Monday, November 1st,
1999, 1:00-6:00 pm
1. review and
approval of agenda 10 minutes
2. introduction of
new member 5
3. report on ISPCP
Officers election 5
4. report on Names
Council and DNSO 20
5. discussion :
DNSO-Funding 60
* Interim Funding
* Long term Funding
6. discussion : Articles
Amendment 60
* Officers and NC members (including Barbara's proposal)
* definition of regions to
comply with ICANN bylaws
* election of Officers
7. discussion :
publicizing ISPCP mailing list 20
8. discussion :
outreach 10
* designing links to ISPCP
web site from Member Web site
9. discussion : NSI -
ICANN agreement 30
http://www.icann.org/nsi/nsi-registry-agreement.htm
other issues 30
10. Any Other
Business 30
Chair: Michael Schneider (EuroISPA)
Attendees:
Hirofumi Hotta (NTT)
Antonio Harris
(CABASE)
Henning Grote
(Deutsche Telekom)
Tony Holmes (British
Telecom)
Cathy Wittbrodt
(Excite@Home)
Robert Hall (CAIP)
Marc McFadden (CIX)
Jason Hendeles (ATC)
Tony Rutkowski
(Netmagic)
Brian O’Shaughnessy
Dave Crocker
(SVPal.org)
Barbara Roseman
(Global Crossing)
Jason Smith (PathWay)
Pete Bowden
(Concentric Network)
Rick Latona (IAWH)
Chris Rogers
(Interland Inc.)
John Klensin (MCI
WorldCom)
Amar Andersson
(Telia)
John Montjoy (CIX)
Livia Rosu (ETSI)
Introduction, count
of members present – 8 of 24 not a quorum
1. agenda - no
changes were considered necessary
2. new members -
introduction of AFA (not present) and Excite@Home (Cathy
gave short introduction)
[Tony Holmes (BT) arrived – 9 of 24
members present]
3 new applications – Interland,
Global Crossing, Aremy.net (to submit applications)
3.
elections – Marc McFadden gave a short report:
6 nominations were received, all nominees were interested and citizens of their
region. Michael Schneider was elected chairman on September 27th,
only three nominees remained, the two deputies elected were Hirofumi Hotta and
Antonio Harris. (For details, see election report
election-report-ISPCP.html)
4.
report on NC and DNSO
a. Michael Schneider gave an overview
of his impression of the NC-work between Santiago and today: said he is not
pleased with the professionality and efficiency of the work, over a week was
spent on the elections of the DNSO Board members with the result not
necessarily representing the true wishes and preferences of the members;
currently merely focussing on procedures, after posting of negotiations with
NSI there was no reaction whatsoever. After a mail by himself, only Joe Sims
has responded – ICANN felt it was inappropriate to consult the NC and possibly
this is the direction it will continue to be handled as ICANN appears not to
take the NC seriously, only considers input given, not proactively asking for
it. As of today, the NC no longer “interim”, hence it needs to clearly state
its position now and get started on doing some substantial work. Feels ICANN
should consult with NC in all DNSO and related issues.
b. Hirofumi Hotta: NC-teleconferences:
there have been 11 since Santiago, 6 for the mere purpose of the Board
elections (for details see [link]).
c. Antonio Harris: elections were
extremely heavily lobbied, all those elected were from within the NC,
procedures the only issue discussed since Santiago – completely out of
proportion. The ICC recently published a press release stating that “business
is not what is happening in ICANN” – confcalls not very productive. Hope that
future NC-work is more streamlined.
d. Global Crossing – will future
elections go more smoothly, were these just teething problems?
A: obviously it is difficult to reach consensus
between 19 people representing extremely different parts of the Internet, hard
to match those different agendas – hard to agree upon substance, change
necessary if NC not to become rediculous. Constituencies not proportionate to
one another – old discussion, couldn’t be resolved last year either, IDNO for
example should be included in the GA. Difficulty of some people being able to
spend more time, money and ressources on the process. Interface to Board will
not improve – Joe Sims not really doing good job consulting and guiding the NC.
e. Grote: Perception of relation
between NC and Board is that the latter doesn’t accept the serious business
interest involved. Also lacking regular means of communication. State of
discussion with Sims is that NC is still interim… Has anyone else been contacted?
A: no, never formally at least, e.g Dyson only
answers privately – only expenses etc. are discussed. Shown in statements like
“the NC only selects its members to
the Board”
f.
What
are the major issues that need to be dealt with?
A: Some WGs are taking care of them, but
substantial things require discussion and decisionmaking
from the NC like new gTLDs, the NSI agreement (one thing that procedure was not
OK, another that content potentially harmful – consequences that large parts of
NC not in agreement?) – positions need to be publicly stated!
g. groups need internal agreement,
primary focus and solutions – would it be possible to find support in other
constituencies, form a stronger common front?
A: some positions of ISPCP were identified in
Santiago (like gTLDs), could easily reopen the discussion on those and other
issues to at least find internal agreement.
h. WG-C published report that yes,
there should be new ones, about 5-7 – shouldn’t the question be how, who will
handle them etc.?
A: “Consensus” was reached in WG-C by complete
misinterpretation of statements, until NC has discussed it the paper has no
true value – correct, probably no way around new gTLDs.
5. DNSO-Funding – see paper 991101-AgendaItem5.htm – figure under 3. includes ICANN-meeting parts, webcasting etc. Fair that we need to contribute, pay for the rooms we use etc., need a secretariat but need clear breakdown of the suggested amount (300k) so that we can decide which of the figures we’re willing to pay for, which we don’t need etc. Would like secretariat for DNSO combined with one for constituencies – then amount closer to being justified.
a. ICANN appears not to care who pays,
just wants it all “open, open open” – are allocating substantial costs to DNSO
(not to other SOs).
b. Webcasts for example are really
expensive, scribing going online and Emails being read out should be more than
enough – Berkman Center demonstrated that minuting live can be done in fairly
good quality.
c. Barely any criticism to date from
within the NC – will ask for details, could easily cut expenses by taking
cheaper hotels etc.
d. ISPCP supports to pay its share of
the costs but only once some sort of (interim) budget has been posted,
discussed and possibly agreed upon. Probably contribute the $5k for Santiag and
L.A. (and the next conference ?) to make sure that costs already incurred are
paid for. Schneider asked for a budget (of up
to $5k for next meeting) – agreed to postpone budgeting for this and even
for the contributions to the past meetings until we have received for a
breakdown so as not to set precedents. – Don’t pay until we’ve seen receipts
and have officially been invoiced… Overall showing goodwill! (Yes in principle,
allocating $15k interim budget (upper limit) to cofinance the three meetings
subject to further details being provided by ICANN, funds raised on an
as-needed basis) [all present agreed]
e. Only once recurring payments are
needed will we have to figure out how to proceed exactly (annual payments?
Changing the articles)
6. Quorum as Rob Hall has arrived – decision on new members
a. Global Crossing – unanimously
accepted
b. RMI.net – no longer present
c. Interland – unanimously accepted
d. Concentric Network – unanimously
accepted
e. ® all subject to no more than two vetoes being
received by November 24, 1999 (and official applications to be received).
f.
® 15 of 27 members now present
Quick
break to read the text
991101-AgendaItem6.htm
on proposed changes to the articles.
7. Proposed changes to the Articles
1.a)
no one against, unanimously accepted
1.b) i) no more than two Officers and no more than one NC representative may be citizen from the same geographic region (Barbara)
ii) if no candidate from a fifth region, seat can be given to someone else for whole term
iii) seat left open for whole term
if no one elected from fifth region
i) voted on: unanimously accepted
2. change voting for a specific seat to just “an Officer”, the five to figure the positions out among themselves – chairman-term flexible ® rewording to be posted and only changed if someone finds it ambiguous – amendments voted on as discussed unanimously
3. obsolete
4.
becomes more simple –
* running new election for 5 Officers,
assigning different terms,
* electing two additional ones and replacing
them as intended, the current three replaced in 8/16 months - unanimously
accepted
5.
Rob Hall: 3 vetoes-clause – allows for capture; should be put to general vote,
should final decision be made by simple or supermajority? Will be discussed
further on list.
Schneider to draft suggestion of according changes to articles, if no one objects will be considered accepted.
8. publishing of mailing list
991101-AgendaItem8.htm;
a) open up list
?? archive or other means to have it read by 3rd parties – 6:6:3 –
continue discussion on list – at least create archive for new members (password
protected or similar)
b) putting further people (observers or
posting) on the list? Is main concern to keep list internal or to keep others
from posting? Who? Externals should not be able to “interfere”, even if they
may observe. To which extent do we want to be open while discussing strategy
etc.? No change unless other constituencies try and we learn from them!!!
(unanimous)
c) teleconferences open? Upon request unless
beforehand decided that for strategic reasons closed – criteria to whom? NC and
ICANN Board members and staff allowed to request joining – individual decision
before each teleconference; open upon invitation (consensus).
9. Outreach –
Jason Smith to send some ISPCP-logo suggestions (to then be placed on each
members’ homepage as a link
http://www.pathwaynet.com/~jason/ispcp/;
Marc and Antonio to contribute something for an
“about” Homepage (e.g. ispcp/home.html)
10. NSI – ICANN agreement – barely anyone’s read it ® summary: NSI may stay registry
another 4 years, a further 4 if registrar and registry are then decoupled. -
Believe that NC should postpone the decision and seek direct discussion with
ICANN – not via queue of public comment! At most, an interim period should be
given to NSI during which to provide registry services and afterwards a tender
filed. Agreement is easy way to receive funding and be recognized by NSI –
reasons to subscribe to agreement, but enough to extend a monopoly for 4 years
and even continue combining registrar and registry? Will give them incredible
market advantage. Not acceptable under any circumstance. Will raise it in NC
and with ICANN Board, even protest if agreement gets signed without intense
consultation. Other problems as well – e.g. US govoernment as last decider in a
democratic process. Was presented as a faite accompli, which it isn’t at all!!
Putting pressure on ICANN is usually successful – can publicly do them harm
(breaking own bylaws of consulting NC etc.) – press would react strongly. Possibly
a way forward? At least less extreme compromise. Several steps of escalation –
a.
stop
and listen,
b.
signed
by more than 2 parties! And involve others (not department of Commerce!),
c.
shorten
interim term, requiring separation of registrar and registry. White Paper is
the basis for ICANN’s work, hence USG shouldn’t change its position without
previous warning (especially on decisions that are mission-critical to
Internet-enterprises). Was this really the best agreement one could get?
Still surprised and unhappy that no
one in NC has reacted at all!
11.
AOB
a. Overall ICANN’s structure is very
worrying. The at-large membership will elect another 9 Directors – should
monitor closely how it is structured etc. Business constituency key to this –
just as ISPCP – because they have the individual customers – are members
willing to use that info for contacting individuals and encourage them to
become involved? Elections easily open to capture. Action on our part could
minimize the “disaster”. Should try to get many good candidates. [will discuss
this further on the list]
b. Possibly set up a company between
some of the huge ISPs and tender for the registry!