DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 3 October 2002 - minutes
4 October 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents
List of attendees:
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 Tony Holmes ISPCP Philipp Grabensee Registrars absent Ken Stubbs Registrars Bruce Tonkin Registrars Roger Cochetti gTLD Jordyn Buchanan gTLD Cary Karp gTLD Ellen Shankman IP Laurence Djolakian IP absent J. Scott Evans IP Harold Feld NCDNH Chun Eung Hwi NCDNH absent, Erick Iriate NCDNH absent, apologies 15 Names Council Members Alexander Svensson 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/mp3/20021003.NCteleconf.mp3
Quorum present at 15:05 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during summer time in the northern hemisphere).
Bruce Tonkin chaired this NC teleconference.
Bruce Tonkin explained his approach in setting out the agenda saying, the focus was on domain name policy work and to offer some guidance on ICANN structural issues, rather than replace policy development by discussions on structure. The constituencies and Names Council members have other avenues besides the Names Council to comment on the work of the Evolmution and Reform Committee (ERC) and the ICANN reform process.
Marilyn Cade asked whether the resolutions (sent for email vote on Tuesday 1 October 2002) should be put on hold until the final report of the Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) had been read by all.
Agreed to discuss under item 3.1 of the agenda.
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Cary Karp.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Decision 1: Motion adopted.
3.1 Update on Resolutions discussed in teleconferences of 12 Sept and 26
Sept [10 mins]
- currently out for email voting for 14 day period
- decide whether this period should be shortened
Bruce Tonkin introduced the subject reminding Council that the resolutions
decided upon at the Names Council teleconference on 26 September were up for
an e-mail vote which started on 1 October 2002. Marilyn Cade asked whether
there should be any changes in the light of the ERC report. Philip Sheppard
said that there was no change in the issues.
Bruce Tonkin asked for discussion on the length of the voting period, extended or shortened.
Cary Karp pointed out that the vote had to be in on October 15 or when all 20 ballots have been received, whichever occurs first so by timely voting the period would be shortened.
Elisabeth Porteneuve was of the opinion that the period should be shortened because of the urgent situation relating to remaining delays in getting nameserver changes in the root zonefile resulting from the change at KPNQwest and waiting two weeks would not have the desired effect, to which Bruce Tonkin said ICANN staff performing the IANA function and the Security Committee were aware of the situation. J. Scott Evans noted that the Names Council cannot direct ICANN staff performing the IANA functions at the operational level and can only make policy recommendations that need to be acted upon by the ICANN Board.
Decision 2: To follow the Names Council Rules of Procedure
for an email vote and urge people to vote as soon as possible.
3.2 Decide whether to initiate policy action on deletes issues, and whether
to create a task force [20 mins] Deletes issues paper was published on 19 Sept
Bruce Tonkin introduced the delete issue saying that a report was published
and the purpose at this meeting was to decide whether to initiate policy action
and decide whether to form a task force or do the policy work directly within
the Names Council.
There were 4 topics in the paper:
- when a domain name has past the expiry date there is a variable period of time for Registrars to delete
- when there is a complaint about the Whois accuracy Registrars require the registrant to correct it within 15 days otherwise the name may be cancelled, and the registrant may be disadvantaged.
- how registries delete names varies across registries,
- the requirement to use a delete operation to reverse an incorrect renewal operation.
Discussion was largely in favour of initiating policy action and forming a task force. Ken Stubbs noted that the success of task forces in the past has depended heavily on the additional resources provided by employers of members of task forces (such as AT&T's support of Marilyn Cade's work) to organise meetings, and document findings.
Bruce Tonkin proposed:
Initiating policy development on the deletes issue on the basis of the deletes issues report, and creating a task force, with the terms of reference drafted by October 19 for approval at the Shanghai meeting.
The proposal was unanimously adopted.
Decision 3: create a task force to deal with the deletes issue.
3.3 ERC committee report - suggested invite of Alejandro Pisanty for discussion
- final report not yet available (scheduled for around 1 Oct 2002)
- Alejandro Pisanty agreed to informally meet with Names Council members at informal breakfast meeting, Shanghai Monday October 28, 2002
- any motions arising from final report can be put out for email vote in the next 3 weeks, or physical vote at Names Council meeting on Tuesday October 29, 2002
Bruce Tonkin said that Alejandro Pisanty had not been invited to this meeting, but he had accepted the invitation to the Names Council breakfast as had Jonathan Cohen, where he thought discussions would be more fruitful.
Comments on the ERC final report should be made by e-mail to the council list.
Harold Feld suggested that Amadeu Abril i Abril should be invited to the Names Council breakfast. Bruce Tonkin undertook to invite Amadeu on behalf of the Names Council.
Names council appointed task force to review and evaluate UDRP
- questionnaires distributed in March 2002
- J.Scott Evans appointed chair July 2002
- waiting for report from UDRP task force
- discussion - is work continuing or disband?
Bruce Tonkin summarizing, said that a questionnaire was sent out in March 2002, but no report had been issued.
Thus, the question is whether there is a process moving forward on the UDRP and if not, it should be brought to the Names Council for a decision.
J. Scott Evans reported that he had been
reading 270 e-mails and planned to reconfirm the Task Force membership reminding
them of the terms of reference. Summaries of the questionnaires have taken several
months and there was a delay in getting the responses from the ICANN web site.
Names Council guidance is needed on how the questionnaires fit into the report,
whether they should be an advisement and a report formulated based on the members
Bruce Tonkin suggested looking at the Whois task force, where a report was put out for public comment having summarised the survey findings and preliminary recommendations made, and urged the task force to produce a report that used as input the results of the survey as well as the expertise and experience of the task force members in using the UDRP process. The alternative was to close the task force and start again. J. Scott Evans was in favour of maintaining the current task force.
Discussion was in favour of using the value added expertise in the task force in addition to the survey.
Bruce Tonkin suggested putting
this on the agenda for the November meeting, and that the task force establishes
meeting dates so that a report and initial recommendations can be developed
for discussion at that meeting.
- task force created July 01
- terms of reference unclear
- briefing document Feb 02
- limited activity since Feb 02
- discussion - should work continue (and if so review/create terms of reference) or disband?
Bruce Tonkin summarised saying that the terms of reference were difficult to find and that since Elisabeth Porteneuve's briefing document little had happened.
Elisabeth Porteneuve, addressing the International Domain Names (IDN) issue, said it had become a hot public matter in the summer of 2000 when the Names Council decided to form a task force. However there were no terms of reference, the aim beng to understand the issue and gather information. In autumn of 2001, ICANN formed the IDN Committee comprising of language and technical experts with a budget of $100 000 to analyse the issue in depth and produced a final report in Bucharest.
If the IDN solution proposed to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) became a standard it would take a long time to implement.
The importance of the task force was to have groups that understood the issues, in contact with the IDN committee, which could act if need be through the Names Council.
The value lay in a good understanding of the techniques used, the technical issues to be solved and the possible expansion of the TLD space by adding international TLDs.
Bruce Tonkin, supported by Marilyn Cade, said that a standing committee to offer advice with the necessary expertise was needed rather than a task force and suggested that Elisabeth Porteneuve and the existing Task Force members keep a watching brief and report every two meetings.
Decision 4: Standing committee, comprising the existing members of the IDN task force, Porteneuve and Bruce Tonkin to keep a watching brief and a standard agenda item be created for every second Names Council meeting where any developments in the IDN issue can be discussed.
- terms of reference:
To produce a timely impact assessment on
a) the efficacy of policy making within the DNSO,
b) the efficacy of ICANN decision making as a result of the proposals from the at-large study committee, the desire of the ccTLDs to form their own supporting organisation and other proposals and;
- on 14 March 2002 meeting, Names Council decided to address the issue at the Names Council level
- Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group produced a report
(http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/npdpag-report-21aug02.htm) on 21 August 2002
- discussion - is it appropriate to formally close this task force given events since 14 March 2002
Bruce Tonkin reported that at the Accra meeting, March 14, 2002, the
Names Council decided to look at the reform process at a Names Council level
rather than in a task force and the Names Council Policy development process
group issued a report on August 21. In view of this progression the task force
should probably be closed.
Philip Sheppard agreed, adding that the structure task force predated the provisional Lynn report and underlined the Names Council's continuing quest for improving policy development.
J. Scott Evans proposed and Ken Stubbs seconded a:
Motion to close the structure task force formally.
The motion was unanimously adopted
Decision 5: formally close structure task force and send a note thanking members for their participation
Bruce Tonkin summarised the proposal that suggested a task force chairman could be someone from outside the Names Council with the necessary expertise. However, was it appropriate to change the Rules of Procedure in the interim period?
Tony Harris excused himself from the meeting and gave his proxy to Tony
Holmes (16:10 Paris time)
Jordyn Buchanan in addressing the motion, said that there was no reason
not to make the change now and felt that it allows for a good balance without
requiring the chair to be a Names Council member.
Discussion highlighted the following arguments:
Philip Sheppard drew attention to the fact that under the new Policy Development Process, the specific request being sought by Jordyn is allowed, however Bruce Tonkin said that it may not come into play until the Annual General meeting in December and in the meantime the deletes task force would be formed.
Marilyn Cade thought that it might be inappropriate to change in the
interim period and felt that the inter-relationship between the task force and
the policy council is important for the ongoing understanding of the rest of
the Names Council work, as well as for accountability.
While Harold Feld said the proposal did not go far enough and that a constituency should be able to elect the bes qualified member as chair.
Ken Stubbs was concerned about a chair ceasing to operate because he/she
was no longer a council member and felt that this should not be an obstacle.
J.Scott Evans said that the policy development process called for Jordyn's model.
BruceTonkin said that since there would be a delete task force, the motion was relevant
The motion was posted with the agenda and not up for vote but the options open are:
- vote on the motion by e-mail prior to Shanghai
- vote on the motion at Shanghai but prior to the formation of a task force.
The motion was formally proposed by Jordyn Buchanan and seconded by
for the agenda for the Shanghai meeting and vote there prior to the task force formation.
Decision 6: Vote on the motion at the Shanghai meeting.
- update on constituency payments
- update on constituency status with regard to Names Council sanctions procedure. (see Section 12 of http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020418.NCprocedures-v7.0.html)
Bruce Tonkin reviewed the budget position:
- at the end of September there was a cash reserve of $57 000
- at the end of December it is likely to be $35 000
- at an average monthly expenditure of $7 000 there would be provisions until the end of April 2003.
Three constituency dues were outstanding: the Non Commercial, ccTLD and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency (ISPCPC).
After the Shanghai meeting there should be a further review.
Roger Cochetti agreed with the reasoning but cautioned against unforeseen expenses. The budget committee would meet in Shanghai with ICANN staff and work on plans for next year. A report from the budget committee is envisaged at the November Names Council meeting.
- update on constituency status with
regard to Names Council sanctions procedure. (see Section 12 of http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020418.NCprocedures-v7.0.html)
Bruce Tonkin said that according to the Names Council Rules of Procedure, voting sanctions would come into effect on October 20, 2002
This would not refer to participation and proposed that for any resolution voted on after 20 October 2002, it would be noted:
(1) for, against, and abstentions for voting members which will decide names council resolutions in accordance with the rules of procedure and ICANN bylaws
(2) for, against, and abstentions for non-voting members - this information will be made publicly available in the minutes of the names council.
Harold Feld and Marilyn Cade
urged for sanctions to be deferred until after Shanghai, while Elisabeth
Porteneuve raised the question whether it was possible to prevent constituency
voting rights in the ICANN bylaws.
Ken Stubbs said that there was consternation among constituencies which had paid as to why others had not.
Tony Holmes spoke for the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency saying that they had experienced problems and expected to pay something by 20 October 2002.
Bruce Tonkin said he would seek
advice of general counsel on the matter pertaining to the bylaws.
He said that there were 2 approaches:
- voting rights to be suspended on October 20, 2002.
- leave it open to Names Council members to put forward a motion on the list for e-mail vote on the resolution to suspend or change the Rules of Procedure for the Shanghai meeting.
Requested Harold Feld and Marilyn Cade
to work on a resolution that could be put to an e-mail vote as 14 days of motion
need to be given.
- Transfers Task Force update
- WHOIS Task Force update
- Discussion on Dept of Commerce MOU (proposed by Harold Feld in 26 Sept teleconference)
- Discussion on role of Governments (proposed by Marilyn Cade in 26 Sept teleconference)
Harold Feld was asked to identify the points to be discussed in the Dept of Commerce Memorandum of Understanding.
Marilyn Cade, mentioning the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) option to appoint a liaison to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the need for discussion on the role of the GAC was asked to list the key issues and reference the documents for discussion on the council list.
It was strongly recommended that there be dial-in facilities for the Shanghai
meeting. It was agreed that the secretariat would make all the necessary arrangements
Bruce Tonkin thanked the council members for their participation.
The teleconference ended at 17:00 (15:00 UTC)
Next Names Council meeting to be held in Shanghai at the Shanghai Convention Center, F3 International Hall: October 29, 2002 at 14:00 local time.
See all past agendas and minutes at http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2002calendardnso.html
and calendar of the NC meetings at http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html
|© DNSO Names Council