ICANN/DNSO
Names Council Vote on 3 Resolutions
|
DNSO Secretariat
19 September 2002
Re: b12
- This vote is on resolutions/motions proposed by members of the Names Council, for the attention of the ICANN Board as decided at the Names Council teleconference:
- The time for this NC vote is:
- Starting Thursday, 19 September 2002, 12:00 Paris time (11:00 UTC)
- Ending Tuesday 24 September 2002, 23:59 your local time
or when all 20 ballots from the NC have been received, whatever occurs first.
Results to be published no later than Wednesday 25 2002, 17:00 Paris time (15:00 UTC)
- The ballot:
BEGIN:b12:KabcdZ:First_Last:email@some.where:SVP-reply
b12:KabcdZ:[ ] I agree on the resolution (1)
b12:KabcdZ:[ ] I disagree on the resolution (1)
b12:KabcdZ:[ ] I abstain on the resolution (1)
b12:KabcdZ:[ ] I agree on the resolution (2)
b12:KabcdZ:[ ] I disagree on the resolution (2)
b12:KabcdZ:[ ] I abstain on the resolution (2)
b12:KabcdZ:[ ] I agree on the resolution (3)
b12:KabcdZ:[ ] I disagree on the resolution (3)
b12:KabcdZ:[ ] I abstain on the resolution (3)
END__:b12:KabcdZ:First_Last:email@some.where:SVP-reply
Three Resolutions:
- Proposed NC resolution by Philip Sheppard:
- Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC)
has published its second implementation report
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-report-02sep02.htm
- Whereas the NC has previously commented on the need to make
geographic diversity a reality within the proposed Generic
Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) Council.
- Whereas the NC has previously commented on the need for
constituencies to have sufficient council members to share
workload and allow for substitution where required.
- Whereas the ERC's supposition that a 21 member council is
too big to be efficient is unproven and does not accord with
the experience of the Names Council.
- Whereas the ERC has acknowledged the above in its proposal
to allow three representatives per constituency on the
proposed GNSO council for the first year only
The Names Council resolves that:
Resolution (1):
The proposed GNSO council should have three representatives
per constituency in perpetuity but that this situation
be reviewed 12 months after the formation of the council,
so that an intelligent judgement may then be made based
on the merits of the competing arguments and 12 months experience.
- Proposed NC resolution by Philip Sheppard:
- Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC)
has published its second implementation report
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-report-02sep02.htm
- Whereas the basis for stakeholder representation in
ICANN SOs to date has been to give equal votes to each
affected stakeholder constituency;
- Whereas the report suggests a significant change in
the voting balance of ICANN stakeholders to be represented
in the new Generic Name Supporting Organisation (GNSO)
council whereby it gives twice as many votes to the two
stakeholders who have contracts with ICANN (gTLD registries
and registrars);
- Whereas the reasoning behind this shift of power is
to achieve a balance between contract parties and users;
- Whereas such a balance only makes sense once competition
in domain name registration is as near perfect as ICANN
can reasonably achieve;
- Whereas ICANN has not yet achieved full competition in
the supply of gTLD registry services;
- Whereas there remain problems of competitive restrictive
practices in the context of name transfers within the
registrar community;
The NC therefore resolves that:
Resolution (2):
Any variation from the principle of equal stakeholder
constituency representation and votes in the proposed GNSO
council is unacceptable.
- Proposed NC resolution by Elisabeth Porteneuve:
- Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC)
has published its second implementation report,
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/draft-mission-core-values-02sep02.htm
- Whereas the stability of the universal Internet has been
part of permanent preoccupations since the White Paper document,
http://www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm
- Whereas on 28 November 1998, both the USG and the ICANN
committed to abide by the principle of Internet stability in the MoU,
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm
- Whereas the ccTLD Managers have been awaiting for years
for correct IANA ccTLD database services, as explicitly
specified in the Amendment 2 to the MoU of 11 September 2000,
requesting "Documentation of IANA procedures for root zone editing,
root zone generation, and root zone WHOIS service".
- Whereas the ccTLD IANA Service Requirements have been restated
once more in Bucharest on 25 June 2002 and approved unanimously,
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/cctld/ccTLDbucharest-communique.html
- Whereas the ERC reaffirms that "Preserve and enhance the
operational stability, reliability, security, and global
interoperability of the Internet" is on top of the list
of ICANN's Core values,
- Whereas the global interoperability and stability of the
Internet depends on the TLD name servers,
- Whereas the recent bankruptcy of KPNQwest, providing secondary
services to several ccTLD Registries requested prompt actions
on IANA side to update the name servers' records as requested
by the ccTLD Managers,
- Whereas there is widespread dissatisfaction of ccTLD Managers
about the ICANN failing to carry out its IANA Function duty,
and several name servers' updates pending for three months
(since June 2002),
The NC therefore resolves that:
Resolution (3):
The stability of the universal Internet is in danger and
requests ICANN to take immediate actions to update ccTLD
name servers' entries.
Vote results:
- Resolution (1): N yes/ M no/ K abstain
- Resolution (2): N yes/ M no/ K abstain
- Resolution (3): N yes/ M no/ K abstain
Information from:
|
© DNSO Secretariat
|