DNSO Names Council, 11 March 2001, Melbourne, Australia - minutes

13 March 2001

DNSO Names Council March 11, 2001 Melbourne, Australia

These notes are a record of the decisions of the meeting and should be approved by the NC. Further detail is available from the notes of the real time scribe.


  1. Peter de Blanc (ccTLD)
  2. Elisabeth Porteneuve (ccTLD)
  3. Oscar Robles Garay (ccTLD)
  4. Guillermo Carey (IP) (Proxy for Aus der Muhlen, Chicoine)
  5. Youn Jung Park (NCDNHC) (Proxy for Mueller)
  6. Vany Martinez (NCDNHC)
  7. Paul Kane (Registrars)
  8. Ken Stubbs (Registrars)
  9. Erica Roberts (Registrars)
  10. Hirofumi Hotta (ISPCP)
  11. Tony Harris (ISPCP)
  12. Michael Schneider (ISPCP)
  13. Grant Forsyth (Business)
  14. Theresa Swinehart (Business)
  15. Philip Sheppard (Business)
  16. Roger Cochetti (gTLD)

1. Business Plan



Decision to form interim group: Carey (chair), Stubbs, Park.


Decision to postpone interim committee until first representative from a new gTLD is appointed to NC and to review this decision at the Stockholm meeting if no such appointment has been made by then.


Interim committee has already been formed: Kane (chair), Park, Robles, Aus der Muhlen, Schneider, Swinehart, Cochetti.


Action lies with the ccTLD constituency to inform the NC.

Multilingual Domain Names

Decision to form interim committee: Park (chair), Forsyth, IPC rep to be nominated.


Decision to form interim committee: Swinehart (chair), Mueller, Roberts, Harris, Carey.

NC Secretariat

A search committee has already been formed: Roberts (chair), Gomes, Porteneuve.


The NC budget committee has already been formed: Cochetti (chair), Park, Roberts, de Blanc, Porteneuve, Schneider.

Decision D1:

The Names Council adopts the business plan 2001-2002 as presented and amended proposed: Sheppard, seconded: Roberts. Approval all present except Martinez who abstains.

2. Budget Committee


a) Invoices for constituency fees are to be sent out by ICANN for 2001.

b) ICANN staff requested to find a consultant to hire the technical/organisational entity to be the new secretariat. Maximum cost for this is $5000 as specified within the $12000 budget item previously approved for professional services. Suggestions by NC members welcome latest 19 March.

c) Decision D2:

The Names Council authorises the budget committee to spend up to $15000 to cover the continuation of secretarial, website and related service for the period April 1 — June 30. Proposed: Cochetti, seconded: Roberts. All in favour with Kane abstaining.

d) The NC requested the budget committee to ensure completion of the work of the consultant and the hiring of a new organisation as secretariat by end June 2001.

e) The start of the work of the search committee to recruit a person as NC secretary is contingent upon the start of the call for voluntary funds to match the $100000 fund proposed by Verisign. That call is contingent upon the establishment of a bank account for such funds. The Budget committee is still discussing the choice between using ICANN as the host for such an account or establishing an independent corporation. The NC chair directs the budget committee to make a recommendation to the regular NC meeting scheduled in April.

3. Verisign Agreement

Sims presentation: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/presentations/simms-verisignagrmts.html

See also http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm

See also white paper (no mention of separating registry and registrar) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm but was in green paper.

Decision D3:

1. The new proposed Verisign-NSI/ICANN Agreement published last week represents a substantive policy change and involves a fundamental shift in the structure of competition. The proposed change comes as a surprise and is a source of significant concern to many stakeholders.

2. Such a change would require careful consideration by the DNSO constituencies and the Internet community. It cannot be considered except in accordance with due process allowing a reasonable time for the constituencies to consider and comment on the proposed changes.

3. The ICANN Board should not be precipitated into any decision until full consideration has been given to this issue in accordance with ICANN’s procedures and the DNSO consultation process

Proposed: Schneider, seconded: Forsyth. The motion was carried with Gomes against; Stubbs, Swinehart, Carey abstaining (and Chicoine, Aus der Muhlen via Carey’s proxy).

4. ICANN Consultation Periods

Peter de Blanc's statement proposed to the NC.

There have been occasions where ICANN Staff publishes out documents while constituents are in transit on the way to meetings. Examples include GAC letter, status quo document, NSI-ICANN contract revision proposal, etc.

This practice does not allow proper time for consultation and comment, particularly for non-native English speakers. Some colleagues have privately expressed a feeling that this practice may be deliberate, particularly since it seems to repeat itself at each physical meeting.

While we can understand that the urgencies of the moment do not always allow for long lead times, and that ICANN is, in general, understaffed, the DNSO needs to address this issue in a pro-active manner.

This communiqué from the NC to the ICANN staff may help to alleviate the frustration of the constituency members affected by this practice. We encourage the ICANN staff to manifest an increased level of sensitivity in this area in the future.


Due to time constraints the following items are postponed until the regular April meeting: New Registry Contracts, Non-ICANN TLDs.

Information from:
© DNSO Names Council