DNSO Names Council Teleconference on October 27th, 1999 - minutes
October 27, 1999.
Proposed agenda and related documents:
NC telecon with participation of Jonathan Zittrain on the item concerning meeting procedures.
Postponed to the discussion by email:
Next NC meeting:
The next Names Council meeting will be held on Tuesday November 2nd, in Los Angeles, 1 - 5 PM (13:00 - 17:00).
The Chair will be Ted Shapiro or Caroline Chicoine (IPC)
Tony Harris ISPCP absent Hirofumi Hotta ISPCP Michael Schneider ISPCP absent Philip Sheppard Business Masanobu Katoh Business Theresa Swinehart Business (AAA replacement) Registrars not yet elected Ken Stubbs Registrars absent, proxy Richard Richard Lindsay Registrars Don Telage gTLD Ted Shapiro IP Caroline Chicoine IP absent Victoria Carrington IP Dennis Jennings ccTLD Patricio Poblete ccTLD Nigel Roberts ccTLD absent Raul Echeberria NCDNH absent, proxy YJP Kathryn Kleiman NCDNH absent, proxy YJP Youn Jung Park NCDNH Elisabeth Porteneuve DNSO Secretariat
Chair Dennis Jennings (ccTLD)Quorum present
The NC members present and represented to the NC teleconference unanimously ratified the election result.
Theresa Swinehart proposed that to ensure a balance between constituencies the chairing of the NC meetings continue to be organized on rotation basis. A written proposal will be included into the LA NC agenda.
Elisabeth Porteneuve shall check if the Bylaws provide any rules concerning the NC chairing. (Verification done, there is no rules imposed on the NC and related to the meeting's chair, the NC may decide whatever appropriate.)
Ted Shapiro or Caroline Chicoine from the IPC will chair the Names Council meeting in Los Angeles.
According to the Bylaws, the NC elects the GA chair.
It was agreed that over the past weeks it's been understood that Nii Quaynor will chair the LA GA meeting.
The NC welcome Nii Quaynor work to organize the GA meeting in LA.
The election of the GA Chair for year 2000 raised the issue of the GA's role, the involvement of the NC as part of the GA, and the nomination process. That is, how to select the Chair, who will chair the physical meetings, who will have in charge the email@example.com list ? It was agreed that the GA should nominate candidates, and that the NC should select them from the nominated group. However, as a members of the GA, the NC members may nominate candidates as well. The duties of the GA Chair involved not only the physical meetings, but also include the everyday work with the GA - i.e., channel of communication between the GA and the NC, and involvement in the firstname.lastname@example.org list. The GA will be requesed to come up with the proposal for the nomination process of the GA Chair, which is to be submitted to the NC for review. Following nomination of the candidates, the NC will vote through a procedure similar to the one used in the election for the ICANN Board.
The tentative schedule for the nomination and election of the GA Chair is as follows:
The proposal of meeting procedures is applicable to "in person NC Chair" during physical NC meetings. The proposal, prepared by students, is available online, including commented slides. These are draft procedures, and will need work for improvement. In order to get NC input and discussion of the draft, it was agreed that there will be a "procedures meeting" November 1st, Monday, noon (sandwich lunch).
The issue of questions/answers added to the NC agenda was raised. It was felt appropriate to discuss that topic at the Monday "procedures" meeting. The NC meeting is open, and anybody can observe. However, if there is a question/answers session, what is the best way to do this to have good communication with the GA?
It was discussed that the NC should work on proposals written in advance, and that, hopefully, the agendas set on the fly will dissapear once the NC structure is more formalised.
What secretariat functions are needed for the GA ?
The NC noted that it shouldn't be discussing or deciding on a Individual Domain Names Holders Constituency, as this is an issue currently before the ICANN Board awaiting decision. However, because of concern that there be no confusion between the GA, and it possibly acting as an IDNO, it was important to clarify that the GA is not the IDNO. Therefore, the role and the structure of the GA need clarification. The GA is not one single constituency of any sort - it is a General Assembly, which Constituencies may also be a member of. The IDNO should be decided upon by the ICANN Board, in the context of the "At Large" membership. Until this occurs, the NC has no view on the IDNO, and postpones any discussion until the "At Large" is set up.
Currently there is no mecanism in the GA to request the NC to address an issue.
The budget and finaces of the DNSO shall be discussed in LA. The NC is spending money it does not have.
The immediate issue is that every Constituency is expected to pay US $5000 by the end of November - are the Constituencies prepared to do it ? The gTLD Constituency requests that its next year budget is in accordance to the Constituencies seats (1 seat for the gTLD now). The NCDNH Constituency may be able to rise founds now, but may have difficulties with big figures for the next year. The ccTLD Constituency commits to pay US $5000, guaranteed by the .IE registry, the ccTLD Constituency have not discussed the DNSO budget yet. The Business Constituency will raise issue on their meeting telecon call. Idem for the IPC and ISPCP and Registrars.
The financial sharing of the DNSO shall be adressed. There are quite polarized views, but the reality is if you want to be on the table you should pay.
Few weeks ago the small group of NC members (Dennis, Ken, YJP, Theresa) volountereed to start the work on business plan and budget. Dennis already wrote the raw estimation. This group will now return to working on this issue.
It is expected that during the LA NC Working Groups and Commitees will provide updates by co-chairs.
The issue is raised what to do if the Working Group Chair resign (like in case of the WG-B, Jonathan Cohen was elected to the ICANN Board). There were no procedures when the WGs started. The WG-B feels that if a new co-chair arrives from the NC, it will be a takeover by the NC.
The co-chair from the NC is to act as part of a bootstrap process, assuming the responsability of the NC, and act as a liaison between the NC and the Working Group. The elected co-chair continues to be responsible for the substantive work. It is proposed to therefore rename the NC co-chair "liaison" in order to prevent any confusion. It is also proposed to look at the whole process with the Working Groups on "procedures" meeting on Monday.
||© DNSO Names Council