7 July 2001.
Scribe version amended v.1 (4th July 2001), corrections added, URL to minutes fixed
Proposed agenda and related documents: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010629.NCtelecon-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD (left the meeting early, proxy to P. de Blanc Philip Sheppard Business Marilyn Cade Business (new BC representative replacing Theresa Swinehart - left the meeting early proxy to G Forsyth) Grant Forsyth Business Greg Ruth ISPCP Antonio Harris ISPCP Tony Holmes ISPCP Erica Roberts Registrars Ken Stubbs Registrars (left the meeting early, proxy to P.Kane) Paul Kane Registrars Roger Cochetti gTLD Richard Tindal gTLD (absent apologies, proxy to R. Delgado) Rosa Delgado gTLD Caroline Chicoine IP Axel Aus der Muhlen IP (absent, apologies) Guillermo Carey IP (absent, apologies, proxy to C. Chicoine) Milton Mueller NCDNH Youn Jung Park NCDNH Vany Martinez NCDNH (left the meeting early, proxy to Y.J. Park ) Louis Touton ICANN staff Maca Jamin Scribe
Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +2:00 during the summer in the Northern hemisphere)
Ph. Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference
He welcomed Marilyn Cade, a new BC representative, replacing Theresa Swinehart.
Agenda item 1: Approval of the Agenda
Ph. Sheppard suggested adding the following item before the item 4: NC representation on NC Task Force Committees
Including this change the agenda was unanimously approved.
Agenda item 2: Approval of Summary of NC Meeting of 9th May 2001
Agenda item 3: Approval of summary of 2nd June 2001 meeting
K. Stubbs moved a motion to approve both summaries, seconded by R. Cochetti:
Decision D1: The minutes of May 9th and June 2nd were approved unanimously, no votes against ,no abstentions.
Agenda item 4: NC Representation on NC Task Force Committees
Ph. Sheppard invited the Council to continue a discussion, already started on the e-mail list, concerning the gTLD Constituency proposal to appoint non-NC members to participate in NC task forces and committees. NC practice to date had been to allow the one-member gTLD constituency to appoint nominees. Even though the gTLD constituency is now three member, they have expressed interest in continuing with the practice (which would therefore extend to all constituencies).
R. Delgado said she liked the idea to be able to nominate experts.
R. Cochetti recalled there were no formal prohibitions to non-NC member participation. He suggested that it should be the Constituency, and not the NC representative, who designate a nominee.
P. Kane asked what was a difference between the NC task force and broader working group.
R. Cochetti responded that the task force is meant to be composed of designated membership and WG open to all participants.
M. Mueller expressed NCDNH support to gTLD's proposal because of limited resources and felt that getting active participation was key.
M. Cade cautioned that selection and representation was important.
K. Stubbs insisted that we should ensure a minimum representation of the NC members, notably because of the necessary communication between the NC and those groups
E. Roberts proposed that
- each Chair of the task force be a NC member
- chair provides reports to the NC on each meeting to ensure a link and communication between the NC and its task force
E. Porteneuve recalled the Bylaws in particular requirements on geographical and regional diversity.
L. Touton inquired on committees to whom NC has delegated some authority and the way this will be handled.
Discussion clarified semantics and sketched some solutions:
- a clear distinction to be made between two subgroups
1. with delegated authority (a committee) - NC would delegate authority to a committee on a "housekeeping" work comprising NC members only and be chaired by a NC member
2. with no- delegated authority (a task force): main purpose to make recommendations
- mechanisms to ensure we integrate people who can help to move a work forward and bring required expertise, should be put in place
Ph. Sheppard proposed to draft a simple set of rules and circulate it by e-mail to the NC members for further discussion. The work is to be accomplished rapidly.
Agenda item 5: IDN TF formation and action
Ph. Sheppard recalled a composition of the IDN task force:
G. Forsyth, G.Carey, P. Kane, G. Ruth, R. Tindal (or nominee R. Lindsay), YJ Park
In absence of a Chair, he invited G. Forsyth to be a spokesman for that group and inform the Council on its achievements. G. Forsyth said that mailing list was set up by E. Porteneuve.
Agenda item 6: Review TF formation and action
Ph. Sheppard informed the Council that a task force activity has started with 6 constituencies' represented out of 7 (a ccTLD representative has not been nominated). The TF will do its work via a web based forum known to peter de Blanc in order to evaluate such a forum for wider use.
Agenda item 7: dot org -constituency first thoughts, agreement to board referral, next steps
Ph. Sheppard recalled the Board resolution:
Resolved [01.71] that the Board refers to the Names Council for its consideration the issues raised by the scheduled transition of the operation of the .org top-level domain from VeriSign to a new entity, including at least:
(a) whether to select an existing entity to succeed VeriSign as responsible for operation of the .org TLD, or to establish a new entity;
(b) the characteristics of the entity to be selected or established;
(c) selection criteria for the entity or its organizers;
(d) principles governing its relationship with ICANN (sponsored or unsponsored TLD, term of operation, etc.); and
(e) policies for the entity's operation of the .org top-level domain (to the extent they are not to be established by the entity).
Further resolved [01.72] that the Names Council is requested to provide a report on its progress on the issues referred by resolution 01.71, including any policy recommendations it has developed, no later than 12 October 2001; and
Further resolved [01.73] that the report will then be posted for public comment in advance of ICANN's third annual meeting in November 2001.
Further to this resolution, the NC was asked by the ICANN Board to be a part of the dotORG process.
To begin with, all constituencies were invited to bring input based on their members' requirements. The Council members informed on any outcome of this process.
- gTLDs - R. Cochetti informed that a discussion was opened but no conclusions available yet. He offered to answer any technical question the constituencies might have on this subject;
- ISP - T. Holmes had no return on a request;
- ccTLDs - P. de Blanc had not received any input but is still hoping to get some responses;
- Registrars - K. Stubbs stressed registrar's willingness to participate actively in this discussion. He had no input and was expecting a higher level of involvement;
- NCDNH - M. Mueller said that his constituency would be pleased to chair a task force on this subject and work actively with other constituencies. He referred to an early NCDNH report (see annex 1) and hoped that dot org positioning could be achieved by promotion not restriction.
- IP - C. Chicoine had no report available yet;
- BC - Ph. Sheppard said that some business are actively using the dot org site as their prime site and would not wish to give it up. Other businesses have a number of dot org defensive registrations to prevent bad faith use of their name. These companies would be willing to give the names away if there was a 100% guarantees that their names will not be used in a bad faith. M. Cade stressed that many businesses are using dotORG for non-commercial purposes such as charitable foundations.
G. Forsyth agreed with the NCDNH that it would be best not to impose restrictive rules but define dotORG in the way that it is promoted.
E. Porteneuve reminded that dotORG is used by all of us as domain for associations and as such should be considered as important.
M. Mueller felt sympathetic with those asking for guarantees in dotORG against bad faith use, but stressed that UDRP as such is an efficient tool and recalled a low percentage of disputes in dotORG.
Concerning a deadline set by the Board to receive this input, L. Touton informed that the interim report from DNSO is expected before November meeting to enable final report be published by the first meeting of 2002.
Ph. Sheppard proposed forming a task force to lead further work on this subject. M. Mueller volunteered to represent the NCDNH. Other Constituencies will be given 7 days to nominate their own representatives. Once complete the TF will elect a Chair.
Agenda item 8: TLDs - Board Referral and proposal from gTLDs
Process for Monitoring and Evaluation of New TLD Program
Whereas, in resolution 01.60, the Board directed "the President to prepare and present to the Board at its Stockholm meeting in June 2001 a proposal to form a committee to recommend processes for monitoring the implementation of the new TLDs and evaluating the new TLD program, including any ongoing adjustments of agreements with operators or sponsors of new TLDs;"
Whereas, the President has recommended to the Board the formation of a New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force chaired by the President and consisting of members selected with the advice of the Names and Protocol Councils and the Chairs of the IETF, IAB, and ICANN DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee;
Resolved [01.74], the Board directs the President to form and chair a New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force, for the purpose of recommending to the Board and the broader Internet community, by means of a report to be discussed at ICANN's Montevideo meeting in September 2001:
(a) a plan for monitoring the introduction of new TLDs and for evaluating their performance and their impact on the performance of the DNS. This assessment should focus in technical, business, and legal perspectives and rely on data gathered as part of the contractual arrangements with the new TLDs as well as other data inputs that can be readily secured; and
(b) a schedule on which a plan should be executed.
In light of the proposal from the Board for a TLD planning group, the gTLD proposal was withdrawn.
V. Martinez left the meeting at 16:25 CET , proxy to Y.J Park
Louis Touton said that the purpose of this task force is to recommend how the process of evaluation should be monitored and bring together people who understand business, legal and technical aspects. He insisted that this TF is not going to evaluate new TLDs but provide indication how to best monitor the evaluation process itself. Its main role, as a consultative body, is to work with others such as IETF.
M. Cade had to leave the meeting at 16:30 , proxy to G. Forsyth
Ph. Sheppard summarised action:
- all seven constituencies are requested if they wish to nominate up to two people;
- the deadline for nominations is 12th July;
- a maximum 14 candidates of which probably four will be chosen, will be forwarded by Ph. Sheppard to Stuart Lynn.
Agenda item 9: UDRP interim group recommendations (see annex2)
C. Chicoine commented the 'Terms of Reference' as finalised in the enclosed document (annex 2)
The first step will be to form an expert task force who will draft and publish a questionnaire. This will be widely disseminated to gather public opinion in a structured way. Simultaneously, task force will look at outside studies in order to incorporate the largest possible expertise in a report, expected to be tabled in early November and presented at the meeting in LA. On M. Mueller's request to include experts not aligned with ICANN process, C. Chicoine responded that academics and independent legal experts will be associated to this work. She also stated that all participants of initial UDRP drafting team will be excluded from this process (R. Cochetti, K. Kleiman, R. Rodin….)
O. Robles left the meeting at 16:35, proxy to P. de Blanc
M. Mueller thanked C. Chicoine for the excellent work she has done and a fair approach enabling all parties to express their opinion. Nevertheless, he expressed a procedural point: each time faced with setting up of a new committee, we are re-inventing the wheel. To ensure efficiency and a rapid progress, a standardised procedure for this type of committees should be sought.
Ph. Sheppard responded that all different processes are attempts to find the best model for our action. Once such a model had been found, it will certainly be applied in a standardised manner.
He moved then the motion, seconded by P de Blanc:
Decision D2: UDRP Interim Group recommendations were accepted with two additional items:
- all individual that had participated in a drafting of the original UDRP should be excluded from this process;
- an independent expert as an additional TF member.
This motion was passed with 18 votes in favour, no votes against and one abstention (Y.J. Park)
Y.J. Park expressed concern on creating a global consensus.
C. Chicoine responded that the widely distributed questionnaire will enable public to participate and a task force will come up with the recommendations based on the comments received.
Y.J. Park reiterated the need for public comment.
Agenda item 10: Call for Sponsors Feedback
R. Cochetti reported on Budget Committee action concerning fund-raising campaign. VeriSign is willing to match any funds raised up to $100 000. Note about fund rising has been distributed (see annex 3). He invited the NC members to be persuasive in soliciting donations.
Ph. Sheppard underlined that smaller contributions are most welcome and invited all participants to encourage contributions within their constituencies.
K. Stubbs added that this is an ideal opportunity for GA members to contribute to the DNSO work and asked a letter be sent to the GA Chair requesting a relevant message be forwarded to the GA list.
K. Stubbs had to leave a meting at 16:45, proxy to E. Roberts
Agenda item 11: Call for Secretariat feedback
E. Roberts informed the NC that a composition of the Search Committee was modified as follows:
- E. Porteneuve stepped down during the evaluation phase.
- There were problems experienced by members of the Search Committee in reaching V. Martinez by e-mail. The NC has now been informed of an alternative e-mail address.
- Ph Sheppard joined to replace members unable to participate.
She outlined main parts of the report (see annex 4): progress, selection and evaluation methodology and establishment of a contract.
A Consultant, Ian Peter, is managing this process. Eight responses to the DNSO RFP were received. A Search Committee will meet on 5th July with the consultant to consider candidates. It will send recommendations, together with a documentation of submitted proposals, to the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee will then forward a recommendation to the NC who may make the appointment and authorise ICANN to proceed to contract. L. Touton was asked to forward to the Search Committee a template for the contract.
Agenda item 12: Status WHOIS Survey
P. Kane read the following resolution:
The Whois Committee of the ICANN Names Council is coordinating a consultation process concerning Whois services presently provided in connection with the domain-name registration system. The current consultation process is due to conclude on the 31st July 2001 and more information may be found at http://www.icann.org/dnso/whois-survey-en-10jun01.htm
The Names Council notes that its consultation process raises issues that may be relevant to the policy areas concerning which the Address and Protocol Supporting Organizations are primarily responsible and that coordination among the supporting organizations may be beneficial. The Names Council would welcome collaboration with the Address and Protocol Supporting Organizations and invites the Address Council and the Protocol Council to contribute to the assessment of the Whois system and the development of policy recommendations in such a manner as they deem appropriate.
He stated that he would like to have the NC approval to set up collaboration with other SOs in order to complete this process. A survey questionnaire is already available in English, French and German. Spanish, Japanese and Russian versions will be posted soon.
M. Mueller had no objection to that as long as this collaboration does not concern policy issues.
E. Porteneuve found it extremely appropriate to establish links with other SOs on this particularly important subject.
Ph. Sheppard moved the motion, seconded by E. Porteneuve :
Decision D3: The following resolution was unanimously passed with no votes against and no abstentions:
'The Names Council notes that its consultation process raises issues that may be relevant to the policy areas concerning which the Address and Protocol Supporting Organizations are primarily responsible and that coordination among the supporting organizations may be beneficial. The Names Council would welcome collaboration with the Address and Protocol Supporting Organizations and invites the Address Council and the Protocol Council to contribute to the assessment of the Whois system and the development of policy recommendations in such a manner as they deem '.
Agenda item 13: AOB
13.1 Next NC teleconference
Ph. Sheppard recalled that the next meeting is scheduled for August 16th and asked if, due to a holiday period, the Council members will still be able to attend. T. Holmes informed that he would not be available.
E. Roberts reminded that it would be most appropriate to have this meeting in order to discuss appointment of the DNSO secretariat before the Montevideo meeting, to take place on September 8th 2001.
Decision D4: The Council decided to hold its next meeting on August 16th.
13.2 gTLDs representative on NC
R. Delgado informed the Council that this was her last meeting and that from 1st July 2001, Cary Karp was designated to represent sponsored gTLDs on the NC for a two-year term.
Ph. Sheppard thanked Rosa for her constructive and efficient contribution to the NC work.
13.3 Update on new gTLD contracts
Asked by P. Kane on a status of gTLDs contracts, L. Touton informed the Council that there was no news yet.
13.4 Posting of meeting documents
E. Porteneuve reminded the NC members of the seven day deadline for posting documents prior to a meeting. She invited Council to respect this.
Ph. Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked R. Cochetti and VeriSign for sponsoring the call.
17:05 end of call
Next NC teleconference will take place on 16th August 2001 at 15:00 CET.
NCDNH thoughts on dotORG
1. The Noncommercial Domain Name Holders Constituency has a greater stake in the future of ORG than any other DNSO constituency.
2. <under discussion>
3. We oppose any evictions or refusals to renew names currently registered in ORG.
4. "While we urge that ".org" remain an unrestricted TLD, we do favor identifying other ways to maintain the non-commercial identity of ORG. These may include policies related to marketing and promotion strategies targeting non-commercial users, and may include a recommendation that ICANN select (in consultation with the NCDNHC) a broad-based non-commercial "partnership entity" to act in a sponsoring or advisory capacity.
5. While the .ORG must, of course, remain a TLD for traditional non-commercial organizations and non-profits, it must also be seen as a TLD to support individuals, households, and unincorporated
6. <under discussion>
7. The entity chosen by ICANN as the registry must show its commitment to a high quality of service for non-commercial organizations, individuals, and all .ORG users worldwide, including a commitment to making registration, assistance and others services available in different time zones and different languages.
8. While "restricted" TLDs may play a role in the future development of the TLD space, we believe that .org's history of accessibility and openness, combined with the difficulties of establishing a globally acceptable definition of "non commercial", makes restrictions on registration a poor fit for .org in the future. We urge that .org continue its status as an unrestricted TLD.
9. The NCC urges ICANN to create additional TLDs devoted to civil liberties, NGOs, and cultural entities, among others, as soon as possible, and to ensure that the re-delegation of .org does not
distract from this process.
UDRP Review and Evaluation
Terms of Reference
The ICANN Board resolved at its October 24, 1999 special meeting to proceed with the implementation of a uniform dispute resolution policy (UDRP) set forth in its Resolution 99.81 using the implementation documents approved in its Resolution 99.112 (see http://www.icann.org/minutes/ minutes-24oct99.htm).
The ICANN Board further resolved that the President and General Counsel of ICANN monitor the ongoing operation of the administrative dispute-resolution mechanism described in Paragraph 4 of the UDRP and to make such adjustments to the UDRP's implementation from time to time as they determine appropriate, including adjustments to the terms and extent of provisional approval of dispute-resolution service providers.
The DNSO Names Council has since adopted in its 2001-2002 business plan a review and evaluation of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, and the establishment of an Interim Committee to propose terms of reference for an NC task force or other group to conduct such review and evaluation (see http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001-02.NCbusinessplan.html). The interim committee consists of the following Names Council members: Caroline Chicoine (IP), Milton Mueller (NCDNH), Oscar Alejandro Robles Garay (CCTLD), Miriam Sapiro (gTLD) and Ken Stubbs (Registrar). The interim committee has met via e-mail and their discussions are archived at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/tor-udrp/Arc00/maillist.html. Based on these discussions, the Interim Committee proposes the following UDRP review and evaluation schedule:
June 29 - August 14
The interim committee shall constitute a Task Force to create a questionnaire to solicit public comment through a bottom up, consensus-building DNSO process regarding various aspects of the existing UDRP. The Task Force shall work on the basis of consensus and not majority vote. However, to the extent no consensus can be reasonably reached on an item, majority vote shall rule with all dissenting views being made of record.
The interim committee shall solicit one individual from each of the following interest groups to be a part of this Task Force:
Complainant (or representative)
Respondent (or representative)
GA Member not already included in any of the above groups
Independent ADR expert
Independent academic expert
The Task Force shall exclude any participant of the drafting committee constituted by ICANN to draft the UDRP . Once constituted, the Task Force shall seek a volunteer to Chair the Task Force. If only one individual volunteers, he or she will be deemed the Chair. If more than each member of the Task Force shall cast one vote for one of the volunteers with the person receiving the most votes being deemed the Chair.
The questionnaire shall be created with an eye toward identifying potential areas for reform, including without limitation:
· forum shopping
· publication of complaints and answers
· reverse domain name hijacking
· quality of decisions
· speed of decisions
· precedential affect of decisions within and outside of UDRP
· continuity of decisions among and within panels
· res judicata effect of decisions within and outside the UDRP
· requirements for bad faith (i.e., domain name registration and/or use)
· fairness of Provider's supplemental rules
· ability to amend complaint
While the questionnaire will be in English, to the extent feasible, the Task Force will attempt to have it translated in other languages.
August 15 - September 15
Questionnaire submitted to public for response at least via ICANN's website, and via each UDRP provider's website where permitted.
August 15 - October 31
Task Force reviews results of questionnaire, as well as any third party studies directed to the UDRP including without limitation the Syracuse University study, the Max Plank Institute study and the Rose Communication study. Based on the results of the questionnaire and those studies, the Task Force shall prepare a Report summarizing the areas identified as needing reform and the recommendations to implement such reform. Again, the Task Force will attempt to translate this Report from English into as many other languages as possible.
November 1- November 11
The Task Force's Report forwarded to Names Council for review.
Names Council votes on Report at ICANN's annual meeting in Los Angeles.
November 13 - December 13
Task Force creates implementation schedule.
DNSO FUND-RAISING EFFORTS
As you know, after quite a few months of preparation, we are now about to launch the fund-raising efforts for voluntary donations to the DNSO. These funds, which will be matched by donations from VeriSign Global Registry Services for up to $100,000, are primarily designed to cover the costs of providing professional support to the Names Council. Without them, baring any other changes, we will continue to operate on a primarily volunteer basis.
The purpose of this note is to alert you to the fact that the fund-raising effort will now begin and ask that you raise this with all of the members of your Constituency. A fund-raising document is attached. Contributions, which are tax deductible in the United States, should be made payable to "ICANN DNSO ACCOUNT" and mailed to ICANN. Alternatively, donors may wire transfer their donations as follows:
Information for wire transfer to ICANN account:
Account number 09146-11724
Routing indicator 121000358
Bank of America Branch 0914
4754 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA
When making wire transfers, please send tracking information to
Raising money for the operation of the DNSO and the Names Council is important. I think that we all agree that our ability to operate successfully is hindered by our all-volunteer support and that increased professional support is necessary to our success. While I know that many businesses and organizations -including many large businesses who benefit greatly form the successful operation of the domain names system- will claim that they have no funds available for such donations, if each organization/person who attends Names Council meetings would only donate one fifth of the amount of money that they spend on travel and entertainment for ICANN meetings to this effort, we will be amply funded.
Please ask each of your members to make a contribution and help us push them a little on this.
DNSO SEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
Erica Roberts - Chair
Elisabeth has indicated that she in involved in a response to the RFP and has withdrawn from the evaluation process.
Vany has been out of contact and her emails are bouncing.
Phillip recently joined the Committee following a request from the Chair for a replacement for members unable to participate in the evaluation and selection process.
Ian Peter and Associates are managing the selection process and will report to the Search Committee on their evaluation of applicants. Ian will also be available to respond to any queries and provide guidance required by committee members.
1. The RFP for providers of DNSO Secretariat services (currently provided by Elisabeth/AFNIC) has now closed.
2. Eight responses have been received and are currently being evaluated by Ian Peter and Associates.
3. The evaluation and recommendations of Ian Peter and Associates will be forwarded to members of the Search Committee early next week (no later than Tue, 2 Jul).
4. The Search Committee is scheduled to meet on Thu next week (5 Jul) to consider the report of Ian Peter and Associates and determine its recommendation(s) for appointment.
5. The recommendation of the Search Committee will be submitted to the NC Budget Committee, which, in its turn, will submit a recommendation for appointment to the NC.
6. The appointee will be offered a consultancy contract and it is expected that a standard form contract will be used (with deliverables included in the contract schedule). ICANN, acting on behalf of the NC, will be the contract signatory.
1. The RFP was divided into two Sections. The first Section relates to the role of the person or persons undertaking the tasks of the Manager, DNSO Information and Technical Services. The second Section relates to the ISP services required to support our information and technical requirements (e.g. Web hosting, list servers, email, etc).
2. The role of Manager is considered as critical and, for this reason, completion of Section 1 of the RFP was mandatory. Applicants were also invited to bid for the supply of ISP services but, because these services are readily available on standard commercial terms, completion of this Section was optional. The NC reserved the right not to appoint any supplier of ISP services through this process.
3. Selection of Information Manager:
a. All selection criteria are considered mandatory and providers who fail to satisfy any of the criteria will be rejected as unsuitable.
b. Where fees are in excess of $7,000 pm applicants will be rejected as unsuitable;
c. Evaluation is made against objective selection criteria.
d. The person considered the best candidate for this position will be recommended for appointment.
4. Selection of Internet Services Provider: The selection process will follow the same principles as above. However, it is open to the Search Committee not to accept any applicants but to appoint a commercial ISP if this is deemed a more appropriate and cost effective approach. Ian Peter and Associates will indicate key options and issues for consideration by the Search Committee including sponsorship issues.
5. Ian Peter is available to attend the meetings of the Search Committee and respond to any queries from Committee members.
The Search Committee has sought ICANN guidance and assistance on the most appropriate contractual arrangements and a copy of the standards consultancy contract used by ICANN. However, no response from ICANN has so far been received and follow up on this issue is required.
||© DNSO Names Council