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

Agenda item 2. Next Names Council call

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.

4. Recommendation 7.
New wording: Supplementary sources could be found from sources such as secretariat service fees to the GAC.

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
New wording:
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.

Conclusion

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