DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] Draft from NC Melbourne meeting, record of decisions, for approval

Please find the record of decisions from the Melbourne meeting
drafted by Philip Sheppard, the NC Chair, for your approval.

If no comments received in 7 days, the Minutes are deemed approved.
However, if I receive your explicit approval before 21 March,
I will publish it as soon as possible.

DNSO Secretariat


     DNSO Names Council, 11 March 2001, Melbourne, Australia - minutes


13 March 2001

DNSO Names Council March 11, 2001 Melbourne, Australia

These notes are a record of the decisions of the meeting and should be
approved by the NC. Further detail is available from the notes of the real
time scribe.


  1. Peter de Blanc (ccTLD)
  2. Elisabeth Porteneuve (ccTLD)
  3. Oscar Robles Garay (ccTLD)
  4. Guillermo Carey (IP) (Proxy for Aus der Muhlen, Chicoine)
  5. Youn Jung Park (NCDNHC) (Proxy for Mueller)
  6. Vany Martinez (NCDNHC)
  7. Paul Kane (Registrars)
  8. Ken Stubbs (Registrars)
  9. Erica Roberts (Registrars)
 10. Hirofumi Hotta (ISPCP)
 11. Tony Harris (ISPCP)
 12. Michael Schneider (ISPCP)
 13. Grant Forsyth (Business)
 14. Theresa Swinehart (Business)
 15. Philip Sheppard (Business)
 16. Roger Cochetti (gTLD)

1. Business Plan



          Decision to form interim group: Carey (chair), Stubbs, Park.


          Decision to postpone interim committee until first representative
          from a new gTLD is appointed to NC and to review this decision at
          the Stockholm meeting if no such appointment has been made by


          Interim committee has already been formed: Kane (chair), Park,
          Robles, Aus der Muhlen, Schneider, Swinehart, Cochetti.


          Action lies with the ccTLD constituency to inform the NC.

          Multilingual Domain Names

          Decision to form interim committee: Park (chair), Forsyth, IPC rep
          to be nominated.


          Decision to form interim committee: Swinehart (chair), Mueller,
          Roberts, Harris, Carey.

          NC Secretariat

          A search committee has already been formed: Roberts (chair),
          Gomes, Porteneuve.


          The NC budget committee has already been formed: Cochetti (chair),
          Park, Roberts, de Blanc, Porteneuve, Schneider.

     Decision D1:

     The Names Council adopts the business plan 2001-2002 as presented and
     amended proposed: Sheppard, seconded: Roberts. Approval all present
     except Martinez who abstains.

2. Budget Committee


          a) Invoices for constituency fees are to be sent out by ICANN for

          b) ICANN staff requested to find a consultant to hire the
          technical/organisational entity to be the new secretariat. Maximum
          cost for this is $5000 as specified within the $12000 budget item
          previously approved for professional services. Suggestions by NC
          members welcome latest 19 March.

          c) Decision D2:

          The Names Council authorises the budget committee to spend up to
          $15000 to cover the continuation of secretarial, website and
          related service for the period April 1 - June 30. Proposed:
          Cochetti, seconded: Roberts. All in favour with Kane abstaining.

          d) The NC requested the budget committee to ensure completion of
          the work of the consultant and the hiring of a new organisation as
          secretariat by end June 2001.

          e) The start of the work of the search committee to recruit a
          person as NC secretary is contingent upon the start of the call
          for voluntary funds to match the $100000 fund proposed by
          Verisign. That call is contingent upon the establishment of a bank
          account for such funds. The Budget committee is still discussing
          the choice between using ICANN as the host for such an account or
          establishing an independent corporation. The NC chair directs the
          budget committee to make a recommendation to the regular NC
          meeting scheduled in April.

3. Verisign Agreement

     Sims presentation:

     See also

     See also white paper (no mention of separating registry and registrar)
     http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm but was in
     green paper.

     Decision D3:

          1. The new proposed Verisign-NSI/ICANN Agreement published last
          week represents a substantive policy change and involves a
          fundamental shift in the structure of competition. The proposed
          change comes as a surprise and is a source of significant concern
          to many stakeholders.

          2. Such a change would require careful consideration by the DNSO
          constituencies and the Internet community. It cannot be considered
          except in accordance with due process allowing a reasonable time
          for the constituencies to consider and comment on the proposed

          3. The ICANN Board should not be precipitated into any decision
          until full consideration has been given to this issue in
          accordance with ICANN's procedures and the DNSO consultation

     Proposed: Schneider, seconded: Forsyth. The motion was carried with
     Gomes against; Stubbs, Swinehart, Carey abstaining (and Chicoine, Aus
     der Muhlen via Carey's proxy).

4. ICANN Consultation Periods

     Peter de Blanc's statement proposed to the NC.

          There have been occasions where ICANN Staff publishes out
          documents while constituents are in transit on the way to
          meetings. Examples include GAC letter, status quo document,
          NSI-ICANN contract revision proposal, etc.

          This practice does not allow proper time for consultation and
          comment, particularly for non-native English speakers. Some
          colleagues have privately expressed a feeling that this practice
          may be deliberate, particularly since it seems to repeat itself at
          each physical meeting.

          While we can understand that the urgencies of the moment do not
          always allow for long lead times, and that ICANN is, in general,
          understaffed, the DNSO needs to address this issue in a pro-active

          This communiqué from the NC to the ICANN staff may help to
          alleviate the frustration of the constituency members affected by
          this practice. We encourage the ICANN staff to manifest an
          increased level of sensitivity in this area in the future.


Due to time constraints the following items are postponed until the regular
April meeting: New Registry Contracts, Non-ICANN TLDs.


                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>