[council] NC teleconference minutes June 17 2002
Dear Council Members,
Please find the minutes of the last teleconference, June 17, 2002 below.
If you would like any changes, please let me know.
[ To: email@example.com ]
[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020617.NCteleconf-minutes.html ]
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 17 June 2002 - minutes
17 June 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 absent
Philip Sheppard Business
Marilyn Cade Business
Grant Forsyth Business absent, apologies, proxy to Marilyn Cade,
Greg Ruth ISPCP
Antonio Harris ISPCP absent
Tony Holmes ISPCP
Philipp Grabensee Registrars absent,
Ken Stubbs Registrars
Bruce Tonkin Registrars absent, apologies, proxy to Ken Stubbs, P.
Roger Cochetti gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan gTLD absent,
Cary Karp gTLD
Ellen Shankman IP
Laurence Djolakian IP absent, apologies, proxy to Ellen Shankman
J. Scott Evans IP
Harold Feld NCDNH
Chun Eung Hwi NCDNH absent,
Erick Iriate NCDNH absent,
Ron Sherwood Observer, represented Peter de Blanc in his absence
11 Names Council Members
Alejandro Pisanty Chair ICANN Evolution Committee
Hans Kraaijenbrink ICANN Evolution Committee
Lyman Chapin ICANN Evolution Committee
Thomas Roessler GA Chair
Alexander Svensson GA Alternate Chair
Glen de Saint Géry NC Secretary
Alix Guillard MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
Quorum present at 15:10 (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 agenda was approved.
Item 1. Summary of last meeting:
Ellen Shankman moved the adoption of the summaries,
The motion was carried. There was one abstention: Cary Karp
Decision 1: Motion adopted.
Item 2. Discussion and adoption of NC reply to the Evolution committee
Philip Sheppard suggested walking through the Names Council reply to the
Committee on ICANN evolution and reform - Recommendations for the Evolution
and Reform of ICANN June 2002 v2. He addressed the paper stating that there
had been an extensive debate since March 2002 and the substantial
recommendations within were based on the recommendations (v12) already
adopted following extensive consultation with the Names Council and General
Introduction: This includes a statement (suggested on the previous call by
Ken Stubbs) that underlying all of them are recommendations on funding and
staff support. Accepted by all
1. Scope and Mission
Accepted by all.
II Board Composition
For clarity, NC recommendation 30 (policy development bodies should elect
board seats) will be added to this section. Marilyn Cade suggested the
addition of "national" in Q1:
d) government. The GAC cannot be treated in this way. "National" governments
speak for themselves.
In addition she raised the point about accountability and made it clear that
advisory bodies should not vote but have a purely advisory function.
New wording: Q 2 a) accountability
Advisory Body appointees also may lack accountability, especially if the
Board has responsibility for appointments to the advisory body.
Harold Feld pointed out that the original purpose of ICANN was to prevent it
falling under Government purview and incorporating a Government seat on the
board is moving in the wrong way. He also requested that the Non-commercials
be added footnote 4 as not supporting a nominating committee.
Accepted by all.
III. Board Selection Process
Accepted by all
IV Nominating committee composition and responsibility
Philip Sheppard addressed this saying that he based the proposed wording on
the Registrars proposal discussed at the previous meeting. Tony Holmes
expressed concern that the three groups would not be understood by all the
Ron Sherwood asked for clarification on the two groups, users and at-large
while Elisabeth Portneuve suggested that public interest should be
It was decided to define these by amalgamating paragraphs 1 and 2.
Accepted by all.
V Policy Development Structure
Q. 9 Technical Advisory Committee
Marilyn Cade raised the point that with the Protocol Supporting Organisation
coming to an end, how would the technical community elect board seats in
Accepted by all
VI Policy development process
Philip Sheppard stressed the importance of the Names Council endorsing a
bottom up process.
Harold Feld endorsed the GA footnotes 8 and 9 and added that General
Assembly has always been a place for participation and not cross
Management by the board of process in recommendation 9 was questioned by
Marilyn Cade. She felt this could be misinterpreted. Ellen Shankman
expressed concern about the meaning of bottom-up process.
It was agreed to add a footnote to recommendation 9 clarifying that by
managed the NC envisages an oversight role of the process, not policy
Accepted by all
VII Public Oversight and Participation
Philip Sheppard read the two sentences added after the last meeting
concerning the ombudsman's office which should have the right to invoke
arbitration for alleged by-law violations based on the rationale that
external arbitration imposes costs to those invoking the process and
although costs could deter frivolous arbitration they might hinder
Harold Feld suggested that a note be added that it does not foreclose the
right of the individual to proceed at their own expense. If a right is not
explicitly preserved it will be read out.
Accepted by all as amended.
J. Scott agreed with the recommendations but believed that no one has said
where the money is coming from. The Chair pointed out that this was
reasonably clear from recommendation 5 on core funding (gTLD registrant
fees). Accepted by all.
Accepted by all.
X Outside resources
Accepted by all.
XI Internal ICANN structure
Accepted by all.
Discussion with members of the ICANN evolution committee
At this time 16:10 (Paris) Philip Sheppard welcomed Alejandro Pisanty, Hans
Kraaijenbrink and Lyman Chapin from the evolution committee who joined the
Names Council teleconference. Philip Sheppard summarised by saying that the
Names Council drafted a paper in response to the evolution committee and
that key differences were:
1. The policy development entities should elect their own chairs and board
members. They should be more self determining than the committee has
2. The Advisory committees should be advisory. They should not provide board
3. There may be a role for a nominating committee, but only to select half
or less of the Board. They should have no role in relation to policy
development or other bodies.
On point 1, Alejandro Pisanty said that many comments had been received that
pointed to an opening for more self determining policy development bodies.
He mentioned that he was personally pushing for a more self determining
Hans Kraaijenbrink commented that he was interested in the Names Council
arguments for the policy development bodies to elect Directors. He viewed it
as a power issue. Whereas the community views the board as a team in a way
that people are delegated from certain communities with the intention to
work in a team and to include the supporting organisations and advisory
councils in a liaison capacity, whether voting or non voting. Philip
Sheppard asked why a nominating committee would be likely to choose a better
person or team player than if the DNSO or supporting organisation elected
someone. Hans Kraaijenbrink answered that working through a nominating
committee there could be a balance achieved in the different aspects needed
whereas the other resembled a parliamentary model with appointments from
different sections. He added that it was more a philosophical than practical
Marilyn Cade responded to the issue saying ICANN had done well. The outcome
identified should be shared goal, but a policy organisation could select
their board members on a set of criteria that will support the defined
Alejandro Pisanty emphasised that there should be a balance of different
personalities and outlooks and that the board must be more widely
Marilyn Cade and Ph. Sheppard clarified that the Names Council looks at two
ways in making up the board: half the board seats would be elected by the
Policy developing entities and half by the nominating committee process
Alejandro Pisanty said that there are a lot of views on who will be on the
nominating committee. The gTLD Registrars and gTLD Registries want an
appointment, while many feel it should be open and without politics, serving
the common good of all. He also felt that At-large was perhaps not the best
term when the objective was stewardship of public interest.
Harold Feld expressed two concerns about the nominating committee
- its ability to return good board members through undefined criteria
- the results of the selection being regarded as legitimate by the broader
Alejandro Pisanty shared these concerns and said that the committee was
striving to balance 2 sources of legitimacy:
- having channels open and listening to people
- legitimacy in achievement.
The At-Large effort was well intended and a huge effort was put into it, but
it was not working well enough to provide legitimacy in representation.
Ph. Sheppard asked whether it could be envisaged that the wide role of the
nominating committee could be reduced to which Alejandro Pisanty replied
that the committee was moving in that direction.
Philip Sheppard introduced the item of funding saying the it was the number
one issue to be considered. Funding means the ability for staff support for
policy development which would improve in quality and speed. Other changes
would be insufficient without adequate funding. The core funding is from the
fees paid by gTLD registrants. Everything else such as ccTLDs should be
looked upon as secondary to setting up the budget.
Both Alejandro Pisanty, Hans Kraaijenbrink and Lyman Chapin agreed on the
importance of funding saying that the present form of collecting money from
the Registrars and Registies should be improved, but care should be taken
about the way this is presented.
Ph. Sheppard stated the NC was in disagreement with the nature of these as
set out by the committee. Better communication was the objective. Technical
advisory bodies needed greater flexibility and do not need to be standing
committees but could come and go. Voting board representation should not be
entrenched as it would impede future advice. Improved communication is
counterbalanced by lack of flexibility i the advisory bodies.
Hans Kraaijenbrink made a distinction between the existence of advisory
committees, and the liaison function between the advisory body and the
board. No finality has been reached on this. Technical advisory committees
with liaison functions where the chair would have full access to the board
meeting with a possibility to intervene in board discussions was being
considered. Whether or not they would have voting capacity would have to be
decided once board composition was established.
Philip Sheppard mentioned that the Names Council is not in favour of
scrapping the Protocol Supporting Organisation and has not heard reasoning
to support replacing it with a technical advisory committee.
Harold Feld expressed concern about the way that the General Assembly was
seen and said that it was a place for individual interests, who do not fit
into constituencies, to have their voice heard. He was concerned that by
eliminating it there would be no room for participants who had no other
Alejandro Pisanty did not agree with his description and reminded him that
from the beginning there had always been tension as to its role which was
seen as cross constituency dialogue. He felt that this had not happened
despite the great efforts of the present chair to make it meaningful. He
went on further to say that the lack of a meeting place for cross
constituency dialogue has hampered the DNSO functioning. Ways of balancing
the cross constituency dialogue and the large community must be found.
Ph. Sheppard agreed saying that the GA has been forced to try to meet two
objectives (cross-constituency communication and a forum for individuals not
represented in constituencies). The NC believes it better to separate out
the two objectives and then meet both more effectively.
Thomas Roessler, GA chair spoke to the separate roles. He did not want to
lose a place where open public dialogue and cross constituency dialogue
could take place on ICANN issues. Alejandro Pisanty said that the GA has an
anatomy and a physiology (structure and function) and that these two need to
be considered separately.
Elisabeth Porteneuve said that in the Reform document of 31 May have made
certain assumptions that ccTLDs should accept, but she believes that this
has not been discussed with ccTLDs.. One sentence in particualar is of
" Policies relating to global issues are developed through the ICANN process
and ccTLD members agree to abide by them"
The ccTLD Managers live in national environments and respect local
legislation. It is not appropriate to demand that the ccTLDs abide by the
extrajudiciary policy rules developped in the ICANN process, as these
rules may contradict national laws.
Hans Kraaijenbrink agreed with Elisabeth Porteneuve and said that it would
be helpful if the ccTLDs reacted to the question as to what ICANN should do
Alejandro Pisanty went on to say there was no unified voice and no global
issues. He maintained that there was a need for a balance between global
coordination and and local constraints. He gave the example where in Latin
America and Africa, ccTLDs had been protected from Governments by ICANN.
Hans Kraaijenbrink thanked Oscar Robles for his valuable contribution to the
Philip Sheppard thanked the three Evolution committee members for their
valuable participation and concluded the meeting saying that he would
forward a final reply from the NC to the committee before the Bucharest
The teleconference ended at 17:10
Next NC meeting will be held in the main auditorium of the Marriott Hotel in
Bucharest on Wednesday June 26 at 14:00 local time, 11:00 UTC/GMT
See all past agendas and minutes at
and calendar of the NC meetings at
Information from: © DNSO Names Council