[announce] NC teleconf minutes April 4, 2002
[To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org]
[To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org]
DNSO Names Council Teleconference 4 April 2002 - minutes
4 April 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents
List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD
Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Peter de Blanc or
Philip Sheppard Business
Marilyn Cade Business
Grant Forsyth Business
Greg Ruth ISPCP
Antonio Harris ISPCP
Tony Holmes ISPCP
Philipp Grabensee Registrars
Ken Stubbs Registrars
Bruce Tonkin Registrars
Roger Cochetti gTLD
Richard Tindal gTLD
Cary Karp gTLD
Ellen Shankman IP
Laurence Djolakian IP absent, apologies
J. Scott Evans IP
Harold Feld NCDNH absent, apologies
Chun Eung Hwi NCDNH absent, apologies
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
Philippe Renaut 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
Philip Sheppard proposed that the main task of the call was to go through
the list of previously identified topics and find areas of common agreement.
First there was a short discussion on the draft conclusions drawn from the
Comments on the draft version 4
Recommendations for change were:
- mission: delete ICANN staff definition, add NC proposal (J Scott Evans /
- mission creep: Delete "danger, add "potential"; add "additional" to
"security and consumer protection";
- point in time: add a comment to recognise that ICANN's functions may
change over time. Reflect this in the recommendation.
- ccTLD: change "such as" description in point 3 to that recommended by
Agenda item 1. Funding
Short Term financing:
Ph. Sheppard explained that due to the immediate funding crisis, this item
has been broken down into short and long term funding. Purpose of looking at
the short term funding is to see what the Names Council can contribute to
stabilizing ICANN in the short term so that it is not distracted from day to
day work by fund raising.
Marilyn Cade reported that participation in public outreach meetings by the
Department of Commerce led to the current understanding that up to the night
before last, the Regional IP Registries (RIRs) were refusing to pay the 1.4
million dollars owing for 1999, 2000, 2001. Because also certain ccTLDs had
not contributed as expected in the ICANN budget, this has meant that ICANN
has a significant shortfall and has left them with very low operating
capital. The RIRs were reported to have just agreed to pay 50% of the 1.4
million dollars which will bring some relief to the situation.
Roger Cochetti explained that the shortfall for the last two years is based
on numbering registries and ccTLDs related to the contract relations on both
sides. Evidence of this is that the Numbering registries put the full amount
owing to ICANN into escrow.
It was agreed that the NC should urge the funding parties to reach agreement
quickly to resolve this short term problem.
Long term financing:
Ph. Sheppard explained that this means the stable and ongoing funding for
Roger Cochetti proposed that outside of the main source of income to ICANN
currently via Registrars and Registries, there is a potential for other
source of funds which includes:
- revenue from new ccTLD applications,
- solicitations for donations
- meeting fees.
Bruce Tonkin explained that today there is a fixed and a variable component
in the Registrar pricing structure. The variable component is related to the
volume of names registered. He proposed that there should be a separation
of ICANN functions, their respective budgets and a separation of chargeable
services and remaining activities. The Registrars are willing to increase
the amount given to ICANN. They recognise that the increase would be used to
deal with day to day issues, not so much for additional services, but for
more efficiency. This could even potentially lead to cost reductions for
Registrars. Registrars and Registries view money paid to ICANN as operating
expenses. They believed that this should not be looked upon as the custodian
of the Registrant's money, but that they pay a fee for Registrar and
Registry services. There was not agreement on this last point.
Marilyn Cade informed the group that the during the Accra meetings the
Business Constituency had proposed that the stable funding of ICANN should
come from an agreed part of the Registrant domain name fee. This user fee
could be administered by the Registrars. Models of such a mechanism exist in
areas such as the self-regulation of advertising.
Ken Stubbs calculated that such a user fee would be small. Assuming an ICANN
budget of USD10 million and 40 million names, implies a fee of just US 25
Elisabeth Porteneuve drew attention to the fact that ccTLDs and gTLDs do not
operate in the same framework, are quite different and cannot be compared.
Thus any services from a more efficient ICANN is going to have less impact
on a ccTLD than on a gTLD.
It was proposed that a distinction should be made between ccTLDs that are
operating based on their geographic origin and those that are marketed as
Ph. Sheppard made the following conclusions on which there was general
1. Without going into the mechanism of how it flows the revenue stream in
the Registry, Registrar, Registrant system, which is mostly derived from
gTLDs should provide ICANN core funding.
2. In addition there was potential for secondary and supplementary sources
of funds including the cctlds, voluntary contributions and fees for specific
3. Budgeting should be based on certainty and specific functions but there
should be no cherry-picking of services leaving other important ICANN
4. With the exception of meeting or secretariat fees, revenues for ICANN
should not come from governments.
Agenda item 2. Advisory Bodies
Ph. Sheppard introduced this saying that one major difference in the Lynn
proposal and the present situation, is the link with the constituencies.
Today constituencies elect the NC and the NC seeks policy consensus and
elects some board members. This direct link in participation is broken in
the proposed system.
Thomas Roessler proposed an improved way of policy development with a task
-involve different constituencies and other groups as needed
- coordination by an independent, qualified, professional, neutral staff
person who would be responsible for written reports and strict timelines.
Ph. Sheppard asked for the Names Council view on the difference between the
process today, which is a bottom-up, binding consultation process, to the
Lynn model proposal which is an advisory consultation body.
The views expressed:
- significant improvement can be made to the existing process
- there was no support for an advisory body only.
- a Board should have power to act on its own in certain situations. Process
debates today would diminish is this reality were recognised in the current
process. A supermajority requirement would be a way forward.
- the Board should have an oversight role to see the process is applied but
should not be able to create policy without the SOs.
There is broad agreement among the Names Council members that the existing
model is the right one, but that there is room for improvement. The Task
Force model for policy building is also desirable and would be improved
greatly with dedicated staff support.
The Names Council continues to endorse the ccTLDs desire to form its own
Supporting Organisation and still favours a separate ccTLD organisation in
whatever new ICANN there is.
In closing Thomas Roessler requested the Chair draft a set of consensus
recommendations by the next call. The Chair agreed.
The teleconference ended at 17:10
Next NC teleconference will be held on Thursday 18 April at 15:00 Paris
time, UTC 14:00 and focus on Board Composition and participation.
Information from: © DNSO Names Council