Proposed agenda and related documents http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020617.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:

11 Names Council Members

MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020617.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/20020617.NCteleconf-agenda.html
The agenda was approved.

Item 1. Summary of last meeting:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020606.NCteleconf-minutes.html

Ellen Shankman moved the adoption of the summaries,
The motion was carried. There was one abstention: Cary Karp

Decision 1: Motion adopted.

Item 2. Discussion and adoption of NC reply to the Evolution committee
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/200206.NCreply-evolution-com.html

Philip Sheppard suggested walking through the Names Council reply to the Committee on ICANN evolution and reform - Recommendations for the Evolution and Reform of ICANN June 2002 v2. He addressed the paper stating that there had been an extensive debate since March 2002 and the substantial recommendations within were based on the recommendations (v12) already adopted following extensive consultation with the Names Council and General Assembly. 

1. Scope and Mission

Accepted by all.

II Board Composition

For clarity, NC recommendation 30 (policy development bodies should elect board seats) will be added to this section. Marilyn Cade suggested the addition of "national" in Q1:
d) government. The GAC cannot be treated in this way. "National" governments speak for themselves.
In addition she raised the point about accountability and made it clear that advisory bodies should not vote but have a purely advisory function.

III. Board Selection Process

Accepted by all

IV Nominating committee composition and responsibility

Philip Sheppard addressed this saying that he based the proposed wording on the Registrars proposal discussed at the previous meeting. Tony Holmes expressed concern that the three groups would not be understood by all the audience.
Ron Sherwood asked for clarification on the two groups, users and at-large while Elisabeth Portneuve suggested that public interest should be clarified.
It was decided to define these by amalgamating paragraphs 1 and 2.

Accepted by all.

V Policy Development Structure

Q. 9 Technical Advisory Committee
Marilyn Cade raised the point that with the Protocol Supporting Organisation coming to an end, how would the technical community elect board seats in their models?

Accepted by all

VI Policy development process
Philip Sheppard stressed the importance of the Names Council endorsing a bottom up process.
Harold Feld endorsed the GA footnotes 8 and 9 and added that General Assembly has always been a place for participation and not cross constituency discussion.

Management by the board of process in recommendation 9 was questioned by Marilyn Cade. She felt this could be misinterpreted. Ellen Shankman expressed concern about the meaning of bottom-up process.
It was agreed to add a footnote to recommendation 9 clarifying that by managed the NC envisages an oversight role of the process, not policy management.

Accepted by all

VII Public Oversight and Participation

Philip Sheppard read the two sentences added after the last meeting concerning the ombudsman's office which should have the right to invoke arbitration for alleged by-law violations based on the rationale that external arbitration imposes costs to those invoking the process and although costs could deter frivolous arbitration they might hinder legitimate requests.

Harold Feld suggested that a note be added that it does not foreclose the right of the individual to proceed at their own expense. If a right is not explicitly preserved it will be read out.

Accepted by all as amended.

VIII Funding
J. Scott agreed with the recommendations but believed that no one has said where the money is coming from. The Chair pointed out that this was reasonably clear from recommendation 5 on core funding (gTLD registrant fees).  Accepted by all.

IX Government
Accepted by all.

X Outside resources
Accepted by all.

Alejandro Pisanty emphasised that there should be a balance of different personalities and outlooks and that the board must be more widely representative.

Marilyn Cade and Ph. Sheppard clarified that the Names Council looks at two ways in making up the board: half the board seats would be elected by the Policy developing entities and half by the nominating committee process

Alejandro Pisanty said that there are a lot of views on who will be on the nominating committee. The gTLD Registrars and gTLD Registries want an appointment, while many feel it should be open and without politics, serving the common good of all. He also felt that At-large was perhaps not the best term when the objective was stewardship of public interest.

Harold Feld expressed two concerns about the nominating committee
- its ability to return good board members through undefined criteria
- the results of the selection being regarded as legitimate by the broader community.
Alejandro Pisanty shared these concerns and said that the committee was striving to balance 2 sources of legitimacy:
- having channels open and listening to people
- legitimacy in achievement.
The At-Large effort was well intended and a huge effort was put into it, but it was not working well enough to provide legitimacy in representation.

Ph. Sheppard asked whether it could be envisaged that the wide role of the nominating committee could be reduced to which Alejandro Pisanty replied that the committee was moving in that direction.

Funding
Philip Sheppard introduced the item of funding saying the it was the number one issue to be considered. Funding means the ability for staff support for policy development which would improve in quality and speed. Other changes would be insufficient without adequate funding. The core funding is from the fees paid by gTLD registrants. Everything else such as ccTLDs should be looked upon as secondary to setting up the budget.

Both Alejandro Pisanty, Hans Kraaijenbrink and Lyman Chapin agreed on the importance of funding saying that the present form of collecting money from the Registrars and Registies should be improved, but care should be taken about the way this is presented. 

Advisory bodies.
Ph. Sheppard stated the NC was in disagreement with the nature of these as set out by the committee. Better communication was the objective. Technical advisory bodies needed greater flexibility and do not need to be standing committees but could come and go. Voting board representation should not be entrenched as it would impede future advice. Improved communication is counterbalanced by lack of flexibility i the advisory bodies.

Hans Kraaijenbrink made a distinction between the existence of advisory committees, and the liaison function between the advisory body and the board. No finality has been reached on this. Technical advisory committees with liaison functions where the chair would have full access to the board meeting with a possibility to intervene in board discussions was being considered. Whether or not they would have voting capacity would have to be decided once board composition was established. 

Philip Sheppard mentioned that the Names Council is not in favour of scrapping the Protocol Supporting Organisation and has not heard reasoning to support replacing it with a technical advisory committee.

General Assembly
Harold Feld expressed concern about the way that the General Assembly was seen and said that it was a place for individual interests, who do not fit into constituencies, to have their voice heard. He was concerned that by eliminating it there would be no room for participants who had no other voice.

Alejandro Pisanty did not agree with his description and reminded him that from the beginning there had always been tension as to its role which was seen as cross constituency dialogue. He felt that this had not happened despite the great efforts of the present chair to make it meaningful. He went on further to say that the lack of a meeting place for cross constituency dialogue has hampered the DNSO functioning. Ways of balancing the cross constituency dialogue and the large community must be found.

Ph. Sheppard agreed saying that the GA has been forced to try to meet two objectives (cross-constituency communication and a forum for individuals not represented in constituencies). The NC believes it better to separate out the two objectives and then meet both more effectively.

Thomas Roessler, GA chair spoke to the separate roles. He did not want to lose a place where open public dialogue and cross constituency dialogue could take place on ICANN issues. Alejandro Pisanty said that the GA has an anatomy and a physiology (structure and function) and that these two need to be considered separately.

ccTLDs
Elisabeth Porteneuve said that in the Reform document of 31 May have made certain assumptions that ccTLDs should accept, but she believes that this has not been discussed with ccTLDs. One sentence in particualar is of concern:
"Policies relating to global issues are developed through the ICANN process and ccTLD members agree to abide by them"
The ccTLD Managers live in national environments and respect local legislation. It is not appropriate to demand that the ccTLDs abide by the extrajudiciary policy rules developped in the ICANN process, as these rules may contradict national laws.

Hans Kraaijenbrink agreed with Elisabeth Porteneuve and said that it would be helpful if the ccTLDs reacted to the question as to what ICANN should do with them.

Alejandro Pisanty went on to say there was no unified voice and no global issues. He maintained that there was a need for a balance between global coordination and and local constraints. He gave the example where in Latin America and Africa, ccTLDs had been protected from Governments by ICANN. Hans Kraaijenbrink thanked Oscar Robles for his valuable contribution to the committee.

Conclusion 
Philip Sheppard thanked the three Evolution committee members for their valuable participation and concluded the meeting saying that he would forward a final reply from the NC to the committee before the Bucharest meeting.