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

March 31th, 2000.

Proposed agenda and related documents:


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
  1. Comments of minutes from the last NC meeting in Cairo, on March 8th
  2. , see

    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: 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.

  3. The discussion and adoption of the DNSO budget proposal
  4. 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.

    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


    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 NCDNH) and 1 absent (Dennis Jennings).

  5. 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

Information from:
DNSO Names Council