[announce] NC teleconf minutes July 11, 2002
[To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com]
[To: firstname.lastname@example.org; ]
DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 11 July 2002 - minutes
15 July 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents
List of attendees:
Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD
Philip Sheppard Business
Marilyn Cade Business
Grant Forsyth Business absent, apologies, Marilyn Cade/Philip
Greg Ruth ISPCP
Antonio Harris ISPCP
Tony Holmes ISPCP absent, apologies, proxy to Tony Harris
Philipp Grabensee Registrars
Ken Stubbs Registrars
Bruce Tonkin Registrars
Roger Cochetti gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan gTLD
Cary Karp gTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Jordyn Buchanan
Ellen Shankman IP absent, apologies, proxy to J. Scott Evans
Laurence Djolakian IP
J. Scott Evans IP
Harold Feld NCDNH
Chun Eung Hwi NCDNH
Erick Iriate NCDNH absent,apologies, proxy to Harold Feld
16 Names Council Members
Louis Touton ICANN Staff
Theresa Swinehart ICANN Staff
Thomas Roessler GA Chair
Alexander Svensson 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
The agenda was approved.
Item 1. Summary of last meeting:
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the summaries seconded by J. Scott Evans,
The motion was carried.
Decision 1: Motion adopted.
Item 3. Notice of next extra meeting July 24, at 15:00 Paris time, 13:00
The reason for the extra meeting is to vote on the final report on the Wait
Listing Service after it has been sent out for comments before it goes to
the Board. The timing has been dictated by this schedule. It was hoped this
would be a short meeting, though it was suggested that the extra meeting be
used for further comments that may be requested from the Evolution and
Next Names Council teleconference: July 24, 2002 13:00 UTC.
Item 2 : Wait Listing Service - status report and time table for NC approval
Marilyn Cade said that the report had been presented to the Names Council at
the Bucharest meeting and was repeated at the Public Forum. The Task Force
had a teleconference on July 10, 2002, and the following amended policy
recommendations that had been approved by the Task Force for submission to
the Names Council were read:
The next step is to put the report on the DNSO web site for public comment
until July 22, after which the comments would be included in the report. The
Names Council on July 24, 2002, would then vote on the report before it was
sent off to the Board to meet the deadline of July 26.
Discussion: J. Scott Evans asked if there was consensus in the TF. R.
Cochetti said that the gTLD Constituency does not support the work of the
Task Force both in substance and scope as he believed the level of detail
was beyond the scope of the Names Council.
Louis Touton commented on this:
The Board had adopted two resolutions specifically asking for
recommendations from the Names Council on this topic. In Bucharest it noted
the presentation made by Grant Forsyth. Recommendations from the Names
Council were asked for by July 26, 2002 so that the Board could act after
receiving the presentation. In Bucharest, the board mentioned the importance
of addressing new input from Verisign.
M. Cade explained that the draft Task Force report made a core
recommendation for the Board to not approve WLS. It also made a series of
supplemental recommendations to ameliorate negative effects should the
Board chose to ignore the core rcommendation and indeed adopt the WLS.
J. Scott Evans and Roger Cochetti both questioned why the recommendations
did not provide just one option. Ken Stubbs said that it was important to
respond to the Board's request.
Harold Feld said that he believed the Board looks at the DNSO as a series of
discussions to determine what consensus is. It is up to the Board to look at
the work done and determine consensus, thus the Task Force should develop
conversation rather than be an arbitrator.
Marilyn Cade said that the final report would be put up for Public comment,
each constituency will be given the opportunity to comment, then the final
report goes to the Names Council to be voted on before it is sent to the
Board after the July 24 Names Council meeting.
Item 4: Voting rights of non-commercial and ccTLD constituencies
- Non-commercial constituency (recommendation of Budget committee).
Philip Sheppard introduced this item by asking which constituencies had paid
Two constituencies were fully paid up, Business and IP, while the ISPCPC was
in the process of collecting funds and the Registrars could not confirm a
report that they had paid. The gTLD constituency reported that they had
taken no decision to pay or not to pay.
Non-commercial constituency. The Budget Committee have recommended that they
believe the non-commercial constituency has successfully shown cause why
they have not to date paid their outstanding dues, and so their right to
vote should not be suspended.
Motion proposed by Harold Feld to the Budget committee seconded by Roger
The Budget Committee recommends to the Names Council that the Non-Commercial
Domain Name Holder Constituency has shown adequate cause why it has not paid
the balance due on its 2001 invoice. Accordingly, the Budget Committee
recommends that the Names Council waive the sanctions that would result from
failure to pay the balance due on the 2001 invoice.
I would like to make clear that this motion only addresses the issue of
sanctions. It does not address the question of whether the Names Council
should forgive the remaining amount due on the 2001 invoice.
17 votes in favour and 3 abstentions from the IP constituency
Decision 2: Motion carried
Philip Sheppard said that the ccTLDs did not respond to the original show
cause notice but have responsed belatedly.
Elisabeth Porteneuve made several points points to explain why the voting
rights of the ccTLDS should not be suspended.
- in the past one ccTLDs had supported the DNSO secretariat pro-bono.
- the ccTLDs had begun working on a separate supporting organisation, over a
year ago because the issues related to global space for gTLDs and ccTLDs
were different That work had come to temporary halt because of the ICANN
Reform and the constituency had expected by now to have left the DNSO.
- in the present situation towards ICANN 2 ccTLDs and gTLDs must work
together. If the ccTLDs were denied voting rights this channel of
communication would be withdrawn and harmful to the ICANN reform process
which is the key issue for all constituencies now.
Ken Stubbs said that the ccTLD constituency expressed approval of the budget
and methodology for collecting funds which placed an obligation on the
constituency to honour their word and pay their dues and they are not
meeting their contractual obligations.
J.Scott while sympathetic with the non-commercials said his constituency
feels that they are supporting the non paying constituencies, and that
perhaps a reduced fee would make it possible for the ccTLDs to contribute
Harold Feld supported the ccTLD motion and understood J. Scott Evans's
frustration but felt that in the extraordinary times the participation of
all stakeholders is essential and that Elisabeth Porteneuve should ask the
constituency to access what contribution they could make.
Ken Stubbs questioned whether the ccTLD constituency refused to pay from
June 2001 as was set out in the communique after the Montevideo meeting as
they were forming their own supporting organisation, or were they waiting
for a reconstitution of ICANN and intended to meet their commitments they
Philip Sheppard summarised the ccTLD payment position, showing that the
constituency had paid some fees in every year.
Elisabeth Porteneuve replied saying that there were a lot of grievances
among the ccTLD, an international group that works slowly. They have been
- some are unwilling to participate and are bitter
- others are willing to participate
- some cannot pay.
Members have to be persuaded to pay, there is no mandatory body and they pay
if they feel it is worthwhile. They have paid a million dollars to ICANN and
have received little service. The DNSO is seen as part of ICANN.It is
incorrect to say that they have not addressed the issue, they have. With
regard to the Stockholm communique, there was confusion about the fiscal
year of DNSO and ICANN which is different.
Ken Stubbs felt that it was important to keep the ccTLD in the process but
it was incumbent on them to honour their debts.
Philip Sheppard asked when would be the earliest a commitment could be given
to pay in principle taking the diverse nature of the ccTLD decision making
process into account? Elisabeth Porteneuve said that she could not get
binding decision form the ccTLD constituency on financial matters. It
depends on participation which is difficult at different levels.
Discussion ended as the meeting lost quorum: ccTLD voting rights would be
unaffected until then.
Item 5: Reform Process
- next steps for NC following adoption by the ICANN Board of the Blueprint.
It was noted that there would be new papers on implementation and that the
NC should prepare to react to them. In the meantime, it was agreed that Ph.
Sheppard would highlight points compatible with the Board's resolutions to
input at an early stage into the implementation process. Louis Touton said
that the Board was establishing a process for implementation and if the
Names Council had suggestions on implementation it would be very useful.
In answer to a question from Tony Harris whether the Names Council would sit
as it is today in Shangai, Louis Touton was not able to predict anything.
The teleconference ended at 17:00
Next NC teleconference will be on Wednesday July 24 at 15:00 Paris time,
See all past agendas and minutes at
and calendar of the NC meetings at
Information from: © DNSO Names Council