DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 29 May 2002 - minutes
29 May 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020529.NCteleconf-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles/ Elisabeth Porteneuve Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD Philip Sheppard Business Marilyn Cade Business Grant Forsyth Business absent, apologies Greg Ruth ISPCP Antonio Harris ISPCP Tony Holmes ISPCP Philipp Grabensee Registrars absent, apologies, Ken Stubbs Registrars Bruce Tonkin Registrars Roger Cochetti gTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Cary Karp Richard Tindal gTLD absent, apologies, Cary Karp gTLD Ellen Shankman IP Laurence Djolakian IP J. Scott Evans IP Harold Feld NCDNH Chun Eung Hwi NCDNH absent, apologies, Erick Iriate NCDNH absent, apologies,13 Names Council MembersThomas Roessler GA Chair
Glen de Saint G ry NC Secretary Philippe Renaut MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020529.NCteleconf.mp3
Quorum present at 16:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during summer time in the northern hemisphere).
Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.
Approval of the Agenda
The agenda was approved.
Item 1. Summary of last meetings:
Cary Karp moved the adoption of the summaries.
The motion was carried unanimously. The summary of the last meeting was adopted Motion adopted.
Agenda item 4.
Report on Wait List Service (WLS) - Marilyn Cade
This agenda item was discussed first.
Marilyn Cade reported that the Wait list Service had been referred to the Names Council by the Board to be guided by input from the Transfer Task Force. The Transfer Task Force had two open teleconferences, widely announced to all constituencies, with 19 people on each call. Marilyn Cade, Task Force chair, prepared a summary and said that there would be a status report for the next Names Council meeting.
The assignment was to examine the:
The report will comment on the:
Discussion showed that there was limited support for the Wait Listing Service; the time frame for the redemption period needed further discussion; and a statement should be issued giving the parameters and thinking around this. The importance of getting the Task Force recommendations out for discussion before the Board meeting was emphasized.
AOB: Board Retreat
An informal report from at-large director, Andy Mueller-Maughan, was referred to which Harold Feld said he would send to the Names Council list. Care should be taken on the accuracy of the report. Thomas Roessler agreed with Ken Stubbs who said that where personnel matters were concerned, such statements needed reconfirmation. Marilyn Cade noted that the Board was not inclined to have an At Large election, and strong support had been shown for a Nominating Committee. Documentation on the meeting could be expected by the end of the week. Later, Thomas Roessler quoted from a mail sent by Joe Sims to the GA list confirming that there would be:" Committee's production of recommendations to the Board and the community, which hopefully will be published later this week."
Agenda Item 2.
Discussion and adoption of recommendations 26-33 (from version 10)/20020529.NCinterimrepv10.html .
Philip Sheppard said that the section looked at the nature of Policy Development Bodies and a number of options that if adopted would start to shape Board composition.
Recommendation 26 was a reaction to the possible merging of the addressing and protocol bodies. Discussion showed that there was broad support for two separate bodies from the Business constituency (BC) and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers constituency (ISPCP). Input from the technical community is useful at the constituency level and at the Board level. Marilyn Cade noted that there should be an effective process of consultation across the supporting organisations.
Recommendation 26 - technical bodies
There should be separate policy development bodies for addressing and protocols. There needs to be an effective mechanism for cross-policy development bodies consultation.
Recommendation 26 Accepted by all
Tony Holmes pointed out that the GAC concept is supported from outside but that it is not working well.
It lacks in terms of outreach and there is no coordination with ICANN and the DNSO. Ken Stubbs said the benefits of a consultation process and increased communications with Government bodies should be acknowledged but he did not believe the Names Council should say how they should be organized. Marilyn Cade commented on the importance of a consultation process across the supporting organisations and the Government Advisory Committee should be part of these consultations.
Recommendation 27 - Government
There should be a Government advisory body. There needs to be an improved flow of communication and better cooperation with the ICANN policy development bodies.
Recommendation 27: Accepted by all
Ph. Sheppard explained that this was linked to policy development bodies and on who would give technical advice to the Board. Tony Holmes expressed concern that a technical advisory committee challenges what has been said in recommendation 26, as a technical advisory body embraces a much broader concept than protocols and address bodies. Bruce Tonkin made a distinction made between giving technical advice and making policy on technical issues. It was felt that it could be a standing committee but should not replace the protocol supporting organisation. Discussion followed on whether there should be board representation, voting or non voting, observer status. Arguments showed support for a neutral technical advisory committee available to the Board for expertise and consultative purposes to enhance communication. Technical expertise and advice should be in the interests of ICANN and not specific constituencies.
Recommendation 28 - technical
There should be ad hoc technical advisory committees providing neutral technical advice and convened by the ICANN Board. There is no need for a standing technical advisory body with Board representation.
Recommendation 28: Accepted by all
Philip Sheppard introduced the recommendation dealing with Government Advisory Committee (GAC) representation on the Board and said that there were three options:
Discussion was in favour of a liaison role. Harold Feld pointed out that even a non voting Board seat is significant as it provides many levels of contact and participation. Ken Stubbs believed that a non voting observer has to bound by the same conditions as a voting participant, especially with regard to confidentiality. This was echoed by Thomas Roessler who said that a GAC member acting as a voting member could have a conflict of interest, but that this would not apply in a liaison position. Bruce Tonkin said that the Registrars constituency emphasized good communication and coordination which could be achieved by liaison. Marilyn Cade said the Business Constituency supported non voting representation. Tony Holmes agreed that the ISPC constituency could accept this, while Laurence Djolakian said the IP constituency also gave consideration to expertise liasion but didn't specifically refer to the GAC.
Recommendation 29 - Board seats for Advisory bodies.
The GAC Chair or designee should provide a permanent liaison to the ICANN Board.
Recommendation 29: Accepted by all.
Due to a leaving NC member quorum was then lost. Philip Sheppard invited discussion on "equal representation". Should the number of Board seats elected by the Policy Development Bodies be the same?
Ken Stubbs felt that there should be responsibility for financial support for ICANN based on Board representation. Objection to buying ones way onto the Board was expressed by Harold Feld and this was clarified by Ken Stubbs saying that Board members should be obliged to support and follow Board decisions. He believed a situation should not be created, as for the ccTLDs, where a group seeks involvement but then chooses to not be subject to the policy created. Harold Feld believed that there could be reasons why a group, taking part in policy creation would decide not to be subject to it, but would not want to give up their opportunity of participating as their input is important. Tony Harris agreed with Ken Stubbs. Marilyn Cade's opinion was that there should be a set of standards for all entities to adhere to.
Thomas Roessler pointed out that there was logic to first discuss recommendations 30 through 32 and that these points of principle would lead to certain conclusions on board composition (recommendation 33).
No vote could be taken because there was no quorum and it was decided to add fresh wording based on the discussion. Essentially there was no opposition to an equal number of Board members elected by each policy development body.
Recommendations 31 and 32 The concept of a Nominating committee, its existence and possible composition.
Philip Sheppard asked if there was space on the Board after the seats from the Policy Development Bodies, should it be filled via a Nominating Committee? Should the seats selected by that committee be equal, less or more than the representation from Policy Development Bodies? Could the At Large be included and how should a nominating committee be composed?
Harold Feld stated the NCDNHC position on At Large which calls for direct elections. He believed that unless there is a mechanism to make a nominating committee open, an oligarchy will be perpetuated. Bruce Tonkin said that the Registrars support the election of a nominating committee with representation from the Registrars, Registries, non-commercials users, commercial users and individual users. Marilyn Cade said that the Business Constituency supported an At Large process that would lead to elections. A nominating committee should control too many Board votes . There should be a method for the At Large to participate in the Nominating committee, for example by designating 6 seats to the At Large. Tony Holmes said that there was no support for a nominating committee among the ISPCP constituency.
Thomas Roessler said that the GA prefers direct elections for At Large and there was not support for a nominating committee. He warned against a nominating committee electing a number of Board seats close to the number of members of the nominating committee itself. He believed this would effectively replicate the committee's composition in its choice of Board members. He believed a nominating committee should be forced to compromise and so should be larger than the number of seats that it has to fill.
Philip Sheppard concluded saying that opinions were divided over recommendations 30 to 32.He would draft a report as edited on this call. He mentioned that it would be useful to have perspectives on the ccTLD structure from Elisabeth Porteneuve and Oscar Robles on recommendations 18 to 24. He confirmed the next teleconference on June 6, 2002. Thomas Roessler promised e-mail input recommendations 18, 19, 23, 24, 25. Marilyn Cade said that in view of a possible document from the Evolution Reform Committee, the Names Council should focus on comparing its recommendations to the committee's.
A status report would be forthcoming from the transfer committee and constituencies are encouraged to consult with their members on the report.
The teleconference ended at 17:20
Next NC teleconference June 6 at 13:00 UTC.
See all past agendas and minutes at http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2002calendardnso.html and calendar of the NC meetings at/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html
||© DNSO Names Council