http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991102.NClosangeles-agenda.html[ taken from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la/archive/scribe-nc-110299.html]
DNSO Names Council
I. NC Members Present
G. Mueller – substitute for Kleinman
A. Proposal from Berkman Center – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso/ncprocedure
1. Yellow for questions
2. Red for recess, non-binding straw poll, adding time for discussion, deferring matters
C. Kleinman not present. Constituency has agreed to Mueller as a proxy for her in this meeting.
1. No objections.
A. Chair’s discretion: Berkman procedures to end of meeting before AOB (“any old business”)
B. Schneider: Not pleased that NSI agreements not on agenda. Not pleased that relationship with ICANN board not on agenda.
1. Chicoine: place those on end of agenda.
2. Schneider: These are too important to be placed at the end of the agenda. Relationship with ICANN board should be considered before relationship with GA.
3. Roberts: Agree with Schneider.
4. Chicoine: At chair’s discretion, keep these topics at the end.
5. Schneider: Call for a vote.
6. Chicoine: How about before GA?
C. Shapiro: Would like NC to consider designation of a WG to monitor the implementation and functioning of UDRP.
D. Agenda accepted as amended.
IV. NC Chair
A. Rotating chair – Four month period. To have balance among NC members – to share work & responsibility among all NC members and all constituencies. Same chair for a physical meeting and a period of conference calls.
B. Six month chair – Not much difference? Maybe there’s not so much difference between the two.
C. Roberts: Doesn’t matter who chairs so long as the chair is effective. Not a prize for a constituency, just a tool for getting the job done. Elect a chair for six months, then decide whether we want a rotating chair or a permanent chair. No need to decide now.
D. Telage: Calibrate the period in terms of ICANN meetings rather than number of months. Counting by months risks transition at arbitrary times. Maybe a chair until the meeting after next? (Until summer of 2000?)
E. Jennings: A burden as well as a privilege. Eight months may just be too long. May have to review decision later.
F. Chicoine: Straw poll. Does everyone understand? All in favor, no opposed.
G. Cohen: Meetings from here on may vary in size. DNSO meetings may not run at the same time as ICANN meetings in the future.
V. Role of NC in relation to ICANN board - Schneider
A. Agreements like those between ICANN, NSI, DoC are the core business of the DNSO. If we’re not consulted on this, what do we do? If we’re just here to elect board members once a year, may not want to consider as NC member. Should discuss due process with the ICANN Board.
B. Shapiro: Agree with Schneider. Agreements should have used the bottom-up process.
C. Chicoine: Strongly worded representation to ICANN reflecting these views and making a request … that …:
1. Mueller: Not addressing the substance of the agreements but the future forward-looking question of when, where, and how NC to be consulted on “similar” questions.
2. Telage: DNSO is a focus group within DNSO for development of policy. Board is responsible for corporate, legal, and contractual functioning of the organization. Looking at it that way, if you think of the contracts as “not policy-making,” you might have a different view of the situation. Might ask the board if they agree with this distinction in roles.
3. Swinehart: ICANN process requires that documents be posted for public comment. What’s the difference between the public comment period (which is happening) and the involvement of the DNSO at an earlier stage? How would the latter be carried out (in terms of negotiating a contract)? Where to draw the line?
4. Schneider: Agree with a portion of Telage’s comments. NC not to represent ICANN publicly in relation to third parties. “Just” a policy-making and recommending body. But agreements like the proposed NSI agreements make policy. As representatives of the NC, we should have been involved. Must communicate this to the Board.
5. Echeberria: Losing time. Example: WG-C.
6. Katoh: Communication between Board and NC is very important. Shouldn’t limit our options.
7. Stubbs: Need a broader dialog with Board. NC should meet on a more personal basis with Board, have face-to-face interaction. Difficult within the context of ICANN meetings – five minutes in the hall not sufficient. New board members are different – have had to / have made more effort to reach out. But other members of the board “haven’t stuck their heads out very often.”
8. Park: NC’s frustration is similar to that of the GA.
9. Roberts: Perhaps one or two NC members put together such a statement.
D. Chicoine: “Make some sort of representation to the ICANN board, subject to what the small group comes up with.” Telage against, others favor.
1. Volunteers: Schneider, Roberts, Lindsay.
2. Deadline: NC Chair to speak tomorrow at the Open Meeting. A short comment to be presented then? So meet later today?
3. Oral introduction tomorrow, written follow-up later?
VI. Substance of proposed ICANN/NSI/DoC agreements – Schneider
A. Lots of desire for further discussion. Recommend that the Board not go forward without at least one meeting with the NC. May not be able to make final recommendation today. Concern that DoC reserves final word about any decision to be made. More like the Green Paper than White Paper, and not acceptable. Timetable for separating registrar from registry is too slow – should not take eighteen months.
B. Echeberria: Agree with Schneider. Most people have talked with haven’t read all the agreements – so too soon to make a decision. In particular, unhappy that USG to maintain oversight control for next eight years.
C. Chicoine: How many want to ask Board for more time to review proposals?
1. Schneider: Not just to review, also to consult.
2. Swinehart: Public comment has already been lengthy. May not have agreement among constituencies or constituency members. Better than individual organizations, companies, individuals comment directly to ICANN (through the existing public comment system).
3. Shapiro: IPC has strong (unified?) views. Constituencies can and should make comments, as can and should associations.
4. Mueller: Agreements reflect relative power / leverage among the parties involved. Recognizing the reality of the situation, the agreements perhaps aren’t so surprising. Personally, haven’t seen the process as “pure self-regulation” but rather contracts between USG and various entities. Agreement now seems to be relatively final and to provide a stable basis for ICANN to go forward. NC Constituency not best served by tweaking the agreement. Best for NC is to authorize new gTLDs – to let this process go forwards. “Get it over with and move forward.”
5. Sheppard: If this issue is of particular concern for certain constituencies, the constituencies should come back to NC with specific issues. But not happy about making a vague proposal.
6. Katoh: If the NC can’t reach agreement, can take positions as individuals / constituencies / organizations.
7. Schneider: Does NC perceive itself as representatives of constituencies or of the DNSO at large? Just as the board members chosen by the DNSO have to work for the benefit of ICANN at large, we as NC members have to work for the benefit of the DNSO.
8. Roberts: “Less than concerned with the content of the agreements.” But process and procedure are troublesome. ICANN Board is obliged to consult with DNSO and NC. Not just putting the proposals out for public comment. Putting out the proposals for public comment makes the NC members the same as members of the public at large.
9. Swinehart: Shouldn’t focus on the details, rather on the big picture. Agreements are not perfect, and there are a number of legitimate concerns. But these agreements are a step in the right direction. Objecting to the agreements would have a chilling effect on progress.
D. Jennings: There’s work to be done. Need a procedure for doing it.
E. Schneider: We should request that the ICANN Board delays decision on the proposed agreements until the NC discusses the issue with the Board.
1. In favor: Six. Against: Nine. Abstaining: Three. Proposal fails.
F. Lindsay: Opposed the motion because its point seems to be to delay the process. Think the ICANN Board should address these issues, but not by delaying the process.
1. Does the NC support the proposed agreements as currently worded?
• Stubbs: Registrar constituency has serious concerns. But it’s a tough situation – clarification of the relationship between two entities with a third (ICANN) brought in the middle. Everyone is frustrated by the results, but that doesn’t mean we can just stop the process. Mueller’s comments re priority on adding new gTLDs are well-taken.
• Chicoine: There was a time to comment. We should present an informal then a formal statement.
• Shapiro: Vote failed. We should close discussion and move on to the next agenda point.
• Schneider: Let’s vote.
• Chicoine: Everyone in the room could find something they don’t support. Have to evaluate agreements “on balance.” Vote about “serious concerns about agreements?”
• Seven say “have serious concerns.”
• Mueller: Everyone has serious concerns, no?
• Swinehart: Have to keep objective in mind?
• Jennings: Perhaps procedure of the NC should be to choose a subset of NC to document the problem.
• Chicoine: If we can’t get the votes to move forward, we’ll be in deadlock. Whether or not, as NC, want to object to agreements? Whether or not we have further consideration of the agreements by the NC and GA?
• Six in favor, five against, six abstaining.
• Stubbs: Is that the end of the discussion about these agreements?
• Chicoine: Correct. Maybe if there’s time at the end. Or if someone wants to ask for a couple minutes of recess to swing some votes.
VII. General Assembly
A. Role of the GA
1. Chicoine: Autonomous or gets guidance from NC? (Or something in between?)
• Autonomous: Meaning GA would run truly on its own. Would have its own working groups.
2. Telage: What is its purpose? That’s a more important question than whether or not it’s autonomous. Who does it represent? What duties does it have? Advisory board model for NC. Then have public meetings for everyone to give their input to the NC – that’s the GA. The Board runs the company while NC sets policy.
3. Poblete: Still need to understand how GA relates to other parts of ICANN. Can’t put much weight on physical meetings of GA. Can likely gather enough ccTLD administrators to have a significant meeting. But not so for GA. So, for GA, should assign greater weight to remote participation.
4. Schneider: GA to let everyone voice their concerns for DNSO issues. Suggest a new format – NC should sit in front of the public to listen and answer questions.
5. Mueller: The DNSO seems aimless because the people who created it didn’t give it any power. The GA should become a constituency for those who aren’t represented in other constituencies in addition to those who are in other constituencies and wish to participate in GA as individuals. That would redress much dissatisfaction with DNSO.
6. Swinehart: Structural factors to help the GA. A chair, for example. Should encourage it to use the current structure.
7. Shapiro: Should look at minutes of last telephone conference re suggested changes for GA.
• Chicoine: “Ask GA to come up with a procedure for NC to elect chair of the GA.” Timetable given.
• All support making the proposed request to the GA as stated in teleconference minutes.
VIII. Brief Recess
IX. Procedure – Zittrain
A. Don’t have to “play a card when you want to speak.” Normally just raise your hand.
1. Yellow card for “please state the issue” or “correct the scribe.”
2. Red card is for four specific procedural motions:
• Non-binding vote to “take temperature”
• Adding time for discussion
• Deferring agenda item in favor of e-mail or listserv discussion, teleconference, next meeting.
B. Chicoine: Small group to nominate chairs?
1. Schneider: Too much time spent on procedural issues? It should be easy to elect a chair. Whomever gets the majority gets the majority.
• Two abstentions, rest in favor.
A. Initial Short-Term Funding - $5000 per constituency
1. Registrars – yes, somehow
2. ISPCP – yes, but not a precedent for future funding decisions
3. IPC – yes, somehow
4. ccTLD – yes, not happy to have to pay
5. gTLD – Gets only single participant on NC, so should funding be commensurately lower? A point of principle.
6. NCDNHC – yes, this time, but future uncertain
7. Business – yes
1. Roberts: Need to see ICANN’s Directors & Officers Liability Insurance policy in writing to verify that it covers NC members. (Have asked repeatedly.)
C. Business plan
1. Stubbs: How NC’s business will get done determines nature and magnitude of expenses. How easily accessible should teleconferences be? Constituencies want to know how much funding NC will cost them in the long term – perhaps these $5000 payments are only the beginning. How many people are using remote participation anyway?
• See tabulations on [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/archive], in particular [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/archive/stats.html] and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/archive/remoteparticipants-geography.html].
• Want to see Berkman Center bills.
• Schneider: Similar concerns from ISPCP.
2. Sheppard: Difference between setting the budget and determining means of funding the budget.
• Stubbs: Budget is a plan of action with numbers. Hard to create a budget if we don’t know our plan of action!
D. Jennings: Appropriate to thank Porteneuve for her contributions? Applause.
XI. Working Group Reports
A. Working Group B – Famous Trademarks
B. Working Group C – New gTLDs - Weinberg
• Chartered to generate recommendations re whether and how new gTLDs should be added to root.
• Heated initial discussion. Asked WG-D for help. Got recommendations: That co-chairs consider moderating the mailing list or limiting number of posts to lists. That members of WG generate position papers. Did both. Limited each member to two posts a day, and position papers written and posted. Agreement that there should be new gTLDs, but disagreement re how fast. Compromises intended to bridge the differences – perhaps six to ten new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period, then more gTLDs if evaluation as positive.
• Outstanding differences: Who puts the WG report out for public comment. And document as it stands doesn’t seem suitable for a final report.
• Swinehart: Perhaps public comments will be helpful to resolving differences.
• Telage: Scope of issues? How many to add? Selection of strings? Designation of gTLDs to organizations? Lots of difficult questions.
• Weinberg: Other issues definitely remain. Can gTLD registries be for-profit? Must all gTLD registries be shared?
• Telage: Are the members of WG solely people hoping to get gTLDs? Or others too?
• Weinberg: Some people interested in running registries, some from registrars, some from business and IP constituencies. Not sure if there are representatives from ISPCP. People present from nearly every constituency if not every constituency. - Extensive participation from ccTLD community
• Schneider: Not appropriate that I as a Names Council member drive the process so I listen and voice my view only for final report
• Swinehart: I agree. Concerned that we aren’t exceeding what we are trying to do in terms of who is and isn’t member of working groups.
• Telage: I think it’s much more important that this be a good report along the lines of the consensus report in Swinehart working group. I urge that we look at that as a template for quality for Names Council. Difficult issue to be held to high standard. Decision of working group not nearly as important as quality of report. Sets standard for reports
• Swinehart will get back to working group.
• Echeberria: Some great work done here
2. Working Group D: Swinehart: I co-chair with Bret Fausett. We are responsible for addressing policy and procedure issues, especially on functioning of working groups. We’ve reached closure on a number of issues contained in a document to be discussed between 5 and 7pm tonight. We still have outstanding issues: what level of formality should exist in a WG? Should discussion be free flowing or following strict rules of procedure? What do we do if we reach a total absence of consensus – how do move past it? Should there be any testing of implementations that come out of working groups? Is there/should there be a test environment, and should report cover any findings/results? Following this evening’s discussion, we’ll be posting draft in existing form (incorporating comments). We hope to have a draft to the Names Council in November.
3. Working Group E: Chon: First, we posted the interim report on the website, and the final report should be up by the end of February. I described our status before the general assembly this morning.
• Outreach: We have far fewer members than the PSO or ASO. We’d like to be up to at least 1000, or 2000, or more. We have 250 in General Assembly but we could reach more. Ask members of your constituency to join mailing lists, either announce or GA. We could get to 500 that way. Between now and next summer, we’d like to get to 1000.
• Awareness: Seven constituencies. Only one or two has a decent website allowing for easy access to information. Others allow only Names Council members’ names. We need to do a better job of disseminating information through better websites with better introductory materials. We should also have mailing lists archived, even if they are closed or moderated. The choice is allowing mailing lists to be read or providing regularly updated website with comprehensive information. The former is more practicable. For ICANN, since they are looking for 5000+ members by next spring, one way to contribute from DNSO is to reach a level of 1000 to 2000 to also become at-large members.
• Funding: Always an issue. We cannot depend on voluntary contributions, especially when trying to give seminars or make videotapes to give information. We need to work together: ICANN/DNSO/working groups/constituencies to achieve funding. Also then can have consistent messages.
• Schedule: We have a midterm report now and the final report (concept paper) will be finalized by February. We also need a second paper on implementation: assuming concept is good, how do we make it happen? This paper should be done by May or June.
• Park: Working Group E should elect a new chair, as you suggested in Santiago, because it is time to work together rather than having it be driven by one person. I suggest a formal election of a new chair. Also, this working group is different from the others because the implementation issue is really the key one. We should do something to enlarge membership, but I think the schedule is too late. We need to move faster with the implementation report if possible.
• Chon: We are delaying the election because we have insufficient participation by all constituencies, especially intellectual property, in order to prevent bias.
• Swinehart: I would like to suggest that WGD and WGE speak about these concerns together. The question of getting all constituencies involved could be resolved by getting contact among them all. I am offering that we will do so.
C. Item: Chair for the next meeting
1. Chicoine: We need to elect a chair for the next meeting. I would suggest that we elect a temporary one for the next meeting and hold off on a longer term election until we have more time.
• Lindsay: I nominate Chicoine
• Stubbs: Seconded.
2. Chicoine: Ok, but let’s think about whom to elect as a 7 or 8 month chair between now and the next meeting.
D. Item: Process and procedures; Berkman Center (BCIS) proposal ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso/ncprocedure])
1. Chicoine: Straw poll to look at procedures and decide whether to accept them generally, to modify them somewhat, or to start over
• Vote: All in favor except one abstention
• Thank you to the BCIS for their help.
2. Park: Clarification. Our meeting today does not fit within this proposal. Are we going to apply it exactly in the future?
• Chicoine: Today was to get a flavor for the proposal as a whole. Our next step will be to decide whether to accept them as a whole or to examine them to decide on any modifications
3. Lindsay: I’d like to recommend that we, in the meantime, use these, but that we submit them to WGD for their consideration on the modification issue.
4. Shapiro: Can’t we submit these to someone other than Swinehart/Fausett in order to limit additions to their workload?
• Swinehart: WGD should certainly look at this for purposes of their working group procedures work, but we should have a Names Council subgroup to work on it as it refers directly to our procedures.
5. Telage: How do we translate this into phone conferences?
• Zittrain: We didn’t really look at the phone calls. It would make sense to examine how this could integrate with email and phone calls.
• Swinehart: I would suggest WGD to try to apply them to teleconference and online situations, and that we just try them out ourselves on our next conference call. We will look for adjustments to card systems. We can talk to subgroup and the BCIS to modify
6. Names Council votes to use the BCIS proposed procedures for the time being
7. Names Council votes to form a small group to examine these rules for physical meetings and decide whether to make any modifications
• Subgroup: Telage, Jennings, Park, Lindsay, Sheppard
E. Mueller: General Assembly item is withdrawn
1. Telage: One of the functions of the GA is to give a forum for communication among people who participate at many different levels in the organization. Looking at this morning’s meeting, however, Names Council’s involvement would have given it a great deal of needed cohesion. I think we have to think of ourselves as part of the GA and be present in its meetings or it is not going to have the necessary cohesion.
F. Lindsay: Intake committee is mentioned in BCIS proposal to take comment from GA to Names Council. That committee can bring things discussed on GA mailing lists to the Names Council. The subgroup looking at the BCIS proposal should examine how it should be created
1. Chicoine: A rotating committee would be good since it will be time-consuming and important way to become known by GA
G. Shapiro: Concern in my and other constituencies expressed regarding final form of UDRP. I’ve heard people say they won’t use it. I think we need a working group to watch how it functions and give reports on how it’s doing at set points. I would like a straw poll regarding this approach.
1. Is the straw poll instantaneous after the red card? Yes, but not to the detriment of the discussion following it.
• Poll on working groups to monitor UDRP functionality: 15 yes, 0 no, 4 abstains
2. Swinehart: Is it appropriate to make it a working group, or should it be a task force? How large should it be?
3. Stubbs: Evaluating the execution of the UDRP is a good concept and it will help us as we move forward. Charter for the “working group” should reflect fact that the purpose is to evaluate the performance and provide analysis of process. We need constructive suggestions for how to improve it, but it shouldn’t be in a position to make decisions prior to presenting its report. I don’t like the working group label for that reason.
4. Katoh: I would like to expand the charter. I would like to see something about the role of ICANN to play in this arena. I would like to call it a working group and charge it to help ICANN figure out how to implement it globally. We should define the scope of the working group but I propose to make the scope broader
5. Sheppard: I agree with Katoh. The group should initially be working toward making the UDRP work better, and may even suggest another group to subsume it.
6. Mueller: This issue has been discussed. I volunteered to create a template for statistical report on UDRP performance. This issue needs to be approached in an extremely objective manner to avoid politicization and to prevent skew for platforms. I would contrast this with WIPO process, which may have been representative but was extremely not robust. I’ll sit down with a lawyer to work out the template, but let’s make sure we evaluate based on facts.
7. Telage: Is this policing for compliance, or performance assessment? Policing will be extremely difficult globally. Do we know we’ll have access to the data, or will it be proprietary to companies? We need legal advice regarding data access. People entering into contractual relationships should be able to get some non-identifying data. Qualitative evaluation will be important.
• Shapiro: I don’t think that we are in a position to engage in any policing. Scope of the “working group” will have to be a qualitative/quantitative mix with the data we can get. Process hasn’t begun yet. It will be over time. Template may not be issue. I brought this up on short notice, and more concrete proposal should be brought forward for next Names Council meeting
8. Roberts: I agree that this shouldn’t be done on the fly but needs a detailed proposal because it is important
9. Stubbs: We have an ideal opportunity for any law school interested in doing intellectual property in an ongoing way. If it were done in this way, disclosure might be more forthcoming by some people. I can see opportunities for statistics, and analysis.
10. Jennings: This is likely to be of interest to many and we should be careful to see who else is doing it before rushing in.
11. Chicoine: We have lots of issues to resolve. I think we should defer this. I propose that we move it to a subgroup to look at the establishment of a “working group” and its function.
• Shapiro, Mueller, Swinehart will prepare a proposal for next meeting.
XII. Public questions
A. Barry (remote): Given motion on floor from last meeting to put all working groups under GA. Thus, it is improper to vote on a proposal to create a new working group
1. Roberts: We’re taking questions, this is a statement, it has been noted.
2. Echeberria: I understand he is referring to a GA meeting this morning. Quaynor is not here. GA decided to pass this issue to WGD.
3. Mueller: Conception of DNSO that Telage was offering is in line with the implicit suggestion of this question. The Names Council sits in front of the GA and the working groups’ results are presented to both Names Council and the GA. There should be cross-constituency and cross-working-group discussions
B. Touton: Dispute resolution. ICANN web page minutes of Oct. 24 meeting. UDR minutes (99.115) show that general counsel was to forward to DNSO the issues that should be considered as future refinements for its study and future submissions to the Board in 2000 of any recommendations
C. Langston (individual domain name holder; remote #620): I find it amusing that the Names Council is feeling the same disenfranchisement that the GA and the individual domain name holders have been feeling in relation to it.
1. Lindsay: Lack of bridge between GA and Names Council is a problem
D. Barry (#621 remote): No extra time should be given for UDRP consideration or anything else. DNSO has had plenty of time
1. “NSI problem” would be reduced if 20+ gTLDs were added posthaste
• Echeberria: That would not address the domain name issues
E. Schaefer: Auerbach, a GA member, made a motion that was submitted to a vote in the last session. Names Council now complains that Board is ignoring it. Serious departures from bottom-up process
F. Teernstra (IDNO, remote #623): Park compared current frustration of the Names Council to GA frustration. This testifies to fact that these structures have been implemented in top-down fashion
G. Menge (SBA): Copies of procedural proposal are available
H. Simon (WGC): I was surprised that there was no opportunity for a formal WGC meeting since many players are here. Face-to-face meeting would have been profitable.
1. Chicoine: I’m on WGC as well. Sola did not want to have such a meeting
2. Mueller: We could probably get a meeting together tonight, and it should be done.
3. Weinberg: The issue of the meeting was brought up quite awhile ago, Sola felt it would not be helpful, other members again suggested meeting and Weinberg suggested as well. Sola responded that he felt strongly meeting was not warranted. Impasse was reached between co-chairs.
4. Jennings: Names Council is responsible for managing, not controlling the process, and I am deeply disturbed by the idea that a member squashed the meeting.
• Weinberg: That position had not been reached at the time that this problem arose
5. Swinehart: This is a co-chair situation, so on a procedural aspect, there is a reason why one co-chair is elected and there are two. Even if there is not agreement, there is a way to still have meetings. Other co-chair can hold one anyway
6. Schneider: If this is a question of what a former, not currently present member did or didn’t do, let’s not continue discussion
7. Stubbs: It would be a very good idea to inform working group members that there is always an open line between all Names Council members and all working group members. We can be helpful in such a situation if we are made aware.
8. Simon: We need a more formal meeting in our remaining two days.
I. Hooker (NetSpeed): I represent individuals. I would like to see a full 60-day public comment period between the time that proposed change is posted and the vote on implemented. Three-week period has been norm but longer, and better publicized period is necessary. In particular, I’m concerned about rush toward addition of new gTLDs. I don’t think this is in best interests of users. I’m concerned that confusion factor will hamper users looking for a certain business in multiple domains. The ease of use is one of the key factors of the Internet. I don’t want to be reliant on search engines, which are subject to capture. Much consideration should be given to fact that the more gTLDs we have (not ccTLDs), the more confusion we will add. Trademark violations will be harder to police. I’d like to be involved in the discussion process, as would hundreds of thousands of other individuals. Long process and no rush is key for this discussion.
1. Chicoine: I urge you to look to WGC, and to submit your comments there.
2. Park: I agree with this gentleman. It will take a long time for non-English speakers to get through these NSI/ICANN agreements and find loopholes. I would like to move for a longer period for consideration.
3. Chicoine: Let’s put it on the agenda for the next meeting
4. Lindsay: Part of this is covered in the working group flow discussion in the BCIS proposal.
• Anyone can join a working group. GA is anyone who signs up and participation is possible for all. Onus is on us for outreach, but also on individuals to participate.
• Mueller: DNSO.org site with WGC archives will show that many of these concerns and issues have been aired extensively. I urge you to join a working group to continue the discussion.
J. Schaefer: Milton’s suggestion for changing GA to IDNO is laudable recognition of individuals’ roles, but IDNO currently has a petition before the Board. The NC might wish to express Mueller’s sentiments in terms of support for the notion of a greater role for individuals without intervening in pending Board matter.
K. Roberts: Maybe we should only address questions
L. Chicoine: Our remote participants have been dedicated, so let’s handle them
M. Langston (#626): Much discussion about what the NC should do about the GA. These come in same breath as recommendations that GA have more power. I fair to see how the NC can insist on controlling the GA while complaining htat the Board is doing the same to it.
N. Teernstra: IDNO represents very specific stakeholder interests and these need to be represented on NC.
O. Langston: If you refuse to budget for remote participation by those who can’t attend, you will take away any façade of openness this process has. Because thousands don’t currently use webcasts is no reason to end them; there are not that many participants in ICANN to begin with.
1. Stubbs: I didn’t say that. All I asked is to find out how many people are currently participating remotely in order to figure out how to keep the costs involved.
2. Telage: I think this is a serious comment in the following context. I think this process can only scale through remote participation. I’d like an item on the next NC meeting agenda regarding remote participation and how to optimize it. Let’s find good solid way to do this. We need to have comments in real time instead of reading them at the end. Berlin meeting was great example.
3. Simon: 200 to 250 people in room; 60 remote participants. That’s a pretty significant percentage.
4. Sheppard: “Remote” locations for ICANN meetings is a relative term.
5. Swinehart: I think the NC and the DNSO have demonstrated our commitment to webcast everything. The reality is that the costs for this are high and although we all agree that it is important, it poses issues to be resolved.
For additional technical information, please contact:
Ben Edelman and John Wilbanks