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