Scribe's Notes - Names Council
I. Ken Stubbs, Chair
A. Review of Agenda
B. Roll call
C. Welcome to new member: Quaynor
D. Adoption of meetings from prior meeting
E. Agenda: Omitted item – report from GA meeting - Gaetano
1. Membership of GA list is increasing as discussion becomes more substantive.
2. Voting procedure now in place.
3. This morning, reports from administrative parts of DNSO (budget, etc.), constituencies. Then discussion.
• Bring to attention to Names Council the problem of an individual’s constituency. Rough consensus.
• “… in principle in favor of the addition of … a constituency of Individual Domain Name Holders … request the Board to seriously consider the recognition in principle of such a constituency … request the Board to place the issue on the agenda of its open meeting in Yokohama.” About 65 in favor, 3 against, 40 abstaining. Note repetition from Santiago – but feeling is that the Board never adequately addressed the point.
5. Swinehart: Should act on the first motion. On the second, interested GA members can communicate directly with the Board tomorrow, and I take the motion just to be letting us know about that.
F. Agenda – Removal from Discussion – Discussion of WG-C 6 Principles at proposer’s request
II. Establishment of Intake Committee
A. Swinehart: A good idea. Sheppard volunteers.
B. Kane (Registrars): Volunteers.
C. Other volunteers: Chicoine (IP), Schneider (ISPCP), Park (NC).
D. Roberts: Need to establish principles for operations.
E. Chicoine: Lindsay suggested including the GA chair.
1. Gaetano: Willing to serve on Intake Committee.
F. Cochetti: Should be clear about the mandate of the Committee.
1. Emphasize timeliness and agenda scope. Committee’s purpose is solely to produce an agenda and to do so in a timely way.
2. Roberts: Ask the Committee to specify principles and processes to achieve its mandate.
G. Quaynor abstains. All others support.
H. Schneider: Contents of the Intake Committee’s mailing list should not be public. Public input to the Intake Committee should come through GA via its chairman.
I. Swinehart: Need to make sure Intake Committee isn’t a filter.
J. Schneider: I’m on the Committee because I want to make sure the Committee is not a filter for the concerns of my constituency. But let’s not waste too much time with procedure.
III. Reports and Updates from ICANN Staff
A. Touton - Resources: ICANN now has ten full-time employees (or equivalents) and two part-time employees (one only for the summer). Expecting to continuing to hire in a controlled way. One office expansion already; another is under consideration.
B. Touton – Projects:
1. New policies
• TLD expansion, per Names Council’s recommendations. Documents on the web. More than 1300 comments received.
2. Organizational matters
• Relationships with ccTLD managers, RIRs.
• At-Large Membership.
C. Touton DNSO Finances
2. ICANN staff is assisting with collection efforts for some constituencies (those that can receive a single invoice). ISPs will shortly ask that invoices be sent to various members.
3. Only expense paid so far is for Berkman Center teleconference webcasting ($2,700). Roughly $25,000-$30,000 available.
4. Stubbs: Report is complete and current?
• Touton: As of yesterday.
5. Cochetti: Collection procedures? What happens to follow-up?
• Touton: Haven’t followed up yet. It’s easy for us when a single entity is responsible for the entire payment. More trouble for Registrars, for example, for which 21 invoices were required. Causes some burden on staff.
6. Kane: Where are funds?
• Touton: Funds in a general ICANN fund but kept separate via accounting entries. But funds will be used only for the DNSO’s purposes. Funds will only be dispersed at direction of the Names Council. (Perhaps a procedure for authorizing routine expenses without a full NC vote?)
7. Park: Non-Commercial Constituency working on a single point of contact for invoicing.
• Touton: Pooling funds would be very helpful to ICANN staff.
8. Stubbs: Would like a monthly summary of activity on the DNSO’s accounts. A simple list of receipts and disbursements.
9. Kane: ISPs haven’t been sent an invoice?
• Touton: Difficulty in figuring out how to do so? Current understanding is that they’ll provide a list.
• Schneider: Some communications problems between ICANN staff and constituency secretariat. Some members of ISPs want invoices to come from ICANN, not ISPCP, because they think ISPCP is not an entity that can send out invoices. Concerns about liability.
10. Stubbs: Why no funds from Business and Commercial Constituency?
• Swinehart: Invoice was sent to secretariat and has been dealt with by those handling budget. Will follow up with secretariat.
11. Stubbs: May have to deal with people who want to participate in the process but aren’t willing to pay to support the process.
12. Cochetti: Lots of room for improvement. Making it easier for people to pay would help. Endless confusion from multiple invoices arriving.
13. Stubbs: Perhaps members of a constituency should be required to pay in full before participating in the decision-making process?
14. Porte (Secretariat for the Business Constituency): Did not pay because invoice was sent to secretariat rather than treasurer. Need a new invoice with a proper label.
D. Roberts: If we want to outsource our financial management, can we?
1. Touton: Absolutely. Handling invoices is not ICANN’s area of competence.
E. Wong – presentation delivered – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/presentations/Wong-071400.htm (Initiation of the DNSO Review)
IV. DNSO ICANN Board Representative – Upcoming Nominations & Election
A. Need to replace Cohen. Establish process and set a date? Procedures from last time were OK?
B. Understanding is that Cohen’s term expires at the end of the November LA meeting.
C. Timetable: Open nomination period on July 20. Continue nomination period for same length of time used last time, using same nomination and second system.
D. Replacement will have a three-year term.
E. Geographic diversity requirements – already have a Latin American and a European, so need representatives from other geographic regions, i.e. Asia, Africa, and North America.
F. Schneider: Second.
G. Vote: Five abstentions, rest in favor.
V. Names Council Chair
A. Stubbs: My term to expire after this meeting, but willing to serve again.
B. Swinehart: Would be interested in having you serve again. Consistency is helpful. And you’ve done a good job so far.
C. All in favor except Stubbs abstaining.
D. Cochetti and Roberts (absent during vote) concur.
VI. Committee to Review the DNSO and its Functions
A. Cochetti: Form a work group (public facility for public comments and suggestions) and a task force (of NC members)? Both would have a short life span, focused on providing recommendations for improvements going forward.
B. Swinehart: A good approach.
C. Jennings: Also, constituencies should be asked to make submissions to the Council.
D. Cochetti: Constituencies should participate. Constituencies are already represented on the Council, so they can comment when the Task Force’s report comes to the NC. Their formal participation might be somewhat limited, i.e. through the work group.
E. Cochetti: Create a new Working Group G with mandate to examine the performance and operations of the DNSO since its inceptions and to make recommendations by September 15 for improvement of the DNSO’s operations. That the Council form a Task Force of one representative from each constituency that receives the results of the Working Group, take comments from constituencies, and undertake an evaluation of the DNSO’s performance since its inception, reporting back to the Names Council no later than October 1 (so the NC can make ICANN’s October 13 deadline).
F. Carey: Reverse the order? Start with a task force, then a working group afterwards?
1. Cochetti: Task Force should begin its work immediately. Task Force needs input from interested parties, hence the Working Group. Need WG’s comments before TF finalizes its recommendations, so WG should come first.
G. Stubbs: Finalize detail son teleconference in latter part of second week of August.
H. Swinehart: Modification to proposed resolution. Should provide WG with a methodology.
I. Park: Need to accelerate the timetable. Should have a formal procedure and methodology, but also should be flexible.
J. Schneider: Amend the motion. Charter of Task Force and Working Group should address the question of whether an Individual Domain Names Owners’ Constituency should be added.
K. Vote: Passed.
L. Cochetti: Each constituency needs to pick a Names Council representative to the task force. The GA also needs to choose a representative to the TF – the chair. Question is when the members will be designated.
1. Stubbs: Choose representatives by July 25.
A. Making secretariat more efficient and effective.
B. Cochetti: Information paper has been distributed. (Posted online?)
1. Absence of paid professional staff support has been a serious problem so far. Are grateful for Porteneuve’s volunteer work. But performance problems are attributable to lack of resources. Reflects little amount of money collected to date.
2. Need to address questions of budget, administration, and resources quickly.
3. gTLD Registry Constituency prepared to contribute up to $100,000 on a matching basis if others will make similar contributions. Not a permanent solution, but might be helpful in the short run.
C. Roberts: Some performance problems may have other sources than lack of professional staff. Need to clarify expectations and needs?
D. Stubbs: Time is of the essence. We know what we need and can expect. Let’s discuss in the teleconference. Who’s interested in working on needs? Swinehart, Porteneuve, Cochetti, Roberts, Schneider.
E. Cochetti: Note the importance of matching – to inspire others to contribute similarly.
F. Kane: Establish separate account for donations?
1. Stubbs: Use a third-party instead – easier to deal with.
G. Jennings: How will this be funded on an ongoing basis? How to stop?
1. Cochetti: Not a long-term or permanent solution. Stop-gap only. But hard to solve the bootstrap problem otherwise. Certainly hope this will be solved within a year (or less).
H. Jennings: Concerned about stopping employing people. How to terminate the expenditure and liability? Have an ongoing funding requirement. Will constituencies sign up to the ongoing commitment?
I. Cochetti: Proposal on the table: Approve the development of a mechanism for receiving voluntary contributions. Creation of a committee to specify administrative and budgetary functions.
J. Vote: All in favor.
VIII. Update on Working Group D
A. Some changes made recently.
IX. Update on Working Group E (Outreach) - Chon
A. Presentation delivered - http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/presentations/icann-dnso0710.htm
B. Carey: Concerned that many people do not have Internet access.
C. Roberts: Have more than achieved goals for At-Large Membership.
D. Jennings: Some concern about foundations getting involved. It’s possible that their informational materials may be inaccurate in some important respects.
X. Developing Countries & Regions Perspectives on the DNSO
A. Different concerns and perspectives among regions. Agenda generally focuses on issues of concerns to developed countries. Should have a threshold in each constituency for developing country representation.
B. Stubbs: Require that each constituency include a designated proportion of representatives from developing countries? Hard to operate such a quota system – what if there just aren’t many registrars in certain countries?
C. Quaynor: Don’t think of the proposal as a quota system, but rather as a set of goals for participation worldwide.
D. Chicoine: Every constituency should be thinking about outreach. But it’s hard to find people who have the time and want to participate.
E. Carey: New gTLDs create an emergency situation for outreach.
F. Swinehart: Try to produce documents in languages other than English. And be sensitive to those who can participate via email but not web.
G. Stubbs: There are entities with significant economic resources in every country. Can try to coordinate with them.
H. Swinehart: Business Constituency does have international representation. Are working to simplify access to materials.
I. Stubbs: Form a Task Force?
1. Vote: Three against, one abstain, rest in favor.
2. Ask Porteneuve to post to list; try to have one per constituency.
XI. New Business
A. ICANN’s position paper on new gTLDs goes beyond the NC’s report to ICANN. Their document requires DNSO review. In particular:
1. Timetable is too ambitious.
2. If more than one gTLD is to be introduced, we recommend a staggered implementation process. Want to make sure system works reliably for ISPs so they can serve their customers well.
3. Need to reduce liability of ISPs for failures during initial rush of registrations.
4. Improvements to shared registry system – to prevent transfer of registrations without approval.
5. Procedures in case of registrar failure (escrow).
6. Stubbs: These comments are better addressed directly to ICANN staff?
• Schneider: No, NC should see to it that its recommendations are properly implemented.
• Stubbs: Would have to have constituencies approve these suggestions? NC can’t back this proposal without consulting with constituencies.
• Schneider: Motion: NC requests the Board not to take any action about the process of how to introduce new gTLDs before the NC has provided a further statement.
• Cochetti: Motion seems to be in order. Problem is that Council has previously not worked at so detailed a level. Question is whether the Council should get involved at that level. Council could address the question of new gTLDs on a broad policy level without getting involved with detailed policy. Your suggestion is that we should get involved with detailed policy. But our prior resolution (Cairo?) called on ICANN to decide implementation details. Seems a difficult change to make at this point.
• Swinehart: Note that ICANN’s new TLD document (http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm) says “public comment on the following topics is especially solicited.” Some 1300 comments were received. We don’t know what adjustments will be made in response.
• Schneider: Clarify that NC should be involved in evaluating what the ICANN Board has suggested and making substantial recommendations. Otherwise, we are encouraging constituencies and the GA to bypass the Names Council and appeal directly to the Board.
• Stubbs: Need basis for reviewing the recommendations.
• Cochetti: Previously, the Council said ICANN should address the details. It would be out of order to reverse our approach now.
• Jennings: Suppose we passed a resolution noting that one of the constituencies is concerned about policy implications of the Board’s actions in the implementation of new gTLDs. Remind the Board that the NC is available to consider those policy implications should the Board wish to refer those back to the Names Council.
• Seconded. In favor: six. Against: three. Abstaining: five.
XII. Note that it’s Bastille Day. Thanks to the French for participating.
XIII. Public comments
A. Kornfeld: Concerned about artificial scarcity in gTLDs. Concerned about intellectual property protections that prevent the use of web sites for comment on trademarks. Concerned about magnitude of fees that would discourage applications for new gTLD registries. Lower fees for non-commercial registries?
B. Love: Concerned about fees, both for application and for operations. Assures that only big corporations can participate. Better to lower fees.
C. Ambler: Disappointed by NC’s disregard of WG-C consensus. WG-C’s specification of 6-10 new gTLDs reflected lengthy negotiations. Why recommend a smaller number of new gTLDs?
D. Park: Concerned about geographically-imbalanced participation in ICANN meetings.
E. No comments to Ambler’s question.
For additional technical information, please contact:
Ben Edelman and John Wilbanks