[council] NC teleconf minutes April 24,2002
[ To: email@example.com ]
[ To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com ]
[ To: firstname.lastname@example.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 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,
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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