[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ga-full] NC teleconference 31 March 2000, minutes




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

[ from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000331.NCtelecon-minutes.html]

ICANN/DNSO

      DNSO Names Council Teleconference on March 31th, 2000 - minutes
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 31th, 2000.

Proposed agenda and related documents:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000331.NCtelecon-agenda.html

List of attendees:

   Dennis Jennings         ccTLD          absent
   Patricio Poblete        ccTLD
   Philip Sheppard         Business
   Masanobu Katoh          Business
   Theresa Swinehart       Business       absent, proxy to Katoh
   Hirofumi Hotta          ISPCP
   Tony Harris             ISPCP          arrived in late
   Michael Schneider       ISPCP          arrived in late
   Erica Roberts           Registrars
   Ken Stubbs              Registrars
   Paul Kane               Registrars
   Roger Cochetti          gTLD
   Caroline Chicoine       IP
   Axel Aus der Muhlen     IP
   Guillermo Carey         IP
   Youn Jung Park          NCDNH
   Kathryn Kleiman         NCDNH          left in the middle, proxy to YJP
   Zakaria Amar            NCDNH          absent, proxy to YJP
   Louis Touton            ICANN Legal Counselor
   Elisabeth Porteneuve    DNSO Secretariat

Chair Ken Stubbs (Registrars)

Quorum present
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda

  A. Comments of minutes from the last NC meeting in Cairo, on March 8th,
     see
        o http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000308.NCcairo-minutes.html,
          Cairo NC minutes

     Kathryn Kleiman clarify the difference between WG-C and WG-B status as
     in Cairo, the former is the consensus report, the latter the status
     report, they are not on the same schedule. In Cairo the NC gave 4 weeks
     to the WG-B to come with the consensus report. Both reports were
     published on the dnso.org website on March 21th:
        o 21 March 2000 Working Group B status report to the Names Council,
          by Michael Palage
        o 21 March 2000 Working Group C consensus report to the Names
          Council, by Jonathan Weinberg
     The NC is seeking public comment on the recommendations of WG-C with a
     deadline of four weeks. After this time the NC will make a decision on
     the endoresement of these recommendations, and forward them to the
     ICANN Board no later than April 20th. The call for comments will be
     sent out by Elisabeth Porteneuve shortly.

  B. The discussion and adoption of the DNSO budget proposal

     See http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00509.html, by Ken
     Stubbs

       1. Roger Cochetti

          The NC work with the significant consequences needs adequate
          funding, there is a minimal level of expenses for a legitimate
          body to exists. With regards to the level of proposed fees between
          $US 15000 and 35000, per constituency for year 2000 the lower
          amount when spread out over the number of members in each
          constituency should be acceptable, and in many cases is still less
          than the airfares to one of ICANN meetings for one constituency
          member. We need to create an institution publicly accountable and
          preserve the low cost.

       2. Masanobu Katoh

          We need to be realistic, the fees are expected from 7
          constituencies, which whould imply the committment in liability to
          such expenses.

       3. Ken Stubbs

          From Registrars point of view, it is important to send a message
          to ICANN that the structure was set up in such a way that it can
          hardly function.

       4. Patricio Poblete

          With regards to the ICANN budget of $US 1.5 millions the DNSO
          numbers are not significant, but the problem lies with the
          multiple level of constributions. The larger the number the more
          hassle, it would be preferable to have one contribution to ICANN.

       5. Ken Stubbs

          We need to put in place a commitee to develop the methodology for
          the funding mechanism in the future, but we cannot leave the
          meeting today without decision.

       6. Roger Cochetti

          There are two principles that will be affected by the DNSO budget,
          accountability and the autonomy. The costs in these budgets
          reflect the level of accountability. The same work could be done
          in a fraction of time by Louis Touton in Marina del Rey, but it
          would not be accountable. If we want a DNSO that is highly
          accountable and independent from the ICANN Board, then will have
          to pay for it, you cannot have it both ways.

       7. Philip Sheppard

          There is a difference between the NC functionning
          administratively, and all the work necessary for the Working
          Groups and the GA. The latter are providig good for the whole
          ICANN, it would be unfair to have the secretariat founded only by
          the Constituencies. There is a responsability.

       8. Erica Roberts

          My understanding is that the WGs has been set up to report to the
          NC, and therefore we are responsible for them. There are two
          separate questions: look on the size of budget and find out how to
          get revenus into it. The proposed budget is very conservative, do
          we have any objections to the size of budget ?

       9. Ken Stubbs

          It is a good approach. My proposal is handling the meeting cost in
          decreasing manner, we get to one seventh of the webcast costs. The
          audio archives of all meetings can be used, and are the legitimate
          substitute for the webcast dissimination.

      10. Elisabeth Porteneuve

          The main difficulty for a budget is not the amount, less than 5
          percent of ICANN budget, but the layered system. Another important
          item is that the DNSO's members are providing 90 percent of all
          ICANN budget, therefore reluctance to raise additional amounts.
          Furtheremore, the outstanding part of this ICANN budget comes from
          outside of the US. To the two important aspects already mentioned
          -- accountability and autonomy, I would like to add the
          legitimacy.
             + http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00523.html
               workplan and budget
             + http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00524.html
               legitymacy

      11. Paul Kane

          The geographical diversity is an important issue. Why not consider
          a call for tender.

      12. Kathryn Kleiman

          The budget is reasonnable, and some money could be saved if
          technical work passed to ICANN. In trading associations you do not
          charge for the policy establishement. For NCDNH even the
          teleconferences have a cost.

          Erica Roberts

          I sympathise, but I do not know how much we need to operate
          effectively. How does implementation give the value for the pack?
          How do we raise the money? Within Registrars constituency, there
          is a possibility we may balance various constituency groups. We
          need an effective organization, with responsability, there are a
          lot of things we did not budget for and there are various
          requirements.

      13. Roger Cochetti

          I propose the motion that for the year 2000 we adopt a budget for
          the DNSO of $US 95500, with the spending broken down according to
          the categories in Ken Stubbs proposal. This motion is only to
          approve a spending amount and has nothing in and of itself to do
          with either how the funds will be collected to how they are
          administered

      14. Masanobu Katoh

          Subject to the further consideration of the income.

      15. Roger Cochetti

          In deference to Katoh-san's concerns, I am willing to accept a
          friendly amendment that says: If we find that it is impossible to
          raise $US 95500, then we will have to revisit the budget. Does it
          respect Katoh's request ?

      16. Ken Stubbs

          If we cannot raise that money, it is a clear signal to
          constituencies to operate effectively.

      17. Michael Schneider

          I disagree, it is a bad signal. We agree on budget, unless we
          solve the question how to generate the revenue. We unconditionnaly
          agree on budget and postpone untill we find how to raise money.

      18. Ken Stubbs

          We have obligation of expenditures.

      19. Michael Schneider

          If we agree on budget, we create the liability, and if we do not
          manage to have Constituencies agreed to pay for it ? We need solid
          basis.

      20. Roger Cochetti

          My motion is: "The NC hereby endorse for the year 2000 the
          expenditure of $US 95500 with the expenses as broken down in the
          proposal as by Ken.", see
          http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00509.htm

      21. Caroline Chicoine

          Second.

      22. Philip Sheppard

          Point of order. Do we accept to be connected to particular
          conditions, like California, or do we indicate only the upper
          limit and the methodology.

      23. Louis Touton

          Roger's motion does not endorse any geographical implementation,
          but only the total amount. The freedom and flexibility are left to
          the NC on how to implement it.

      24. Caroline Chicoine

          Second this version.

      25. Masanobu Katoh

          I request to have written in the minutes my concern about raising
          money.

      26. Ken Stubbs calls for vote

          The motion passes with 14 yes, 3 abstentions (YJP voting for 3
          members of the NCDNH) and 1 absent (Dennis Jennings).

      27. The small commitee will be set up from to study the implementation
          of the approved budget ($US 95500).

      28. Roger Cochetti

          We have conditions of time. I propose we proceed step by step to
          immediate allocate responsabilities to the Constituencies, to
          encourage Constituencies to come up with the method of paiement,
          to get the invoices out.

      29. Philip Sheppard

          I have to leave, I voulounteer to the implementation commiteee. I
          will be back from Istanbul in 5 days.

      30. Caroline Chicoine

          Is the GA the burden on the Constituencies only ?

      31. Roger Cochetti

          Having adopted the budget, we recognize responsability to each
          Constituency. We allocate liability to each Constituency. We also
          sollicit volounteer donations and contributions from other
          interested in DNSO matters.

      32. Caroline Chicoine

          With the vote we just done, I am concerned about the $US 5000 fees
          for 1999. How much was raised ? The IPC gave $US 5000, but is very
          reluctant to pay until others pay. How should the total amount be
          distributed ?

      33. Louis Touton

          $US 15000 has been collected.

      34. Roger Cochetti

          We request ICANN to publish information on who has paid.

      35. Ken Stubbs

          How should we deal with some strong reluctants to pay ? Some do
          not have much ressources and wish to participate.

      36. Erica Roberts

          NCDNH Constituency is not fortunate. We could reduce their
          participation to $US 10000, and spread out the remider accross
          others.

      37. Roger Cochetti

          We do not want to encorage the irresponsability, but I want to
          show some reduction.

      38. Tony Harris

          I wish that we do not make special exceptions.

      39. Ken Stubbs

          The financial difficulties comes always with the NCDNH. If we cant
          find out way to deal with that, the wrong message si sent out.

      40. Roger Cochetti

          I propose the motion:
             * Recognising that the NC adopted the year 2000 expense budget
               of $US 95500, we hereby allocate equally among the seven
               Constituencies the full $95,500 with all Constituencies to be
               invoiced immediately
             * we take note and recognize the concerns that have been
               expressed that not all Consittuencies have an equal ability
               to pay and that there may be extenuating circumstances for
               some Constituencies and therefor we strongly encourage
               Constituencies to be cooperative and creative among and
               within themselves in developing means to make the necessary
               payments
             * in order to foster this creativity and cooperation within and
               between Constituencies in raising the funds needed to meet
               their obligations to the DNSO, we ask the Chair of the NC to
               set up a commitee
             * we ask the staff to notify the GA of the DNSO and other
               interested parties that we have approved a budget and that we
               encourage the volountary donations to help defray the
               operating expenses of the DNSO

      41. Caroline Chicoine

          Do we have a procedure for enforcing the budget ?

      42. Roger Cochetti

          The item 2 is moral lecture to Constituencies that we should look
          at creative way, and not releve anybody from legal obligations.
          There is an obligation to Constituencies to work with each other.

      43. Tony Harris

          Do we propose any staggering in paying founds ?

      44. Roger Cochetti

          The collection of money is details to be sorted out with Louis
          Touton.

      45. Louis Touton

          Lets divide the total amount equally among the seven
          constituencies, so each would have to contribute US$ 13,643. Each
          constituency will be contacted by the ICANN staff to arrange the
          details of the payment (if they prefer to be invoiced as the whole
          group or as a collection).

      46. Roger Cochetti

          We ask the ICANN staff to advise the NC immediately about received
          paiements. We have also to talk what to do in case of default in
          paiement.

      47. Youn Jung Park

          The NCDNH cannot protect its rights with such expenses.

      48. Ken Stubbs

          You reach out organizations willing to have their voice heard and
          point them out the benefits of being involved, and to join your
          constituency.

      49. Ken Stubbs calls for vote

          The second motion passes with 14 yes, 3 abstentions (YJP voting
          for 3 members of the NC DNH) and 1 absent (Dennis Jennings).

  C. any other relevent items you all can think of

     The deadline for the NC recommendation on the WG-C and WG-B is no
     latter than April 20th.

     The next NC teleconference will be held on Friday April 18th. The time
     will be in favour of Parific Rim.

     The issue of Independent Review Nominating Committee is postponed to
     the April 18th
        o http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00502.html,
          request to the NC for selection of 2 individuals to the
          Independent Review Nominating Committee by Andrew McLaughlin

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html