17 December 2002.

Proposed agenda and related documents http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021214.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Philip Sheppard        Business 
Marilyn Cade           Business 
Grant Forsyth          Business remote participation
Greg Ruth              ISPCP absent, apologies 
Antonio Harris         ISPCP absent, apologies, proxy to Tony Holmes 
Tony Holmes            ISPCP 
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars 
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars 
Roger Cochetti         gTLD  
Jordyn Buchanan        gTLD remote participation  
Cary Karp              gTLD 
Ellen Shankman         IP absent, apologies, proxy to Laurence Djolakian   
Laurence Djolakian     IP 
J. Scott Evans         IP remote participation   
Harold Feld            NCDNH absent, apologies, proxy to Chun Eung Hwi
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH  remote participation
Erick Iriate           NCDNH absent, apologies proxy to Chun Eung Hwi


9 Names Council Members physically present, 4 remote participation


Thomas Roessler     GA  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/mp3/20021214NCteleconf.mp3

Quorum present at 9:10 local time in Amsterdam

Bruce Tonkin chaired this Names Council meeting

• Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021214.NCteleconf-agenda.html

  Roger Cochetti added: the administrative transition from the DNSO to the GNSO

• Item 2: Summary of last meetings:
  
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021114.NCteleconf-minutes.html
  Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Philipp Grabensee.
  The motion was carried unanimously.
  
  Decision 1: Motion adopted.

• Item 3: Transfers Task Force final report and recommendations
  - for decision (deadline for report 30 Nov 2002)
  - confirm and approve consensus policy recommendation
  
  Bruce Tonkin summarized saying the Transfers task force presented a final report on November 30, containing recommendations for new consensus policy. Referring to a communication to the Names Council on December 7, http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00195.html Bruce Tonkin suggested that the next step would be to carry out further implementation analysis and add it as an appendix to the report before providing a final report to the ICANN Board in February 2003, ready for the March ICANN Board meeting in Rio de Janeiro.
  Discussion and comments on the report and the suggestion:
  Marilyn Cade read out a comment received on December 14 from the At-Large Organizing Committee. (ALOC).
  The ALOC commends the efforts of the Transfers task force to improve the efficiency and security of gTLD domain name transfers and to ensure that the concerns and interests of the registrants are addressed. They emphasized the importance of the procedure and said that they would have a statement at a later date.
  Bruce Tonkin said that the comments would be included in the final report.
  Roger Cochetti, on behalf of the Registry constituency, expressed concern with the short time allowed to comment on the December 12 updated report and the procedural aspects, namely, that the Names Council is responsible for addressing policy issues.
  J. Scott Evans, on behalf of the Intellectual property constituency, said that it was time to move forward. He agreed with an implementation analysis working group with a narrow focus agenda including input from Registrars and registries and other stakeholders giving a real world analysis of what costs would be involved, and that this should be added as an addendum to the report.
  Ken Stubbs on behalf of the Registrars who expressed support for the report. An implementation report should be an integral part of the report to the Board and the process should be managed by people responsible for providing services to the end-user.
  Marilyn Cade, as Task Force Chair, expressed appreciation for the task force work and the participation of all the members. The task force had benefited from the support of constituency participation, registrars, registries, individual registrants and resellers and this consultation has been documented in the report. An implementation issues assessment analysis would be an important addition and work should be concluded by the end of January so that it can be put forward for an ICANN Board vote in March.
  Bruce Tonkin asked what substantial changes there were between the November 30 and December 12 reports?
  Ross Rader, a task force member who was in the audience, stated two changes:
  - Summary of the comments received during the public comment period
  - Impact analysis received from the Registry constituency which was received late.
  Bruce Tonkin said that there were no new recommendations since the November 30 report and adequate consultation had been done.
  Motion proposed by Grant Forsyth, seconded by Ken Stubbs:
  The Names Council accepts the policy recommendations that were in the transfer Task Force Report of 30 November.
  The Names Council approves the formation of an implementation analysis committee which incorporates the Registries and Registrars plus representatives from the task force. The purpose of that committee is to look at how to implement the policy recommendations and not to create or change policy recommendations. If there are any changes they would go back to the Names Council and the Names Council would ask the task force to comment on any changes.
  Friendly amendment by J. Scott Evans accepted by Grant Forsyth and Ken Stubbs.
  Request that any liaison between Transfer Task Force and the implementation committee would be members of the user community.
  
  Grant Forsyth wanted to clarify that if policy might be altered or modified, that the change would need approval of the Names Council which would seek advice of the task force before changing the recommendation.
  Bruce Tonkin agreed that the Names Council would need to approve a change to any of the policy recommendations and that the Names Council would consult with the task force for advice.
  General Counsel, Louis Touton, present at the meeting, clarified the timelines: the Board report had to be completed 30 days before the meeting in Rio de Janeiro which is on March 22, 2003.
  
  The meeting broke for a short period to allow for consultation with the constituencies on the motion.
  Motion proposed by Grant Forsyth, seconded by Ken Stubbs:
  The Names Council accepts the policy recommendations that were in the transfer Task Force Report of 30 November.
  The Names Council will form an implementation analysis committee which will comprise of the Registries and Registrars with ICANN staff and user liaisons from the transfer task force.
  That it will complete its analysis by 30 January 2003.
  The Names Council will then meet to discuss the final ICANN Board report in its meeting in February and the final Board report will be forwarded with the aim to reach the ICANN Board 30 days prior to the ICANN meeting in Rio de Janeiro.
  The report from the implementation analysis committee will present the findings on the feasibility of implementing the policy and it will be suitable for inclusion in the report which will become theTransfers Board report.
  
  The members present with proxy votes voted unanimously for the adoption of the motion.
  Motion unanimously approved
  
  Decision 2: Motion adopted
  
  Bruce Tonkin will spearhead the formation of the implementation analysis committee and act as interim chairman.
  
  Action: the Secretariat will open a public mailing list for the implementation analysis committee.
  
  Grant Forsyth dropped off the call and gave his proxy to Philip Sheppard.
  
  
• Item 4: WHOIS Task Force final report and recommendations
  - for decision (deadline for report 30 Nov 2002)
  - confirm and approve consensus policy recommendations
  
  Marilyn Cade remarked that there were task force members present in the room.
  
  Bruce Tonkin summarized, saying that the WHOIS task force produced a report with two specific areas of policy recommendations:
  - Accuracy
  - Bulk data for marketing purposes
  Further WHOIS policy work is foreseen, and this should be conducted subject to new terms of reference and following the new GNSO policy development process (see http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-appa-annexa-31oct02.htm).
  
  Discussion and comments on the policy recommendations.
  Roger Cochetti on behalf of the Registry constituency, repeated his concern expressed about the Transfers task force report saying that the integrity of the Names Council was at stake, as there had not been enough time to consult, adding that contracts could be amended through the assertion that there is a consensus and such changes to contracts can significantly affect the business of registries. There would be no process issue if it came up at the next Council meeting in January.
  Further comments were received on the timing from J. Scott Evans and Philip Sheppard who felt that there had been adequate time for consultation.
  Ken Stubbs reported that the Registrars constituency recommend that the WHOIS Task Force wait until the next meeting to propose its recommendations so as to provide adequate time for consultation with registrars in order to conduct an assessment of the potential costs and impact on competition caused by the recommendations in the report.
  Jordyn Buchanan expressed the same concern as in Shanghai, that the 15 day period to update information in the WHOIS was too short and that accuracy and privacy issues should be dealt with simultaneously as those concerned for their privacy will look at ways to curcumvent the accuracy provisions.
  Chun Eung Hwi, on behalf of the non-commercial constituency said that members felt their comments on privacy were not taken into account. Accuracy should be dealt with differently for different registrants meaning a uniform accuracy policy is not possible. The members propose a testbed period in the implementaion, starting with commercial gTLDs and then going on to non-commercial gTLDs later.
  
  Bruce Tonkin speaking for a large Registrar, said the wording was loose and vague. It was unclear how much work is needed if data is to be accurate. The 15 day period depends on the form of the contact available (it could be adequate for email, but inadequate for international land mail).
  More definition is needed before the report can be accepted, such as, what should be done if some or all of the information is incorrect, what documentation is required. There could be significant costs that would be charged to the registrant and an implementation analysis report is required.
  Marilyn Cade, as task force co-chair commented that the WHOIS has an even broader impact to the community than the Transfers issue and the work of the Task Force has to continue in 2003 with revised terms of reference. The task force recommends identifying the impact of recommendations about enforcement and existing obligations and understanding the cost impact.
  The report should be received, there should be the establishment of an implementation analysis committee with the participation of Registrars, Registries and task force members to assess the policy recommendations and the implementation of increased enforcement. The work should be concluded in a timely manner to be voted on by the February meeting, then put forward to the ICANN Board in March. At the same time the task force will prepare two reports on:
  - Consistency of data elements
  - Seachability
  In a revised terms of reference further work will be undertaken and Government participation would be sought.
  J. Scott Evans proposed the motion, seconded by Roger Cochetti:
  
  That the Names Council delays acceptance of the policy recommendations in the November 30 WHOIS task force report and allow additional time for consideration by the constituencies until the next Council call on 16 January 2003.
  That the Names Council creates an implementation/cost analysis committee, that would look at the cost of implementing the recommendations as they are written and as they may change during the next 30 day period.
  That the implementation Cost analysis committee produces a report by 30 January 2003 prior to the Council meeting on February 20 which can be incorporated into the main report.
  
  
  The structure of the implementation analysis committee would be identical to that of the Transfers implementation analysis committee and would consist of Registries, Registrars and user representation from the WHOIS task force.
  
  The members present with proxy votes voted unanimously for the adoption of the motion.
  Motion unanimously approved
  
  Decision 3: Motion adopted
  
  Bruce Tonkin clarified that the analysis report should be completed by January 30, 2003. Any policy changes should be notified to the Council 14 days before the meeting in January and the policy recommendations of the WHOIS task force should be voted on at the January 16, 2003 meeting.
  
  The Names Council Constituencies need input and comments before January 16, 2003.
  
  
• Item 5: Budget report
  for decision: constituency contributions for 2003
  - current financial status
  - projected position for 31 Dec 2002
  - discuss DNSO budget for 1 Jan 2003 to 30 June 2003, and estimate constituency contributions required for 2003. (Currently in the range $5000 to $9000 per constituency)
  
  Roger Cochetti summarized the budget position. The DNSO Budget year ends at the end of December 2002 and the ICANN Budget year ends at the end of June. From July 2003 the DNSO/GNSO will be taken over by ICANN, but until June 2003 the running costs are estimated at $54 000.
  Two approaches may be taken to cover the costs for the next six months:
  - use up the cash reserve and lower the constituency fees so that the constituency fees would go down from approximately $9 000 to $5 000
  - raise sufficient dues so that there is a cash reserve,which provides more flexibility in the budget, and the constituency fees would be $9 000.
  
  After discussion, a straw pole was taken with 3 alternatives, $5 000, $9 000 and a figure in between proposed by Ken Stubbs of $6 000.
  
  The results were 5 members voted for $5 000, 3 members voted for $9 000 and 2 members voted for $6 000 as the constituency fees.
  ·
• Decision 4: Council requested the budget committee to draw up a budget assuming a contribution from each constituency of $5000 for the first 6 months of 2003.
  
  
  Item 6: AOB
  
  1. Roger Cochetti said that as the DNSO was about to expire and become the GNSO, certain administrative and quasi-legal issues arose. ICANN Board could take certain actions but it could not act on internal DNSO Council matters, such as the Rules of Procedure and the Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN to manage funds.
  
  He proposed scheduling a meeting within 7 days to examine the administrative matters.
  
  Date of the meeting and agenda to be circulated as soon as possible for the week ending Friday 20 December.
  
  2. Tony Holmes raised concern about timeframes for task force work as during the first six months of 2003, there was no staff support in place.
  
  3. Thomas Roessler said that as the DNSO ceases to exist the GA also ceases and will be replaced by ALSC and GAC liaison.
  The GA list would however continue and volunteers, Alexander Svensson, Thomas Roessler and Ross Rader, would monitor it.
  
  Bruce Tonkin thanked all present for their participation.
  
  The meeting ended at 12:10 local time in Amsterdam.
  
  
  
  
  

Next Council meeting TBD.

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