ICANN/DNSO
|
|
4 April 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020404.NCteleconf-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Peter de Blanc or Elisabeth Porteneuve Philip Sheppard Business Marilyn Cade Business Grant Forsyth Business Greg Ruth ISPCP Antonio Harris ISPCP Tony Holmes ISPCP Philipp Grabensee Registrars Ken Stubbs Registrars Bruce Tonkin Registrars Roger Cochetti gTLD Richard Tindal gTLD Cary Karp gTLD Ellen Shankman IP Laurence Djolakian IP absent, apologies J. Scott Evans IP Harold Feld NCDNH absent, apologies Chun Eung Hwi NCDNH absent, apologies Erick Iriate NCDNH 17 Names Council Members Thomas Roessler invited as GA Chair Alexander Svensson invited as GA Alternate Chair Glen de Saint Géry NC Secretary Philippe Renaut MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020404.NCteleconf.mp3
Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during summer time in the northern hemisphere.
Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.
Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020404.NCteleconf-agenda.html
Philip
Sheppard proposed that the main task of the call was to go through the list of previously identified
topics and find areas of common agreement.
First there was a short discussion on the draft conclusions drawn from the first
discussion.
Comments on the draft version 4
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00042.html
Recommendations for change
were:
- mission: delete ICANN staff definition, add NC proposal (J Scott Evans / Cary Carp)
- mission creep: Delete "danger, add "potential"; add "additional" to "security and consumer protection";
- point in time: add a comment to recognise that ICANN's functions may change over time. Reflect this in the recommendation.
- ccTLD: change "such as" description in point 3 to that
recommended by Elizabeth Porteneuve
Agenda item 1. Funding
Short Term financing:
Ph.
Sheppard explained that due to the immediate funding crisis, this item has been
broken down into short and long term funding.
Marilyn Cade reported that participation in public outreach meetings by the Department of Commerce led to the current understanding that up to the night before last, the Regional IP Registries (RIRs) were refusing to pay the 1.4 million dollars owing for 1999, 2000, 2001. Because also certain ccTLDs had not contributed as expected in the ICANN budget, this has meant that ICANN has a significant shortfall and has left them with very low operating capital. The RIRs were reported to have just agreed to pay 50% of the 1.4 million dollars which will bring some relief to the situation.
Roger Cochetti explained that the shortfall for the last two years is based on numbering registries and ccTLDs related to the contract relations on both sides. Evidence of this is that the Numbering registries put the full amount owing to ICANN into escrow.
It was agreed that the NC should urge the funding parties to reach agreement
quickly to resolve this short term problem.
Long term
financing:
Ph. Sheppard explained that this means the stable and
ongoing funding for ICANN.
Roger Cochetti proposed that outside of the main source of income to ICANN
currently via Registrars and Registries, there is a potential for other source of
funds which includes:
- revenue from new ccTLD
applications,
- solicitations for donations
- meeting
fees.
Bruce Tonkin explained that today there is a fixed and a variable component in the
Registrar pricing structure. The variable component is related to the volume of
names registered. He proposed that there should be a
separation of ICANN functions, their respective budgets and a separation of
chargeable services and remaining activities. The Registrars are willing to increase the
amount given to ICANN. They recognise that the increase would be used to deal
with day to day issues, not so much for additional services, but for more
efficiency. This could even potentially lead to cost reductions for Registrars. Registrars and Registries view money paid to ICANN as operating expenses.
They believed that this should not be looked upon as the custodian of the Registrant's money, but
that they pay a fee for Registrar and Registry services. There was not agreement
on this last point.
Marilyn Cade informed the group that the during the Accra meetings
the Business Constituency had proposed that the stable funding of ICANN should
come from an agreed part of the Registrant domain name fee. This user fee could
be administered by the Registrars. Models of such a mechanism exist in areas
such as the self-regulation of advertising.
Ken Stubbs calculated that such a user fee would be small. Assuming an ICANN
budget of USD10 million and 40 million names, implies a fee of just US 25
cents.
Elisabeth Porteneuve drew attention to the fact that ccTLDs and gTLDs do not
operate in the same framework, are quite different and cannot be
compared. Thus any services from a more efficient ICANN is going to have less
impact on a ccTLD than on a gTLD.
It was proposed that a distinction should be made between ccTLDs that are operating
based on their geographic origin and those that are marketed as gTLDs.
Ph. Sheppard made the
following conclusions on which there was general agreement.
1. Without going into the mechanism of how it flows
the revenue stream in the Registry, Registrar, Registrant system, which is mostly derived from
gTLDs should provide ICANN core funding.
2. In addition there was
potential for secondary and supplementary sources of funds including the cctlds,
voluntary contributions and fees for specific services.
3. Budgeting should be based on certainty and specific functions but there
should be no cherry-picking of services leaving other important ICANN functions
under-funded.
4. With the exception of meeting or secretariat fees, revenues for ICANN should
not come from governments.
Agenda item 2. Advisory Bodies
Ph. Sheppard introduced this saying that one major difference in the Lynn
proposal and the present situation, is the link with the
constituencies. Today constituencies elect the NC and the NC seeks policy
consensus and elects some board members. This direct link in participation is broken in the
proposed system.
Thomas Roessler proposed an improved way of policy
development with a task force structure:
-involve different constituencies and other groups as needed
- coordination by an independent, qualified, professional, neutral staff
person who would be responsible for written reports and strict
timelines.
Ph. Sheppard asked for the Names Council view on the
difference between the process today, which is a bottom-up, binding consultation
process, to the Lynn model proposal which is an advisory consultation body.
The views expressed:
Conclusion:
There is broad agreement among the Names Council
members that the existing model is the right one, but that there is room for
improvement. The Task Force model for policy building is also desirable and
would be improved greatly with dedicated staff support.
The Names Council
continues to endorse the ccTLDs desire to form its own
Supporting Organisation and still favours a separate ccTLD organisation in
whatever new ICANN there is.
The teleconference ended at 17:10
Next NC teleconference will be held on Thursday 18 April at 15:00 Paris time, UTC 14:00 and focus on Board Composition and participation.
| Information from: |
© DNSO Names
Council |