ICANN/DNSO

DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 9 May 2001 - minutes


DNSO Names Council Teleconference 9th May 2001 Minutes

Proposed agenda and related documents: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010509.NCtelecon-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Peter de Blanc        ccTLD          
Elisabeth Porteneuve  ccTLD      (left meeting at 16:15, proxy to P. de Blanc)
Oscar Robles Garay    ccTLD      (attended intermittently - proxy to P.de Blanc)
Philip Sheppard       Business
Theresa Swinehart     Business              
Grant Forsyth         Business
Hirofumi Hotta        ISPCP      (resigned )
Tony Harris           ISPCP
Michael Schneider     ISPCP 
Erica Roberts         Registrars
Ken Stubbs            Registrars (left meeting at 15:54 - proxy to P. Kane then E. Roberts)
Paul Kane             Registrars (joined meeting at 15:48 - proxy to E. Roberts)
Roger Cochetti        gTLD                      
Caroline Chicoine     IP                           
Axel Aus der Muhlen   IP                           
Guillermo Carey       IP 
Milton Mueller        NCDNH                
Youn Jung Park        NCDNH
Vany Martinez         NCDNH      (absent, apology - proxy to Y.J. Park then M. Mueller)
Louis Touton          ICANN staff
Maca Jamin            Scribe

Quorum present at 15:07 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +2:00 during the summer in the Northern hemisphere)

Ph.Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference

Agenda item 1: Approval of the Agenda

The agenda was unanimously approved.

Agenda item 2: Approval of Summary of NC Meeting of 10th April 2001 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010410.NCtelecon-minutes.html

K. Stubbs moved a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by G. Forsyth:

Decision D1: The minutes of April 10th Meeting were approved unanimously by 18 votes in favour, no votes against and no abstentions.

Agenda item 3: NC Business update -reports from Interim Committee Chairs on first meetings and start of draft Terms of Reference

Ph. Sheppard invited the chairs to inform the NC on progress since Melbourne.

3.1 UDRP - C. Chicoine informed that an e-mail group was set up and first discussions started on:
- defining the terms of reference
- proposing a questionnaire.

Ph. Sheppard inquired if their work will focus on existing UDRP or will be following the changes proposed by the WIPO 2 process.

C. Chicoine informed that the group will tackle both issues including the impact of the WIPO-2 process where it might impact on the UDRP (e.g. personal names, geographical indications). They will provide an update at the Stockholm meeting.

On the question of outside expert involvement, Ph. Sheppard recalled that these interim committees were set up simply to define the terms of reference (and so carry out the action points of the business plan).These terms of reference might include proposals for outreach, consultation and expert help where necessary.

3.2 WHOIS - P. Kane (reporting later in the meeting). WhoIs committee is already a step ahead as the terms of reference have been defined. They are on the verge of soliciting comments on the WhoIs issue and preparing a paper for a broader consultation. They will provide an update at the Stockholm meeting.

3.3 International Names - Y.J Park informed that the interim committee has started drafting terms of reference and is reviewing a paper on methodology. She has received limited input to date. They will provide an update at the Stockholm meeting.

K. Stubbs reiterated the question about expert membership.

T. Swinehart recalled that the work done at this stage stays under the responsibility of the NC. The terms of reference may propose to delegate further work to an expert or an open working group.

G. Forsyth reminded the NC that there is no barrier to interim committee members talking to experts to assist them in their decision making.

P. de Blanc supported the idea of the interim committees remaining small to enable them to draft terms of reference quickly. E. Porteneuve was also in favour of this approach.

3.4 Review Implementation - Th. Swinehart informed that she had circulated sections 6.2 - 6.6 of the DNSO Business Plan to the interim committee and that a dialogue has started on the terms of reference. Results will be circulated early next week. They will provide an update at the Stockholm meeting.

M. Mueller inquired if there were a model terms of reference.

Ph. Sheppard explained that part of the interim committees' task is to producing terms of reference that could become models. Terms of reference in the past, for example for WGs, were typically over ambitious and imprecise.

C. Chicoine agreed with all the previous comments and reminded the NC that the terms of reference should at least comprise:
1. a mission statement
2. a process definition
3. an action plan.

Agenda item 4: preparation for June 2nd 2001 open meeting in Stockholm

Ph. Sheppard recalled that the next NC public meeting will be held in Stockholm on June 2nd from 14:00 until 17:00, after the morning GA meeting,.

It was agreed to exclude procedural matters from the agenda. Slots will be allocated to reports on the work of the Interim committees. Perhaps two other issues could be addressed. The NC was invited to consider two possible issues:
- alternate root (item to be discussed under item 5 of this meeting)
- new gTLDs implementation.

P.de Blanc was in favour of adding alternate root to the agenda.

K. Stubbs insisted that a clear understanding of the alternate root issue is needed first.

E. Roberts proposed other issues:
- code of conduct, presently discussed by registrars,
- consumer rights protection.

M. Mueller supported K. Stubbs viewpoint and proposed setting up a working group.

Th. Swinehart felt that an educational approach was best at this stage and proposed that the NC have a presentation on the technical issues.

R. Cochetti was not in favour of discussing alternate root but supported discussing consumer protection.

P. de Blanc insisted that due to the economic aspect of the issue alternate root be kept on the agenda. He stressed the importance for the NC to make known that it is not ignoring the subject.

Ph. Sheppard agreed to carry forward these suggestions to the intake committee to propose a final agenda.

Agenda item 5: Budget Committee recommendation

R. Cochetti addressed a recommendation for fund management and delegated financial authorities.

Ph. Sheppard asked if the relevant Budget committee approval of delegated expenditures should be by majority or unanimity.

R. Cochetti replied that the Budget Committee will only vote on expenditure which is already part of the agreed DNSO budget. He was reluctant to require a unanimous vote in case of petty disagreements. He confirmed that Chuck Gomes (gTLDs) sits as an observer on the Budget Committee and carries a proxy for R.Cochetti when required.

As to the question what role the Budget Committee will play after a DNSO secretariat had been appointed, R. Cochetti informed that its oversight role would be unchanged but there may be some administrative changes.

Decision D2: R. Cochetti moved the following resolution, seconded by P. de Blanc:

The Council authorizes the Budget Committee to:

(1) conclude a memorandum of understanding with ICANN management on behalf of the DNSO, under which ICANN management will serve as a custodian for the funds raised by voluntary donations to the DNSO; In such a custodial role, ICANN management will deposit and disburse funds as directed by the Council or its Budget Committee, unless ICANN management reports to both that doing so would in ICANN management's view either be illegal or jeopardize ICANN's own tax status; and

(2) begin immediately an effort to raise and collect voluntary donations to the DNSO, which donations will be administered through the above procedure; and

(3) authorize and direct individual expenditures from the donated funds described above, according to the terms of the 2001 DNSO budget approved by the Names Council, for up to $5,000.00. Any individual expenditure exceeding $5,000.00 will require authorization from the Names Council; and

(4) authorize and direct individual expenditures from assessed dues collected from DNSO Constituencies, according to the terms of the 2001 DNSO budget approved by the Names Council, for up to $5,000.00. Any individual expenditure exceeding $5,000.00 will require authorization from the Names Council; and

(5) report to the Council on expenditures on a monthly basis.

This resolution passed with 16 votes in favour, no votes against and 2 abstentions (Y.J. Park and V . Martinez by proxy).

Ph. Sheppard asked R. Cochetti to send a full text of the resolution by e-mail.

Agenda item 6: Alternative roots

Having produced a discussion paper on this subject, G. Forsyth was invited to start the debate. He proposed that certain principles should be taken into account and highlighted Principle 4 from his paper:

ICANN does need to actively mange the Internet space that it has responsibility for and the DNS within it, in order to maintain stability.

He mentioned the new.net problem and proposed consideration of a telephone numbering model.

M. Mueller stressed the complex nature of the issue, and on the difficulty in defining an alternate root because there is no uniform view within the technical community.

Th. Swinehart reiterated a need of getting some education on this issue by sharing others' experience. She was not in favour of creating a working group before the NC can be better briefed on the issue.

G. Forsyth made the following remarks:
- invited M. Mueller to accept other points of view,
- approved Th. Swinehart suggestion on sharing of experience,
- explained that his paper was an attempt, based on ICANN principles to lay-out a DNSO briefing on this subject.

E. Roberts stressed the educational aspect. The NC should fully play its advisory role to the Board, by producing an objective paper.

P. de Blanc was in favour of sending a message to the Internet community by presenting a briefing report in Stockholm, indicating that the NC is preparing an advice to the Board.

M. Mueller thought that the best way of being briefed on the issue would be to establish a working group. There was no support for such a move at this time. M. Mueller also considered the principles stated in G. Forsyth's paper as a good starting point for further debate.

Ph Sheppard summarised:
- need for a technical briefing
- need to distinguish between alternate roots and alternate names,
- need to make known that this issue is on the DNSO agenda.

It was agreed to set up an NC committee to prepare a briefing paper. The start point would be G. Forsyth's paper. Participants: G. Forsyth (chair), M. Mueller, T. Harris, P. de Blanc and K. Stubbs (notified participation after the meeting). The committee will define its terms of reference and report to the NC on progress at Stockholm.

Th. Swinehart asked that any paper destined for Stockholm be distributed to the NC in advance.

Agenda item 7: Final VeriSign Agreement- update

L.Touton informed the committee that the final text of the VeriSign agreement was submitted to the US Department of Commerce on 14 May 2001. ICANN is waiting for their response.

Agenda item 8: gTLDs Constituency

Due to time constraints this item was deleted.

Agenda item 9: Update on new TLDs

L.Touton informed that ICANN Board has approved agreements including minor changes, with .biz and. info. The agreements will be signed in the next few days. Additionally:
- accreditation of registrars is in progress (accredited .org registrars will be accepted),
- activities put in place to ensure the registration process works properly,
- following the signature, several weeks are needed before the new TLDs become operational. Dot info has indicated 45 days.

E. Roberts asked if the newly accepted gTLDs will join the gTLDs constituency immediately after signing the agreement with ICANN and if yes, will the Bylaws of the gTLDs constituency be finalised thus enabling election of the representatives to the NC .

R. Cochetti said that all applicants were informed about the gTLD constituency. Election of the NC representatives is expected to take place in June 2001. The gTLD Constituency is on a verge of expanding its membership and having three representatives on the NC. M. Mueller asked if it was correct that the gTLD procedures allow for NC members allocation to be a function of domain name registrations thus ensuring for the immediate future, a seat to VeriSign. R. Cochetti declined to comment.

Concerning further progress, L.Touton indicated there will be delays due to the heavy workload ICANN is facing in concluding agreements with five other gTLDs and 240 ccTLDs.

Agenda item 10: Update on the translation by ICANN of important documents

ICANN is currently assessing costs. It is a priority target and more details will be provided in Stockholm.

Agenda item 11: New registry contracts - means of enforcement, contingencies for failure

Due to time constraints this item was deleted.

Agenda item 12: Update on GA Chair election

Due to time constraints this item was deleted.

Agenda item 13: Any Other Business - GA lists

Ph. Sheppard expressed some concern as to process leading to the newly created GA mailing lists, set up on GA Chair request. The lists were established before the NC had a chance to approve them. He felt NC approval was needed as there is a cost implication (set up represented 20 hours of DNSO secretariat work and there is around 2 hours for daily maintenance). He proposed one practical cost saving would be closure on the under-used GA open list which duplicates the normal GA list. NC members agreed and P.Sheppard will talk with the GA chair on this.

E. Roberts agreed with the concern and pointed out that no information was given prior to a setting up of the lists as to their chair or moderator. She asked for the process to be clarified.

C. Chicoine requested that all expenses should clearly be stated.

Th. Swinehart underlined the extra workload this activity puts on the DNSO secretariat and felt that this work should be evaluated in light of all DNSO priorities.

Ph. Sheppard expressed concern about the coherence of the new GA lists with the NC Business Plan.

L.Touton reminded the NC that it is responsible for managing the consensus process.

Close

Ph. Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked Th. Swinehart for sponsoring the call.

17:15 end of call

Next public NC Meeting will take place on 2nd June 2001 in Stockholm.


Information from:
DNSO Names Council