DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 24 January 2001 - minutes
24 January 2001
Proposed agenda and related documents:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010124.NCtelecon-agenda.htmlList of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD Philip Sheppard Business Theresa Swinehart Business Hirofumi Hotta ISPCP (arrived late) Tony Harris ISPCP (joined at 22:10, proxy for M.Schneider) Michael Schneider ISPCP Erica Roberts Registrars Ken Stubbs Registrars Paul Kane Registrars Roger Cochetti gTLD Caroline Chicoine IP Axel Aus der Muhlen IP Guillermo Carey IP (left at 23:39 and rejoined later) Youn Jung Park NCDNH Dany Vandromme NCDNH Zakaria Amar NCDNH absent Louis Touton ICANN staff Maca Jamin Scribe
Quorum present at 22:09 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +1:00 during the winter in the North hemisphere)
Minutes of the meeting.
K. Stubbs, who chaired a NC meeting for the last time, opened the meeting by welcoming all participants. He expressed his pleasure in working as a Chair trying to help DNSO process to move forward. Due to a rather heavy agenda, he urged the participants to respect time slots allocated to each item.
Scribe was confirmed and it was decided to explore further possibilities of arranging audio recordings of the NC teleconference meetings.
Y.J. Park wished to add an agenda item on establishment of a working group on individuals constituency.
K. Stubbs recalled that there is an item 13 on the Agenda examining GA request for "NC to consider an Individuals Constituency", and not a setting up of a working group.
To clarify a discussion Ph. Sheppard quoted Agenda procedure document (version August 4th, 2000) concerning last minute suggestions:
Last minute. In case of issues arising subsequent to the above timetable, NC members will be able to propose items for any other business at the start of an NC meeting. Such items will be accepted for discussion that day or deferred to the IC at the discretion of the NC chair.
It was decided to consider Y.J. Park's suggested item under A.O.B. and, if no time available, to postpone a discussion to the next meeting.
C. Chicoine moved the motion, second by E. Porteneuve, to elect Ph. Sheppard as the Names Council Chair for the period February - July 2001.
Decision D1:Ph. Sheppard was unanimously elected as Names Council Chair for the period February - July 2001 by 15 votes in favour, no opposition and no abstentions.
Ph. Sheppard thanked the Council for their confidence and informed that calendar of the NC meetings for the whole period of his mandate will be provided at the end of January 2001.
He also mentioned objectives the NC is to achieve during this coming period after having had, up to now, successfully consolidated its procedures and functioning:
Decision D2:The minutes of the Names Council teleconference of December 19th were approved by 16 votes in favour, no opposition and no abstentions.
E. Roberts described her proposal designed to ensure a simple approval process for publishing of the NC meetings Minutes and to comply with ICANN Bylaws:
No additional approval by the NC is needed and the Chair is ultimate authority and the objections could be raised at the next meeting.
E. Porteneuve observed that 21 days time limit is rather short and that setting up of such a strict scheme could become a considerable constraint. She spoke in favour of more flexible approach.
P. Kane suggested accepting E. Roberts' idea on a temporary basis and reviewing a process later, if needed.
On C. Chocoine's question which time slot seemed more problematical, E.Porteneuve responded that 2 or 3 days given to the secretariat to publish the Minutes is rather short, taking inot account travel, weekends, holiday period etc.
C. Chicoine pointed out that the period of time that looks short is one allocated to a Chair, who has a great responsibility in the process.
Ph.Sheppard found timetable 7+3+7 rather realistic and he proposed to test and respect the scheme during his mandate.
K. Stubbs suggested giving more time to Chair: 5 days instead of only 3.
C. Chicoine stressed that if objections occur a Chair will have to work with other parties, but a calendar, set in advance, could help in planning different stages of the process.
L. Touton recalled two requirements of the Bylaws :
Article VI section 2h (requires publishing but not formal approval of the Minutes not later than 21 days):
"The NC shall post minutes to a web site that is available for public access as soon as practicable following the meeting, and not later than 21 days following the meeting"
And Article III section 2a:
"All minutes of meetings of the Board, Supporting Organizations (and any councils thereof) and Committees shall be approved promptly by the originating body."
E. Roberts suggested putting in place on-line approval process.
Ph. Sheppard proposed public posting of the Minutes within 21 days.
L.Touton suggested that to satisfy the Bylaws include into the decision: "approval by the Names Council at the following meeting".
Decision D3:The NC is taking a temporary motion, to be changed if necessary (moved by P. de Blanc second Ph. Sheppard).
The NC Minutes approval and publication process will be as follows:
The motion was adopted with 16 votes in favour, no opposition and no abstentions.
(see http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00622.html Independent Review Panel Nominating Committee).
As the party to a nomination process of DNSO candidates, K. Stubbs stepped dawn as a Chair and asked Ph. Sheppard to moderate discussions on this topic.
L. Touton, who has provided a written information on the matter, as requested by E. Roberts at the December 19th Call, informed the Council about the nominations already made by other Supporting Organisations:
He reiterated that two persons from DNSO are needed and that it is the Names Council responsibility to make final nominations (there are no requirements concerning a regional diversity).
K. Stubbs provided information on Scott Hemphill, a candidate he proposed to become a member of the IRC Nominating Committee.
S. Hemphill is an attorney with an extensive knowledge of DNS and ICANN process. As a general counsel for an ICANN accredited registrar, he will contribute to development of ICANN work
E. Porteneuve also briefly presented the two candidates she has proposed:
She also suggested, as there are three candidates 1 form USA and 2 from Europe, to choose one from each region.
L.Touton asked if there are any other nominations to be made at this meeting.
No other names were proposed as candidates for IRC Nominating Committee.
E. Porteneuve suggested to choose S. Hemphill and O. Iteneau as members of the IRC Nominating Committee and to consider L. Pouzin as a potential candidate for the Independent Review Panel.
P. de Blanc supported the motion.
L. Touton recalled that IRPNomCom's responsibility is to nominate members to the Independent Review Panel. To complete a process all nominations are subject to confirmation by the ICANN Board.
Decision D4:The NC appointed Scott Hemphill and Olivier Iteanu as members of the IRC Nominating Committee.
Decision was adopted unanimously by 16 votes in favour, no opposition and no abstentions.
K. Stubbs asked R. Cochetti to moderate this agenda item.
R. Cochetti recalled three points on which the NC should decide:
7.1 liability to AFNIC (services provided during year 2000)
7.2 Proposed budget for year 2001
7.3 Constituencies? dues
7.1 Budget Committee has reviewed liability to AFNIC and proposes to pay AFNIC for provided services amounting to $59,400 on the receipt of the invoice and under the following conditions (accepted by AFNIC):
K. Stubbs drew the attention of the Council not to open Pandora?s box and have other organisations also claim money for the services provided in the past, as no formal agreement exists between the two parties.
R. Cochetti stressed the transparency aspect of the services provided by AFNIC and a notice sent in advance stating their intention to end provision of services. Both sides failed to take the steps they should have to set up a formal relationship. He agreed that we cannot guarantee that no one will claim payments, but thought this will not prejudice to the NC.
K. Stubbs underlined a superior quality of AFNIC services and made clear that his remark does not reflect their appreciation but only concerns the process as such. He invited the Council to formalise arrangements for services provided in the future
P. Kane insisted that AFNIC should be paid once clarifications made. He also questioned when the three-month AFNIC transition period begins and asked whether there was time available to select a new provider of web and listserv hosting services.
R. Cochetti mentioned different possibilities:
P. de Blanc informed that the AFNIC services ended on December 31st 2000 and that DNSO should be paying for them as soon as possible.
E. Porteneuve confirmed that the transition period starts as of January 1st 2001.
K. Stubbs supported P. Kane's proposal to pay AFNIC.
Decision D5:(motion moved by K. Stubbs and second by Ph. Sheppard)
The Names Council Chair (Ph. Sheppard according to the results of the election at this meeting) will instruct ICANN to make a payment upon a receipt of two compliant reports and after the following conditions have been met:
7.2 Proposed budget for year 2001
R. Cochetti commented operating budget for year 2001 divided into two categories:
It is difficult to estimate the amount of voluntary contributions as no clear process on how to raise those contributions is in place yet. The Budget Committee has therefore not maid any recommendations.
In order to meet expenses amounting to $ 107,600 and expecting the number of DNSO Constituency staying unchanged (7) due per Constituency for 2001 will amount to $15,371.
T. Harris found the provisional budget excellent but pointed out that the amount of $30,000 allocated to web site and list serve maintenance seemed rather high compared to only $10,000 allocated for translation of documents.
R. Cochetti insisted that this should be considered as an approach showing budget categories only. The Budget Committee recommends that NC develop some criteria for translations. As to the list serve, not all the money have to be spent but it must kept in mind that the management of the lists serve is not only a silent process but includes management of the rather costly voting process for ICANN Board Directors.
Ph. Sheppard asked for the clarification as to the increase of Constituency dues.
K. Stubbs responded that this budget is based on existing Constituencies and any newly formed Constituency will pay its due on pro rata based conditions.
D. Vandromme reiterated his request, already made at the Marina del Rey meeting for a 50% reduction for Non Commercial Constituency due.
The NC has taken a note of this request.
L. Touton inquired if there is a practical report on voluntary funding.
R. Cocheti recalled the NC decision to accept voluntary donations. Budget Committee will submit a complete plan on how to employ this part of the revenue later.
P. Kane suggested that NC examine specific expenses in more details and takes budget expenses listed here as information.
R. Cochetti restated that these are only budgetary category items, and when the NC will have a professional support the more specific financial reports will be provided regularly.
First attempt to vote on the budget failed and those who have abstained provided explanation of their vote:
E. Roberts suggested taking separate votes on constituencies' dues and on indicative budget for year 2001.
R. Cochetti disagreed explaining that those two points are linked as we have to start collecting the money and start sending out invoices for year 2001.
K. Stubbs called the NC to vote on a Budget Committee report:
The motion did not pass: with 7 votes in favour (de Blanc, Porteneuve, Caray, Cochetti, Stubbs, Chicoine, Aus der Muhlen), 9 abstentions (Sheppard, Hotta, Harris, Schneider (by proxy) Swinehart, Roberts, Kane, Park, Vandromme), and no vote against.
K. Stubbs expressed his deep disappointment in not reaching a decision on this topic. He also inquired on when the report was circulated to the Council members.
E. Porteneuve informed that it was on 24th January.
Due to a short time given to the NC to consider this issue, K. Stubbs suggested to organise a special teleconference very soon, aimed at reaching an agreement on a DNSO budget.
P. de Blanc invited the Council to come up with some kind of agreement on a budget first and see later about the Constituency contributions. In his opinion there is an urgent need to do something concerning this matter.
R. Cochetti suggested differing further discussion to the next meeting allowing NC members to study a report more thoroughly.
Th. Swinehart thanked the Budget Committee for a valuable work they have done. She also indicated that as a Constituency representative she could not commit the Constituency by a vote before checking that the Constituency can pay its due. She agreed with K Stubbs? proposal to schedule another call within a week and recommended that everybody participating in that call make a decision on Constituency funds
At this point (23:39) G. Carey left a call for a half an hour.
Documents referenced in http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/wgreview-history.html
Th.Swinehart summed up briefly different stages of the Review process. (E. Porteneuve prepared WG review - History in the Making to be found on: http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review-history.html )
An interim report was circulated on 21st January 2001, which included all contributions received from: Constituencies, individual contributors and WG Review.
She thanked all those, who by their contributions moved a process forward and mentioned main points expressed in comments such as :
As stated in a press release issued after the December 19th call, WG submitted comments on 15th January (extension of the initial schedule set for January 6th). Additional comments will be added to the first version and version 2 posted for public comment (January 26th - February 6th).Comments received will be incorporated and report sent to ICANN Board who will post a document for another public comment period.
K. Stubbs opened a discussion inviting participants to make brief interventions.
C. Chicoine proposed to send her comment by e-mail to Th. Swinehart (copy to the NC).
Y.J. Park requested the extension of a deadline to enable WG Review to continue their work. She insisted that the draft version should not go for public comment and the process should be continued in order to come up with some conclusions.
Th. Swinehart recalled that the Task Force collected information based on a Questionnaire and incorporated all of them into the Interim report (reference is given to all comments encouraging readers to consult them). She indicated that the WG Review has done a tremendous job, but objected appreciation of the report.
T. Harris and P. Kane congratulated Theresa for her work and offered to send their comments by e-mail.
Th. Swinehart said, as this is a DNSO report, that more time to comment on Interim report will be available.
P. Kane urged the WG Review to send comments on Interim report and by doing so permit their inclusion into the final version.
Y.J. Park stated that the WG Review would like to provide recommendations, which could not be finalised by 26th January.
P. de Blanc, as a participant in WG discussions, suggested to append to Th. Swinehart?s document those issues on which the WG Review has reached polling stage, without looking for resolutions.
Discussion focused on timetable, which apparently cannot be changed, and K. Stubbs reminded the participants on the decision taken on December 19th Call:
Decision D4 (December 19th):
- establish a Review Working Group, chaired by Y.J. Park
- make the "terms of reference" "responding to the RTF questionnaire"
- make the lifetime of the WG January 15th
- ask the group to report by January 15th to the NC Review Task Force.
- issue a press release immediately to encourage participation in this WG.
Ph. Sheppard invited the meeting to make a distinction between the WG action in responding to the Questionnaire and the solutions finding process. He also mentioned the excellent job the WG has done in making outreach and in increasing the DNSO review process.
Th. Swinehart reminded that we have to follow the schedule in order to meet public comment period (an extension of a deadline was already provided by the Board).
Y.J.Park expressed some observations as to the Review Task Force rules.
K. Stubbs noted the diversity of opinions and stressed that we have to follow the agreed timetable. He encouraged further comments, in particular those coming from the WG Review , be submitted during the public comment period.
P. de Blanc proposed, when posting the report, prepared by Th. Swinehart, to DNSO, to append existing 6-9 polling items of the WG Review (second by P. Kane).
E. Portenueve appreciated P. de Blanc's initiative and thanked both Th. Swinehart and Y.J. Park for their work. She also said, that this is certainly not the last time the DNSO has put in place a review process.
Y.J. Park mentioned that Greg Burton was elected a WG co-Chair (she will be acting as a liaison Chair).
K.Stubbs pointed out excellent job G. Burton has done and invited him to take this opportunity and incorporate excellent contributions the WG has collected.
Th. Swinehart said that during phase two the WG could come up with resolutions on specific issues.
Decision D6:(Motion moved by P. de Blanc)
Append to Th. Swinehart Interim report whatever topic items exist, or 6-9 polling items, of the WG Review and post them together for public comment, 26th January - 9th February 2001.
K. Stubbs suggested that G.Burton forwards information to Th. Swinehart.
The motion passed with 15 votes in favour (including G. Carey who rejoined the meeting at 00:14), one vote against (Y.J. Park) and no abstentions.
Y.J. Park stated that it is impossible for Review TF to come up with its Interim report within two days from now.
Y.J Park also stated that the current version should be posted in the name of an individual, Theresa Swinehart, instead of a Review TF, who doesn't provide proper, open and formal channel of discussion among the full members and excludes some member's comments upon her own decision rather than seeking Review TF's full agreement.
Subsequent to the meeting Y.J. Park has sent apologies as to personal comments made and has asked they be withdrawn.
Due to the late hours, K. Stubbs proposed to close this meeting and to call another one very soon to tackle all Agenda items not covered at this meeting, including the DNSO budget. He insisted that the items have to be taken up before a month period (P. de Blanc second that motion).
Th. Swinehart suggested choosing a date.
Ph. Sheppard agreed to arrange a call in two weeks time.
E. Porteneuve drew the NC attention to numerous meetings the ccTLDs will hold during the coming month, the main reason why she had suggested February 26th as a date for the NC meeting in the first place.
K. Stubbs concluded that an hour call be organised in one week time and encouraged everybody to come up with decisions.
He closed the meeting by expressing his pleasure in continuing to work as a member of the NC and thanked all participants for their contributions.
End of the meeting 00:22 CET.
||© DNSO Names Council