who
     would sit on the Board?

     Stuart Lynn replied that the nominating committee was intended to focus
     on making ICANN an overall effective credible organisation that can
     move fast.

     Tony Harris asked about funding saying that he saw good support for a
     model using a small proportion of registrant fees to fund ICANN. The BC
     had proposed this at Accra.

     Philip Sheppard reminded the call of the NC recommendation that core
     ICANN funds should indeed come from the revenues of Registrants as they
     do today - all that is in question is the transmission mechanism and
     related contractual arrangements.

     Alejandro Pisanty said there needs to be a clear model, how it should
     be implemented and what support it has.

     Stuart Lynn was of the opinion that funding in itself would not solve
     the problems as such. He agreed with an analysis posted by Elisabeth
     Porteneuve that conference fees could only ever provide a small part of
     funding and they were not therefore a key issue .

     Harold Feld raised the point of involvement in the ICANN process. Some
     saw no necessity to be involved as the reward for involvement was often

     Stuart Lynn considered this an important point; some do not get
     involved because the ICANN process puts them off. The end user often
     delegates policy issues and the need for involvement is not great. If
     ICANN is successful, there should be little need for involvement

     Philip Sheppard asked for opinions on the workable size of the Board,
     saying the key question is the balance between a board big enough to be
     representative and small enough to be workable. If the board is large
     and has an executive committee the key is to find a group that adds to
     efficiency while not concentrating political power unfairly.

     Alejandro Pisanty said any input with regard to a Board with a smaller
     executive committee would be welcome. He agreed the concept could
     streamline and/or putt power in the hands of a few.

     Stuart Lynn said that his concept of forums was to add flexibility and
     increase the diversity of voices advising the Board. Council members
     were sceptical about the process of unstructured fora and any
     meaningful impact they would have on policy development. How would
     forums add to efficiency? The GA after all was intended to be that
     broad group. If it does not work as intended, is it not better to
     reform it so it does?

     Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty, and Joe Sims said that it had been an
     important, helpful discussion. Philip Sheppard thanked the invited
     ICANN members for their valuable participation.

Other Business

  1. Waiting List Service (WLS) issue referred by the Board to the Names

     Louis Touton explained that on March 25, Verisign had requested a
     Registry agreement amendment for .com and .net. There have been
     increasing concerns about deletes. The Board is looking for assurance
     on the WLS recommendation that it will be made in the general context
     of the delete issue.

     Philip Sheppard said there were 4 options:

     1. ignore the request
     2. form a new task force
     3. refer it to the existing Transfer task force
     4. the whole Names Council to work on it.

     It was decided to refer it to the existing Transfer Task Force. It was
     agreed that the present work of the task force should not be slowed
     down. Timeline: Work Status report June 10, 2002.

     Decision 1: Refer the WLS issue to the Transfer Task Force.

  2. Request to the Names Council to comment on Request for Proposal (RFP)
     materials for Dot ORG.

     Philip Sheppard acknowledged the request to the Names Council on the
     RFP for Dot Org. He recommended reactivating the dot ORG task force
     with the addition of members to replace Milton Mueller NCDNHC and
     Guillermo Carey ISPC, and the ISP if they would like to nominate.
     Elisabeth Porteneuve was chosen as the task force interim chair to act
     as a facilitator to start the work immediately as the deadline was
     extremely tight.

     Decision 2: reactivate dot ORG task Force for the single task of
     providing comments to the NC on the Dot Org RFP.


Marilyn Cade proposed a work session on policy development to be scheduled
for May 2, 2002.

Philip Sheppard concluded and confirmed the next teleconference on May 2,
2002 at 15:00 Paris time

The teleconference ended at 17:10

Next NC teleconference May 2 at 15:00 Paris time, 13:00 UTC.

     See all past agendas and minutes at
     and calendar of the NC meetings at

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

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