DNSO Names Council Teleconference 18 April 2002 - minutes
19 April 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents
List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Elisabeth Porteneuve Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Elisabeth Porteneuve Philip Sheppard Business Marilyn Cade Business Grant Forsyth Business Greg Ruth ISPCP Antonio Harris ISPCP absent, apologies, proxy to Tony Holmes Tony Holmes ISPCP Philipp Grabensee Registrars absent, apologies Ken Stubbs Registrars Bruce Tonkin Registrars Roger Cochetti gTLD Richard Tindal gTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Roger Cochetti Cary Karp gTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Richard Tindal, Roger Cochetti Ellen Shankman IP Laurence Djolakian IP J. Scott Evans IP Harold Feld NCDNH Chun Eung Hwi NCDNH Erick Iriate NCDNH absent apologies 14 Names Council Members Thomas Roessler invited as GA Chair Alexander Svensson invited as GA Alternate Chair Glen de Saint Géry NC Secretary Alix Guillard MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020418.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
The Chair added an item: an extra call before the April 29 deadline.
The agenda was approved.
Agenda item 1: Approval of the previous two meeting summaries
Motion to accept the previous two summaries proposed by Ken Stubbs, seconded
by Marilyn Cade.
Decision 1: Motion unanimously accepted.
Agenda item 2: E-mail rules - vote to adopt without discussion
Motion to adopt the rules moved by Ken Stubbs , seconded by J. Scott Evans.
Decision 2: Motion unanimously adopted
Agenda item 2. Next Names Council
Philip Sheppard said that it would be useful to have a call with ICANN staff before the deadline for the Names Council recommendations to the Board. April 24 was suggested.
Objections arose as an important Budget
committee call where delinquent constituencies would loose voting rights was
scheduled for the same day.
The conflict with the budget committee call on the same day was resolved by deciding to stop the clock ticking for the delinquent constituencies until a recommendation is made to the NC by the budget committee.
Agenda item 3: Draft conclusions to date
Ph. Sheppard proposed adoption of the clarifications made by Marilyn Cade
and started discussion on the changes of substance
1. Recommendation 1 - mission,
safe is replaced by "secure"
public is replaced by "users of the global internet"
The Registry constituency felt that it should not reflect the content of public comment in the ICANN mission. but that the more complex structure of Registry, Registrar Registrant relationship should be captured.
It was decided to suspend the last phrase until the Registry constituency came back to Council with acceptable wording or failing that to keep the above modification.
promote competition: add clarification "in key aspects of the DNS"
New wording - Registry and Registrar contract enforcement, eg. escrow, UDRP and WHOIS
2. Recommendation 2 - Structure
Although the Registry constituency felt that the last paragraph was obvious and inherent and should be deleted, it was the general feeling that it needs to be stated.
Add to previous paragraph.
4. Recommendation 7.
5. Recommendation 8. Budgeting
New wording: Further to recommendation 2, ICANN budgeting should reflect a delineated structure.
6. Recommendation 9. - Policy making
There was debate on wording to define stakeholders. Some Constituencies preferred all stakeholders but the Registry Constituency proposed stakeholders principally affected.
It was decided to delay changes until there was consensus on who the beneficiaries would be in Recommendation 1.
7. Recommendation 11 - Staff Support
ICANN Policy Advisory Bodies should be made more effective by the provision of full-time staff to support all aspects of policy making including a co-ordinating secretariat and staff support to policy-making task forces and similar groups.
Previous wording made two points: structure and staff support. On structure, the Registry Constituency (gTLD) did not believe that the DNSO should remain intact. Marilyn Cade's modification was seen as an improvement, but not acceptable to the gTLD constituency.
8. Recommendation 12.- ccTLDs
The ISPs, Business, and IPC have established a working relationship with the ccTLDs with an agreement that they would work together on policy issues that affected both, so there should be collaborative policy making.
Elisabeth Porteneuve made the point that ccTLDs are different from gTLDs as they operate under the jurisdiction of different counties with policies elaborated for local internet users.
Ken Stubbs was concerned with a recommendation to support a new supporting organisation for the ccTLDs.
Philip Sheppard suggested suspending discussion on recommendations 12 and 13 and to take debate on-line by e-mail.
Agenda item 3. Board Composition
This item was deferred.
It was decided to consider the original recommendation that there would be some sort of Policy Advisory Body, not radically different from the DNSO in function. One suggestion is, two policy development organisations of a different nature, one for the gTLDs and one for the ccTLDs
Roger Cochetti explained that gTLD constituency thinking would split advisory bodies between suppliers and users.
J. Scott Evans reported on the IPC's two broad ideas:
1. Expertise, functional committees
The work done by the DNSO would go to the Board and be done by ad hoc or standing committees, with members selected from the stakeholders community affected by the decision.
2. Advisory Bodies,
Similar to trade organisations like the Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Architecture Board.
The Board would decide which entity would be concerned with a certain issue, export the issue to the appropriate entity that would pay for and develop policy and take the concluded matter back to the Board.
Thomas Roessler suggested that as a courtesy measure to the invited guests
for the next call, short e-mail discussion should be sent out no later than
close of business on April 22 in preparation.
Philip Sheppard proposed that the deferred agenda items, 3, 4, 5, be discussed by e-mail and on the next call..
A 3 hour call was decided, starting one hour earlier.
The first hour - discussion on conclusions
The second hour - discussion with Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty and Louis Touton
The third hour - conclusions based on the discussions.
The teleconference ended at 17:10
Next NC teleconference April 24.
|© DNSO Names