DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 8 February 2001 - minutes

19th February 2001 (version 3.1)

Proposed agenda and related documents:


List of attendees:

Peter de Blanc        ccTLD
Elisabeth Porteneuve  ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay    ccTLD
Philip Sheppard       Business
Theresa Swinehart     Business    left before the end, proxy to Ph. Shepaprsd)
Grant Forsyth         Business
Hirofumi Hotta        ISPCP       absent (apology, proxy to M. Schneider)
Tony Harris           ISPCP       absent (apology, proxy to M. Schneider)
Michael Schneider     ISPCP       absent
Erica Roberts         Registrars
Ken Stubbs            Registrars
Paul Kane             Registrars
Roger Cochetti        gTLD        absent by intervals (proxy to Ph. Sheppard, if a vote took place during his absence)
Caroline Chicoine     IP
Axel Aus der Muhlen   IP          absent (apology, proxy to C Chicoine)
Guillermo Carey       IP
Youn Jung Park        NCDNH
Dany Vandromme        NCDNH       absent (apology, proxy to Y.J. Park)
Zakaria Amar          NCDNH       absent
Louis Touton          ICANN staff absent (apology, participation in public hearing)
Maca Jamin            Scribe

Quorum present at 14:06 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +1:00 during the winter in the North hemisphere)

Opening of the Meeting

Ph. Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference, which addressed items remaining from the 24 January meeting.

K. Stubbs proposed to add under A.O.B.: organising a NC dinner during ICANN meetings in Melbourne.

Proxies received: R. Cochetti forced to leave a call several times, left a proxy to the Chair. Proxies for H. Hotta and T. Harris given to M. Schneider - but M. Schneider was absent also. D. Vandromme gave his proxy to Y.J. Park. A. Aus der Muhlen gave his proxy to C. Chicoine.

Agenda item 1: Budget Committee - revisiting the recommendation on 2001 budget and constituency contributions

Ph. Sheppard clarified that the NC had agreed in January to the settlement of the AFNIC payment. Remaining items, this call should be deciding on, concern 2001 budget and revenues. The Budget Committee will review options for enforcement of constituencies dues and provide information to the NC for the next meeting. Within the budget two sides are to be considered: costs and revenues. The NC was in favour of the costs side of the budget $227,600 ($107,600 plus the assumption of $120,000 coming from voluntary contributions).

R Cochetti confirmed that spending based on voluntary contributions would depend on amounts the NC will be able to raise.

Ph Sheppard inquired on any funds left from the year 2000 budget.

R. Cochetti responded that a substantive sum left as a reserve would provide a flexibility to the NC. All categories are based on assumptions for 2001: targets, spending classified by categories (budget Committee suggested that funds left from 2000 of $35000 be left in miscellaneous category).

K. Stubbs asked if there is a specific place where a pro-forma budget could be found and clearly see what items will fall into which category, mandated spending etc.

R. Cochetti said that the Budget report is on the list serve where the following general categories and corresponding amounts are listed:

-Administrative                         $12,000
-Telecommunications                     $18,100
-Travel                                 $25,500
-Web/Listserv/Maintenance               $30,000
-Webcasting                             $0
-LanguageTranslations                   $10,000
-Professional Services                  $12,000

Voluntary funding will cover professional support only.

Th. Swinehart requested that all links are regularly posted before the meetings, to facilitate the NC members search when preparing the meetings. Ph. Sheppard indicated this was current practice.

P. Kane remarked that some expenditure amounts look rather high and pointed out a difficulty in managing the voluntary part of the budget dedicated to employment of professional staff. The main difficulty lies in planning and forecasting.

R. Cochetti agreed that we do not know the level of voluntary contributions yet. Verisign will renew its offer to match $1 invested with $1 up to $100,000.

Ph. Sheppard summarised: the NC support to a cautious approach in setting its budget. Any available surplus will be put into reserves. The NonComm. and ISP Constituencies confirmed their promise to settle outstanding 1999 and 2000 dues soon and at the latest by the end of March.

P. de Blanc advisded that ccTLDs are making no payments before the contract with ICANN has been defined. He will make an attempt and propose to the constituency to separate DNSO contribution from overall discussion with ICANN. and ccTLDs, trying to come to an agreement to pay their fee by March.

R Cochetti insisted on a conservative approach, spending only money in hand.

P. Kane agreed to this concept, which ensures good contingency funds.

C. Chicoine, in reference to funds remaining from the 1999-2000 budget, said she was not in favour of giving any of it back because the NC in the past has relied on volunteers to fund certain activities such as conference calls.

K. Stubbs recalled a simple rule where any activity relies on a certain budget mechanism . We, therefore, need to ensure people?s commitment and put in place rather professional way of working ensuring basic working structure.

Ph. Sheppard agreed and stated that enforcement is being seen on various sides as necessary and as such is on the agenda of the Budget committee.

Th. Swinehart was in favour of taking a cautious approach and supported suggestions made by C. Chicoine and R. Cochetti.

Ph. Sheppard invited the NC to take a decision on DNSO budget as follows (K. Stubbs second):

Decision D1: The Names Council adopts a Budget Report submitted on January 24th comprising categories of spending, allocations of dues and the recommendation that due per Constituency for 2001 will amount to $15,371.

Decision was accepted by 12 votes in favour: P. de Blanc, E. Porteneuve (hesitated because of the ccTLDs current situation), O. Robles Garay, Ph.Sheppard, Th. Swinehart (calling for a establishing a management methods), E. Roberts, K. Stubbs, P. Kane, R Cochetti, C Chicoine, A. Aus des Mühlen (by proxy to C.Chicoine), G Carey.

Three abstentions: Y.J Park, D Vandromme (by proxy to YJ Park), and G. Forsyth. No votes against.

Agenda item 2: Review Process

Th. Swinehart recalled current status: the Interim report was posted for public comment on January 8th (closing date February 11th). All comments received will be incorporated and a report sent to ICANN Board. Current wording is a selection of analysis made and comments received. Next step will comprise a prioritisation process of items to be returned to the NC and be considered as a part of the DNSO Business Plan. A timetable will be re-circulated. The process was that the Board would look at the recommendations, and respond to the NC for implementation.

At this point Y.J. Park was invited by the Chair to speak on the WG Review and the way it will most efficiently fit into the whole process. Y.J. Park said that the WG is constructively organising discussions. Some input expected by February 11th, but more time is still needed. She asked the secretariat who is going to deal with the comments received after that deadline.

E. Porteneuve informed that all comments sent to the list are recorded.

Ph. Sheppard added that all comments received in time would be reviewed.

Y.J. Park asked about the transfer process of the recommendations coming out of the Review Process into DNSO Business Plan.

Ph. Sheppard clarified: he will be presenting the Business Plan to the NC at a future meeting. Review implementation is a part of the Business Plan. He also reminded the participants that the Review Task Force is composed of representatives of each Constituency: A. Aus der Muhlen, R. Cochetti, H. Hotta, P. KaneY.J. Park, E. Porteneuve, Th. Swinehart and GAChair R. Gaetano.

After some discussion it was agreed that Review implementation would be likely to require a new task force with new Terms of Reference.

Ph. Sheppard asked Y.J Park, if she does not see a difficulty in two-stream process:

As we are in presence of parallel activities addressing the same questions that could diminish impact of the message we want to pass.

Y.J. Park suggested that a convergent process could consist in WG Chair providing recommendations to the Board at the same time as the Task Force Chair at the Melbourne meeting.

Th. Swinehart pointed out that there is going to be an overall open ICANN comment period and she suggested using that channel for further input.

E. Roberts noted the need to stick to the process as defined, and suggested that comments were more likely to be effective if provided during the agreed public comment period. Any further comments by the WG should be provided during the next public comment period.

Ph. Sheppard suggested that all WG comments received after February 11th deadline, should be a part of the ICANN public comment process.

Y.J. Park said that more chance should be given to come up with more recommendations and reach a compromise.

E. Roberts suggested it would be more effective for the WG to contribute its further comments during the next public comment period.

C. Chicoine expressed another concern about the WG mandate, based on experience of previous WG activity. It should be made clear that this WG activity is not mandated by the NC and that no frustration should be felt if the impact of the WG conclusions is not as high as wished by its participants.

Decision D2: proposed by Ph. Sheppard, (Seconded Th. Swinehart): It was agreed that Th. Swinehart with Y.J. Park and the NC Chair would draft a communication to the WG to confirm the present timetable and that WG Review input NOT received by the DNSO by Feb 11 would form a part of the ICANN public comment period and that would complete the work of WG Review.

Agenda item 3: Establishment of an NC task force on WHOIS? Policy issues

P. Kane proposed setting up a task force to consider DNSO policy issues arising from the forthcoming ICANN WHOIS report .

At 14:56 R. Cochetti left a call hoping to rejoin a call later. He left a proxy to Ph. Sheppard and stated that in case of vote he was in favour of ccTLD constituency remaining a part of the DNSO.

E. Roberts noted that clear Terms of Reference must be provided for NC WG?s and asked what Terms of Reference are proposed.

P. Kane suggested ICANN might be asked to develop a website to publish the report and to be a focus for comments. He felt that any task force should comprise at least one representative per constituency.

E. Porteneuve questioned the approach. To have a substantial work done on WHOIS issue, we need a substantial material first such as the ICANN report and an analysis of the legal issues. She said she did not understand a procedure in recommending to ICANN to develop a website while WG procedures we have are quite clear.

P. Kane repeated he was proposing:

E. Porteneuve recalled that WG A used a similar approach by having a preliminary work done by WIPO.

C. Chicoine agreed that a bottom-up approach is needed but she also pointed out the necessity of involving experts in areas such as legal issues.

Ph. Sheppard asked Should members of each constituency belong to a preliminary team?

P. Kane responded: this decision should be left to the constituency itself.

15:08 R Cochetti rejoined the meeting.

E. Porteneuve underlined that we are facing an important preliminary work in setting up the Terms of Reference. As to a data protection issue we should make all the effort to allow participation from different countries.

Ph. Sheppard proposed P. Kane chair a committee and launches a call for nominations from the Constituency of its members.

G. Carey proposed that we should be integrating more people with expertise. Ph. Sheppard suggested that the committee comes up with some recommendations on that subject.

Th. Swinehart proposed to send to P. Kane literature on data protection issue.

Y.J. Park informed about the interest expressed by a group of people within Non-Commercial Constituency on December 13th to take part in such a committee work.

P. Kane stressed that at this preliminary stage only NC will participate and comments will later be requested from larger circles. He proposed that:

  1. the NC WHOIS Committee is to ask ICANN to create a web site and mailing list to solicit comments of substance on the ICANN (Staff) WHOIS Committee report and invite other interested groups to submit Position Papers for substantive comment on the web site and mailing list;
  2. The NC WHOIS Committee will assimilate the submitted Position Papers and comments to produce a report high-lighting areas of convergence and identify areas where more work may be necessary;
  3. Where additional work areas are identified the NC WHOIS Committee will prepare a Charter for consideration by the whole NC which may lead to the creation of a Task Force and or Working Group to work on the identified issues.

    The following motion moved by K. Stubbs (seconded by Th. Swinehart and E. Porteneuve):

    Decision D3: The NC will set up a Whois committee (with terms of reference as outlined above). This decision was unanimously adopted. No abstentions and no votes against.

    Agenda item 4: ccTLD relations with ICANN

    • Is the DNSO channel an adequate place for ccTLD ?
    • Shall ccTLD build up a separate organization within ICANN, such as an SO?
    • Shall ccTLD build up a separate organization outside of ICANN, such as an Advisory Group?

    P. de Blanc proposed to take an informal straw poll on a few questions, on ccTLDs, communicated to the NC members shortly before the meeting. A meeting between ICANN (M. Roberts, L. Touton) and the ccTLDs, recently held in Hawaii, brought up issues such as: funding, support to ICANN, relationship ICANN - ccTLDs, participation within ICANN Board (one third of ICANN budget paid by ccTLDs) a possibility of changing a current structure. It would therefore, be valuable to have simple opinions of the NC members.

    R. Cochetti said that he would be happy to answer those questions, if this does not imply NC action.

    C. Chicoine said she was uncomfortable with the procedure itself. She felt that constituency representatives are not so familiar with budgetary details and would need to be educated on these matters.

    Th. Swinehart agreed that more information is needed on the issue. She suggested a short summary could be drafted outlining the issues to enable the NC to make more relevant response.

    E. Roberts questioned the use and value of of a straw poll where NC members are not informed about the issues and the results will be minuted and may be taken to represent a considered position of the NC.

    K. Stubbs recognised the value in moving the subject from private discussions to public. An open discussion is needed in this confusing situation. He recalled that in the past the ccTLDs were not inclined to discuss those issues, impact of which is significant not only on a budget but also on relationship with registrars. We have to foster discussion now.

    R. Cochetti said that a casual conversation is acceptable and mentioned the possibility of creating a committee to tackle the issue.

    P. Kane felt uncomfortable in answering such questions while DNSO review process is going on. He therefore, urged the ccTLDs to submit their comments for inclusion for a review by the Board and enable us to move forward.

    At 15:32 Th. Swinehart left the call (proxy to Ph Sheppard)

    P. de Blanc emphasised the informal aspect of the discussion. ccTLDs will meet in Geneva on 19th February and in Melbourne, the day before ICANN meetings in March. There is a willingness to get the issues on the table and explore alternatives to $1,5 million contribution, a 30% of the $5M ICANN budget. Different levels of the ccTLDs contributions and the overall ccTLDs contributions, smaller or bigger, to the ICANN budget should also be considered.

    Y.J. Park pointed out that we have to highlight DNSO/ccTLD relationship, but need to learn more about the issue. We have to accommodate our agenda to ccTLDs issue, as this item has not been on the NC agenda before. Not tackling it might look irresponsible.

    K. Stubbs inquired if the Geneva meeting is only for ccTLDs administrators or also open to observers, as this would help a personal understanding of the ccTLD process and with discussions within ones own constituency.

    P. de Blanc informed that ICANN staff would have to decide on allowing observers in a meeting or not. The main subjects are presentations, made by ICANN and ccTLDs, aimed at finding a common ground and favouring participation of all parties, producing a position paper. Hopefully, we will have observers at that meeting and he suggested consulting M. Roberts on that.

    Ph. Sheppard summed up by thanking P. de Blanc for raising the issue and inviting him to send a proposal for a future agenda item to the Intake Committee. He asked for concise background information in advance of future discussion.

    Agenda item 5: New TLDs

    • Update on negotiations on new TLDs and explanation of means of charter enforcement

    As L.Touton could not attend this call due to his business commitments (public hearing), this item was deferred to the next meeting.

    Agenda item 6: Non-commercial constituency - results and implications of the constituency vote on four resolutions made at the constituency's Marina del Rey Meeting.

    D. Vandromme could not attend this call and the item was deferred to the next meeting.

    Agenda item 7: Request from GA for NC to consider an Individuals Constituency

    K. Stubbs clarified that the substance of the document referenced above (and described as a supporting document) was not in support of the request.

    Ph. Sheppard recalled that a discussion took place within the Review Task Force and WG to address this issue.

    At 15:45 K Stubbs had to go to another meeting and left a call

    Y.J. Park suggested forming a WG on the formation of new constituencies.

    E. Roberts expressed concern about the process and suggested the NC consider first:

    • the need,
    • a process to avoid a case-by-case approach,
    • the level of support and commitment to pay fees,
    • the issue of representation .

    C. Chicoine mentioned other concerns about the WG where everybody is making the best effort, but the problem faced is effectiveness representation.. Consensus based view is expressed solely by those having time to work.We need to focus on WGD final report.

    Ph. Sheppard stressed a need in defining clear objectives and a process for achieving them.

    P. Kane also objected to multiply WG process, suggesting that people where becoming loathe to participate as they felt lost in the noise and they had no voice in the process. He also proposed to wait until the review process comes up with some conclusions.

    Y.J. Park expressed her understanding of all those concerns, and suggested to wait for the WGD recommendations.

    Ph. Sheppard stressed that broader view is needed (B. Fausett is helping with this process). He hoped the NC could come up with the decision quickly.

    Agenda item 8: A.O.B.

    8.1 On behalf of the NC, Ph Sheppard welcomed Grant Forsyth a new representative of the Business Constituency, replacing Masanobu Katoh.

    8.2 Ph Sheppard forwarded K. Stubbs proposal to organise a NC dinner in Melbourne.

    E. Porteneuve informed that three receptions are already kindly organised by local hosts on 9th, 10th and 11th March.

    E. Roberts volunteered to make necessary arrangements for NC dinner to take place on the eve of the NC meeting and co-ordinate timing and venue with the relevant reception.

    8.3 Y.J. Park came back to a WGD issue: a report will go for public comment before final version is issued. This will cause delays in setting up a new individuals constituency. She therefore requested putting in place a fast track procedure.

    Ph. Sheppard said he would ensure WG D was on the agenda of the next meeting.

    8.4 P. Kane invited all NC members to forward to the Intake Committee proposals for agenda items of the next meeting as soon as possible.

    Ph Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked the NC members for their participation.

    Next NC teleconference will be held on 26 February 2001 at 22:00 (CET)

    Information from:
    © DNSO Names Council