Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1243
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 29 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1243

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 11:35:48 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments

Joe writes:  Today, many people marginalize themselves by taking a black or 
white approach -- e.g., direct elections are the only acceptable way to be 
accountable.

With all due respect, the question that one might ask is the following:  
After having budgeted $450,000 for an At-Large study, and after having been 
told by those charged with completing the year-long study (this included the 
former Chairman of ICANN), that "an At-Large membership registration and 
election process can be developed that meets standards of integrity, fairness 
and affordability" ( http://www.atlargestudy.org/final_report.shtml ), why 
has the Board not accepted the recommendations of its own Blue-Ribbon panel 
that reflects the consensus view of the community?  

Aren't we a consensus-based organization?  Do we now have a Board that no 
longer respects consensus?

   

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:39:57 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf MP3 recording May 29,2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

The MP3 recording of the Names Council teleconference is now available at:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020529.NCteleconf.mp3

Happy listening!

DNSO Secretariat

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:40:06 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion process rules -- DRAFT 0.1

Responding to two postings:

At 29.05.2002 09:14, James Love wrote:
>A few quick comments..
>
>1.  Can we get this done before the Bucharest meeting?

Yes, pleeease! :))

>2.  Can we cap the number of endorsers that are needed (like the Canadians
>did).

I'm not completely sure that this is what you refer to:
You prefer to have a specific number of supporters
necessary instead of or in addition to a percentage of Voting 
Registry members? (According to http://www.cira.ca/en/faq-menu12.html,
every candidate needs support from 50 CIRA members.)

Both percentages and numbers have drawbacks:
If we use numbers and the Voting Registry continues to
grow, the requirement could suddenly become ridiculously low.
If we use percentages and the Voting Registry continues to
grow, the requirement could suddenly become too high.
The reverse applies if we do what Danny Younger seems to
hint at: a re-certification of Voting Registry members
to check if they still are alive.
If we use numbers and the Voting Registry becomes smaller
again, the requirement could suddenly become too high.
If we use percentages and the Voting Registry becomes
smaller again, the requirement could suddenly become very 
low.

How about "4% of VR membership or 35 VR members, whichever
is smaller"?

>3.   Is it too complex regarding requirements for changes?    Sometimes a
>clever minor change comes at the end, and makes the whole thing work to
>everyone's satifaction.

Well, if the clever minor changes are friendly amendments, 
that's no problem: They just have to be accepted by the
proponent (and not be opposed by more than 1/4 of the
original supporters). It becomes a bit more complex if
the proponent opposes the change -- and that's probably
an indication that the change is somewhat more substantial.

- --------

At 29.05.2002 15:35, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:
>Thank you. This is a very good work. I only question I have is the alternative motion. I understand the motive, but not the 2%. If this is pure opposition, there should be the same requirement in term of second. If this is complementarity or a big amendment many of the initial supporters will support it too as they might vote for both (like the last one), so you do not need to worry about less time. Your motion was supported as well. 

The reason for having a barrier at all is to prevent us 
from voting on motions which nobody or only one person is
interested while taking votes on important issues. The
problem about alternative motions (as we have just 
witnessed) is that it's often hard to tell if a motion
is "pure opposition", complementary, a big amendment
or something different with regards to another motion.
And it gets even worse if there are three or more motions.

That's why the proposed rules say: If we have a motion 
proposal on topic X and there is enough support, that means
(a) the motion should be discussed and voted upon and
(b) the issue is of considerable interest to the GA.
I would prefer (not only, but also because of the election 
costs) to bundle all the votes on one topic. If we
had another four weeks, the whole process would become
rather cumbersome. And:

>Also, having an initially less supported motion will lead to consider it is a lower grade motion, a political bias. So it would be a disservice to the alternate motion and would not help its introduction. 

I don't think this would happen. Look at people who have
been elected as ICANN Directors: The number of endorsements 
they have received before the elections does not play
much of a role.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:45:03 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for vote on GA position on election of ICANN board members

On 2002-05-29 04:08:47 -0400, James Love wrote:

>1.  Every member of the ICANN board of directors should be elected 
>by bodies that are wholly independent from the ICANN board itself.

This is ill-defined: What does "wholly independent from the ICANN  
board" even mean?  Is the DNSO "wholly independent"?  Are the  
constituencies?  Would at-large elections like the ones which took  
place 2000 pass this test of independence?

>2.  If the ICANN board creates a new system for board  
>representation that is different from the system contemplated in  
>the White Paper, it should repopulate the board with new board  
>members, who are elected by bodies that are wholly independent  
> from the existing board, and such action is necessary to  
>demonstrate the board's confidence in the fairness of the new  
>system.

This suggestion would back-fire: It would deprive the board of all  
the experience which is currently there.  Rather, I'd suggest that  
the unelected (and, bad enough, also the elected) at large board 
members should be replaced at the next opportunity.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:53:24 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf minutes May 14, 2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]]

DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 14 May 2002 - minutes

14 May 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020502.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc         ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles/
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Elisabeth
Porteneuve

Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business
Greg Ruth              ISPCP
Antonio Harris         ISPCP
Tony Holmes            ISPCP absent, apologies proxy to Tony Harris
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars absent, apologies, proxy to Ken Stubbs
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
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,

14 Names Council Members

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut      MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020514.NCteleconf.mp3
Quorum present at 15:10 (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
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020514.NCteleconf-agenda.html

Ken Stubbs proposed sending get well wishes to Peter de Blanc on behalf of
the
Names Council.
Ken Stubbs sugested that timely arrangements shoud be made for an archived
recording of the Names Council meeting in Bucharest.
A call for attendance at the Bucharest meeting revealed that there would be
at
least 12 NC members present.

The agenda was approved.
Item 1. Summary of last meetings:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020418.NCteleconf-minutes.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.NC-minutesrevised.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020502.NCteleconf-minutes.html
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the summaries, seconded by Cary Karp.
The motion was carried unanimously .
Decision 1: Motion adopted.

J. Scott Evans, on behalf of the Intellectual Property Constituency,
requested
that a footnote be added under the heading:
Policy Development Bodies
Recommendations 9, 10, 11, 12,
see the IPC submission:
http://www.dnso.org/temp/20020429.IPCsubmission-Reform.htmlC.htm
The IPC sees these Bodies as Issue Identification Bodies and as such the IPC
disagrees on the function of these bodies
Elisabeth Porteneuve commented on the wording in:
Recommendation 3 - Functions
New wording:
ICANN's functions should not be extended at this time beyond what is
outlined in
the note "What ICANN Does", subject to the distinct roles of IANA and ICANN
being mainained.

commenting that IANA functions have a separate Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU)
between the US. Government and ICANN.
The wording does not imply any change.

Agenda item 2: NC Recommendations18 - 24 in v9.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020503.Response-Reform-v9.html

Recommendation18.
Ph. Sheppard explained that the draft wording had come from Thomas
Roessler's
input.

Roger Cochetti reminded the group that the gTLD Registry Constituency is on
record as not supporting this recommendation.
Advisory bodies, or whatever they are called, dealing with gTLDs should be
made
up of operators, Registrars and Registries. This was also a recommendation
of
the AtLarge study group.

Discussion showed that there are similarities and differences with ccTLDs
and
gTLDs.
Generic ccTLDS that take on the character of gTLDs have a global impact.
Issues are similar but policies are different.
Common interests of ccTLDs and gTLDs should be identified.
ICANN cannot develop policy issues binding on ccTLDs.
Recommendation is defining a minimum not a maximum of constituencies.
Non- commercial organisations should be specified rather than non-commercila
interests.
To Internet service providers, connectivity should be added.

Concern was expressed that the Names Council position was not recommending
anything beyond the status quo, however, "Who" remains at the table remains
broadly the same, but "What" is where things should be changed.

New wording:
The stakeholders in the gTLD policy development body should be at minimum
the
following constituencies: Business users, intellectual property interests,
gTLD
Registries, Registrars, non-commercial organisations, internet service and
connectivity providers.

The recommendation was accepted by all except the gTLD Registrar
constituency
and the Non-Commercial constituency said that their vote depended on the
language in Recommendations 19 - 21.

Recommendation 19
Ph. Sheppard added a concern mentioned earlier by the Non-Commercial
constituency,
Other stakeholders, such as individual domain name holders,
A distinction should be made between permanent and temporary
constituency/forums.
New constituencies should form according to Names Council criteria.
Temporary constituency could form round a specific issue.
There was support for the idea of restructuring the GA and make it a place
for
issue fora.

New wording:
Recommendation 19 - Other stakeholders.
Other stakeholders, such as individual domain name holders, could be added
subject to the requirements of the Names Council "Criteria for establishing
new
DNSO constituencies" as set out in the NC rules of procedure at
www.dnso.org.

Recommendation 19: Accepted by all

Recommendation 20
Thomas Roessler suggested being more explicit and adding 3 representatives
per
stakeholder/ constituency is optimal.
Marilyn Cade felt that the structure of the body should be dealt with first.
Ken Stubbs said that guidelines for electing this body should be considered
before a specific number.
Roger Cochetti commented that the recommendations appeared to be a Names
Council
clone
Structure, function, process should be part of the recommendation and in
function and process it will be different.
Tony Harris reminded the group that the ISCPC prefers a model on the curent
lines of the current DNSO and supports the creating of Supporting
Organisations
for the ccTLD and the AtLarge.
Ken Stubbs hoped that the idea, whether called the NC or Policy Council,
having
groups with common interests and bringing them into contact with groups
affected
by the policy would be explored.
Recommendation 20: Accepted by all

Recommendation 21 - Public Consultation
Deffered to the end to be discussed with the GA and public fora.

Recommendation 22
Ph. Sheppard addressed this stating that the wording also captured some of
the
concerns earlier expressed by Ken Stubbs. The present Task Forces have
merit,
outside expertise could be called upon and the groups would thus vary in
size
but have to be balanced and make recommendations to the main body.

Marilyn Cade suggested that calling in outside expertise or specific help
should
be emphasied, which was echoed by Harold Feld who added that there should be
a
formal consultation process with the constituencies in the early feedback
stage.

Further discussion pointed out the following issues:
- - staff support,
- - a core of drafters
- - prior to submitting the report to the NC, the Task Forces should consult
with
and take input from the individual constituencies.
- - Ken Stubbs strongly emphasised that in any deliberating process timelines
are
very important to efficiency.

New wording:
Recommendation 22 - working practice
The gTLD policy development body should operate by establishing small,
specialist working groups with realistic timelines. These working groups may
vary in size and composition depending on the issue and could include
outside
expertise. The working groups would consult with constituencies/stakeholders
and
then make final recommendations to the Council or similar body of the gTLD
policy development body.

Recommendation 22 : Accepted by all.

Recommendation 23 - Board Liaison
Ph. Sheppard said that Board involvement in each of these bodies was an idea
that came from the last meeting.
J. Scott Evans who initiated the idea, elaborated by saying that Board
Members
should be assigned to liaise with the various policy developing bodies,
monitor
the process and guide the Board in understanding how the policy was
developed.

New wording:
Recommendation 23 - Board liaison
To ensure Board level engagement in the policy development process one or
more
Board members should be assigned as a liaison to each policy development
body.

Recommendation 23: Accepted by All

Recommendation 24
Philip Sheppard addressed the recommendation saying it tried to capture the
idea
of an interim decision when time is critical, and Thomas Roessler suggested
defining "interim" by a maximum of 6 months.

In the discussion the Redemption paper was given as an example of where a
quick
decision had to be made.
In time critical situations, the Board should be able to direct staff to
make a
recommendation, test out the recommendation with the Policy Development Body
(PDB), rather than expecting the PDB to do the work.
Businesses could not be expected to act on interim decisions so this was
acceptable.

New wording:

Recommendation 24 - extremis
Ordinarily all policy development should be via the policy development
bodies
and subject to recommendation 10 in terms of obligation on the Board. In
extremis when externalities dictate, the Board should be able to direct
ICANN
staff to draft a policy for fast-track consideration (not to exceed 60 days)
by
the policy development bodies.

Recommendation 24: Accepted by All

Recommendation 21
Philip Sheppard addressed the recommendation, adding Thomas Roessler's
contributions.
In addition to the General Assembly, the idea of fora was added and the
distinction was made between genuine stakeholders who should self organise
and
be part of the process, making the General Assembly a genuine assemblty of
all
those stakeholders and having in addition an effective means of consultation
on
proposed policies whereby those individuals not part of the stakeholders can
ordinarily participate
Suggested wording
The General Assembly:
The gTLD policy development body should have a general assembly whose prime
role
is to provide a forum for broad inter-constituency exchange. Consequently
membership should be limited to the agreed stakeholders who are represented
in
the policy development body.

Recommendation accepted by all.

Discussion on public consultation pointed out that:
Public consultation should be clearly defined, it is always costly and can
be
fundamental as it educates people. However care should be taken that values
are
not created through public consultation as it tends to become a dumping
ground
for personal issues that minimise the issue at stake.
Ken Stubbs gave the example of public consultation in Domain Name Transfers
which should not focus on alternate roots.
A time limit is important without fixing it definitely.

New wording:

Public Consultation:
There should be public consultation on proposed new policy within strict
time
limits, typically not to exceed 30 days. Such consultation should serve as
the
channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the stakeholders/
constituency scheme participate in policy-making. Fora of self-declared
interested parties should be specifically requested for input during such
consultation. The necessary financial and human resources will need to be
made
available for public consultation.
Accepted by everybody.

AOB - none
Philip Sheppard concluded saying that he would formally submit a report as
edited on this call. He confirmed the next teleconference on May 29, 2002 at
15:00 Paris time.

1.NC comments on evoluion and Reform Committee working paper on ICANN's
structure and the nominating committee concept:
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/working-paper-structure-09may02.
html

2. Function and process on Recommendation 20
3. Report on Wait List Service (WLS) - Marilyn Cade
The teleconference ended at 17:15
Next NC teleconference May 29 at 15:00 Paris time, 13:00 UTC.
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

 Information from:
      © DNSO Names Council

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:54:09 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf minutes May 14, 2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]]

DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 14 May 2002 - minutes

14 May 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020502.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc         ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles/
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Elisabeth
Porteneuve

Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business
Greg Ruth              ISPCP
Antonio Harris         ISPCP
Tony Holmes            ISPCP absent, apologies proxy to Tony Harris
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars absent, apologies, proxy to Ken Stubbs
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
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,

14 Names Council Members

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut      MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020514.NCteleconf.mp3
Quorum present at 15:10 (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
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020514.NCteleconf-agenda.html

Ken Stubbs proposed sending get well wishes to Peter de Blanc on behalf of
the
Names Council.
Ken Stubbs sugested that timely arrangements shoud be made for an archived
recording of the Names Council meeting in Bucharest.
A call for attendance at the Bucharest meeting revealed that there would be
at
least 12 NC members present.

The agenda was approved.
Item 1. Summary of last meetings:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020418.NCteleconf-minutes.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.NC-minutesrevised.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020502.NCteleconf-minutes.html
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the summaries, seconded by Cary Karp.
The motion was carried unanimously .
Decision 1: Motion adopted.

J. Scott Evans, on behalf of the Intellectual Property Constituency,
requested
that a footnote be added under the heading:
Policy Development Bodies
Recommendations 9, 10, 11, 12,
see the IPC submission:
http://www.dnso.org/temp/20020429.IPCsubmission-Reform.htmlC.htm
The IPC sees these Bodies as Issue Identification Bodies and as such the IPC
disagrees on the function of these bodies
Elisabeth Porteneuve commented on the wording in:
Recommendation 3 - Functions
New wording:
ICANN's functions should not be extended at this time beyond what is
outlined in
the note "What ICANN Does", subject to the distinct roles of IANA and ICANN
being mainained.

commenting that IANA functions have a separate Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU)
between the US. Government and ICANN.
The wording does not imply any change.

Agenda item 2: NC Recommendations18 - 24 in v9.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020503.Response-Reform-v9.html

Recommendation18.
Ph. Sheppard explained that the draft wording had come from Thomas
Roessler's
input.

Roger Cochetti reminded the group that the gTLD Registry Constituency is on
record as not supporting this recommendation.
Advisory bodies, or whatever they are called, dealing with gTLDs should be
made
up of operators, Registrars and Registries. This was also a recommendation
of
the AtLarge study group.

Discussion showed that there are similarities and differences with ccTLDs
and
gTLDs.
Generic ccTLDS that take on the character of gTLDs have a global impact.
Issues are similar but policies are different.
Common interests of ccTLDs and gTLDs should be identified.
ICANN cannot develop policy issues binding on ccTLDs.
Recommendation is defining a minimum not a maximum of constituencies.
Non- commercial organisations should be specified rather than non-commercila
interests.
To Internet service providers, connectivity should be added.

Concern was expressed that the Names Council position was not recommending
anything beyond the status quo, however, "Who" remains at the table remains
broadly the same, but "What" is where things should be changed.

New wording:
The stakeholders in the gTLD policy development body should be at minimum
the
following constituencies: Business users, intellectual property interests,
gTLD
Registries, Registrars, non-commercial organisations, internet service and
connectivity providers.

The recommendation was accepted by all except the gTLD Registrar
constituency
and the Non-Commercial constituency said that their vote depended on the
language in Recommendations 19 - 21.

Recommendation 19
Ph. Sheppard added a concern mentioned earlier by the Non-Commercial
constituency,
Other stakeholders, such as individual domain name holders,
A distinction should be made between permanent and temporary
constituency/forums.
New constituencies should form according to Names Council criteria.
Temporary constituency could form round a specific issue.
There was support for the idea of restructuring the GA and make it a place
for
issue fora.

New wording:
Recommendation 19 - Other stakeholders.
Other stakeholders, such as individual domain name holders, could be added
subject to the requirements of the Names Council "Criteria for establishing
new
DNSO constituencies" as set out in the NC rules of procedure at
www.dnso.org.

Recommendation 19: Accepted by all

Recommendation 20
Thomas Roessler suggested being more explicit and adding 3 representatives
per
stakeholder/ constituency is optimal.
Marilyn Cade felt that the structure of the body should be dealt with first.
Ken Stubbs said that guidelines for electing this body should be considered
before a specific number.
Roger Cochetti commented that the recommendations appeared to be a Names
Council
clone
Structure, function, process should be part of the recommendation and in
function and process it will be different.
Tony Harris reminded the group that the ISCPC prefers a model on the curent
lines of the current DNSO and supports the creating of Supporting
Organisations
for the ccTLD and the AtLarge.
Ken Stubbs hoped that the idea, whether called the NC or Policy Council,
having
groups with common interests and bringing them into contact with groups
affected
by the policy would be explored.
Recommendation 20: Accepted by all

Recommendation 21 - Public Consultation
Deffered to the end to be discussed with the GA and public fora.

Recommendation 22
Ph. Sheppard addressed this stating that the wording also captured some of
the
concerns earlier expressed by Ken Stubbs. The present Task Forces have
merit,
outside expertise could be called upon and the groups would thus vary in
size
but have to be balanced and make recommendations to the main body.

Marilyn Cade suggested that calling in outside expertise or specific help
should
be emphasied, which was echoed by Harold Feld who added that there should be
a
formal consultation process with the constituencies in the early feedback
stage.

Further discussion pointed out the following issues:
- - staff support,
- - a core of drafters
- - prior to submitting the report to the NC, the Task Forces should consult
with
and take input from the individual constituencies.
- - Ken Stubbs strongly emphasised that in any deliberating process timelines
are
very important to efficiency.

New wording:
Recommendation 22 - working practice
The gTLD policy development body should operate by establishing small,
specialist working groups with realistic timelines. These working groups may
vary in size and composition depending on the issue and could include
outside
expertise. The working groups would consult with constituencies/stakeholders
and
then make final recommendations to the Council or similar body of the gTLD
policy development body.

Recommendation 22 : Accepted by all.

Recommendation 23 - Board Liaison
Ph. Sheppard said that Board involvement in each of these bodies was an idea
that came from the last meeting.
J. Scott Evans who initiated the idea, elaborated by saying that Board
Members
should be assigned to liaise with the various policy developing bodies,
monitor
the process and guide the Board in understanding how the policy was
developed.

New wording:
Recommendation 23 - Board liaison
To ensure Board level engagement in the policy development process one or
more
Board members should be assigned as a liaison to each policy development
body.

Recommendation 23: Accepted by All

Recommendation 24
Philip Sheppard addressed the recommendation saying it tried to capture the
idea
of an interim decision when time is critical, and Thomas Roessler suggested
defining "interim" by a maximum of 6 months.

In the discussion the Redemption paper was given as an example of where a
quick
decision had to be made.
In time critical situations, the Board should be able to direct staff to
make a
recommendation, test out the recommendation with the Policy Development Body
(PDB), rather than expecting the PDB to do the work.
Businesses could not be expected to act on interim decisions so this was
acceptable.

New wording:

Recommendation 24 - extremis
Ordinarily all policy development should be via the policy development
bodies
and subject to recommendation 10 in terms of obligation on the Board. In
extremis when externalities dictate, the Board should be able to direct
ICANN
staff to draft a policy for fast-track consideration (not to exceed 60 days)
by
the policy development bodies.

Recommendation 24: Accepted by All

Recommendation 21
Philip Sheppard addressed the recommendation, adding Thomas Roessler's
contributions.
In addition to the General Assembly, the idea of fora was added and the
distinction was made between genuine stakeholders who should self organise
and
be part of the process, making the General Assembly a genuine assemblty of
all
those stakeholders and having in addition an effective means of consultation
on
proposed policies whereby those individuals not part of the stakeholders can
ordinarily participate
Suggested wording
The General Assembly:
The gTLD policy development body should have a general assembly whose prime
role
is to provide a forum for broad inter-constituency exchange. Consequently
membership should be limited to the agreed stakeholders who are represented
in
the policy development body.

Recommendation accepted by all.

Discussion on public consultation pointed out that:
Public consultation should be clearly defined, it is always costly and can
be
fundamental as it educates people. However care should be taken that values
are
not created through public consultation as it tends to become a dumping
ground
for personal issues that minimise the issue at stake.
Ken Stubbs gave the example of public consultation in Domain Name Transfers
which should not focus on alternate roots.
A time limit is important without fixing it definitely.

New wording:

Public Consultation:
There should be public consultation on proposed new policy within strict
time
limits, typically not to exceed 30 days. Such consultation should serve as
the
channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the stakeholders/
constituency scheme participate in policy-making. Fora of self-declared
interested parties should be specifically requested for input during such
consultation. The necessary financial and human resources will need to be
made
available for public consultation.
Accepted by everybody.

AOB - none
Philip Sheppard concluded saying that he would formally submit a report as
edited on this call. He confirmed the next teleconference on May 29, 2002 at
15:00 Paris time.

1.NC comments on evoluion and Reform Committee working paper on ICANN's
structure and the nominating committee concept:
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/working-paper-structure-09may02.
html

2. Function and process on Recommendation 20
3. Report on Wait List Service (WLS) - Marilyn Cade
The teleconference ended at 17:15
Next NC teleconference May 29 at 15:00 Paris time, 13:00 UTC.
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

 Information from:
      © DNSO Names Council

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:54:15 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf minutes May 14, 2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]]

DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 14 May 2002 - minutes

14 May 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020502.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc         ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles/
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Elisabeth
Porteneuve

Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business
Greg Ruth              ISPCP
Antonio Harris         ISPCP
Tony Holmes            ISPCP absent, apologies proxy to Tony Harris
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars absent, apologies, proxy to Ken Stubbs
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
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,

14 Names Council Members

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut      MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020514.NCteleconf.mp3
Quorum present at 15:10 (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
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020514.NCteleconf-agenda.html

Ken Stubbs proposed sending get well wishes to Peter de Blanc on behalf of
the
Names Council.
Ken Stubbs sugested that timely arrangements shoud be made for an archived
recording of the Names Council meeting in Bucharest.
A call for attendance at the Bucharest meeting revealed that there would be
at
least 12 NC members present.

The agenda was approved.
Item 1. Summary of last meetings:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020418.NCteleconf-minutes.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.NC-minutesrevised.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020502.NCteleconf-minutes.html
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the summaries, seconded by Cary Karp.
The motion was carried unanimously .
Decision 1: Motion adopted.

J. Scott Evans, on behalf of the Intellectual Property Constituency,
requested
that a footnote be added under the heading:
Policy Development Bodies
Recommendations 9, 10, 11, 12,
see the IPC submission:
http://www.dnso.org/temp/20020429.IPCsubmission-Reform.htmlC.htm
The IPC sees these Bodies as Issue Identification Bodies and as such the IPC
disagrees on the function of these bodies
Elisabeth Porteneuve commented on the wording in:
Recommendation 3 - Functions
New wording:
ICANN's functions should not be extended at this time beyond what is
outlined in
the note "What ICANN Does", subject to the distinct roles of IANA and ICANN
being mainained.

commenting that IANA functions have a separate Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU)
between the US. Government and ICANN.
The wording does not imply any change.

Agenda item 2: NC Recommendations18 - 24 in v9.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020503.Response-Reform-v9.html

Recommendation18.
Ph. Sheppard explained that the draft wording had come from Thomas
Roessler's
input.

Roger Cochetti reminded the group that the gTLD Registry Constituency is on
record as not supporting this recommendation.
Advisory bodies, or whatever they are called, dealing with gTLDs should be
made
up of operators, Registrars and Registries. This was also a recommendation
of
the AtLarge study group.

Discussion showed that there are similarities and differences with ccTLDs
and
gTLDs.
Generic ccTLDS that take on the character of gTLDs have a global impact.
Issues are similar but policies are different.
Common interests of ccTLDs and gTLDs should be identified.
ICANN cannot develop policy issues binding on ccTLDs.
Recommendation is defining a minimum not a maximum of constituencies.
Non- commercial organisations should be specified rather than non-commercila
interests.
To Internet service providers, connectivity should be added.

Concern was expressed that the Names Council position was not recommending
anything beyond the status quo, however, "Who" remains at the table remains
broadly the same, but "What" is where things should be changed.

New wording:
The stakeholders in the gTLD policy development body should be at minimum
the
following constituencies: Business users, intellectual property interests,
gTLD
Registries, Registrars, non-commercial organisations, internet service and
connectivity providers.

The recommendation was accepted by all except the gTLD Registrar
constituency
and the Non-Commercial constituency said that their vote depended on the
language in Recommendations 19 - 21.

Recommendation 19
Ph. Sheppard added a concern mentioned earlier by the Non-Commercial
constituency,
Other stakeholders, such as individual domain name holders,
A distinction should be made between permanent and temporary
constituency/forums.
New constituencies should form according to Names Council criteria.
Temporary constituency could form round a specific issue.
There was support for the idea of restructuring the GA and make it a place
for
issue fora.

New wording:
Recommendation 19 - Other stakeholders.
Other stakeholders, such as individual domain name holders, could be added
subject to the requirements of the Names Council "Criteria for establishing
new
DNSO constituencies" as set out in the NC rules of procedure at
www.dnso.org.

Recommendation 19: Accepted by all

Recommendation 20
Thomas Roessler suggested being more explicit and adding 3 representatives
per
stakeholder/ constituency is optimal.
Marilyn Cade felt that the structure of the body should be dealt with first.
Ken Stubbs said that guidelines for electing this body should be considered
before a specific number.
Roger Cochetti commented that the recommendations appeared to be a Names
Council
clone
Structure, function, process should be part of the recommendation and in
function and process it will be different.
Tony Harris reminded the group that the ISCPC prefers a model on the curent
lines of the current DNSO and supports the creating of Supporting
Organisations
for the ccTLD and the AtLarge.
Ken Stubbs hoped that the idea, whether called the NC or Policy Council,
having
groups with common interests and bringing them into contact with groups
affected
by the policy would be explored.
Recommendation 20: Accepted by all

Recommendation 21 - Public Consultation
Deffered to the end to be discussed with the GA and public fora.

Recommendation 22
Ph. Sheppard addressed this stating that the wording also captured some of
the
concerns earlier expressed by Ken Stubbs. The present Task Forces have
merit,
outside expertise could be called upon and the groups would thus vary in
size
but have to be balanced and make recommendations to the main body.

Marilyn Cade suggested that calling in outside expertise or specific help
should
be emphasied, which was echoed by Harold Feld who added that there should be
a
formal consultation process with the constituencies in the early feedback
stage.

Further discussion pointed out the following issues:
- - staff support,
- - a core of drafters
- - prior to submitting the report to the NC, the Task Forces should consult
with
and take input from the individual constituencies.
- - Ken Stubbs strongly emphasised that in any deliberating process timelines
are
very important to efficiency.

New wording:
Recommendation 22 - working practice
The gTLD policy development body should operate by establishing small,
specialist working groups with realistic timelines. These working groups may
vary in size and composition depending on the issue and could include
outside
expertise. The working groups would consult with constituencies/stakeholders
and
then make final recommendations to the Council or similar body of the gTLD
policy development body.

Recommendation 22 : Accepted by all.

Recommendation 23 - Board Liaison
Ph. Sheppard said that Board involvement in each of these bodies was an idea
that came from the last meeting.
J. Scott Evans who initiated the idea, elaborated by saying that Board
Members
should be assigned to liaise with the various policy developing bodies,
monitor
the process and guide the Board in understanding how the policy was
developed.

New wording:
Recommendation 23 - Board liaison
To ensure Board level engagement in the policy development process one or
more
Board members should be assigned as a liaison to each policy development
body.

Recommendation 23: Accepted by All

Recommendation 24
Philip Sheppard addressed the recommendation saying it tried to capture the
idea
of an interim decision when time is critical, and Thomas Roessler suggested
defining "interim" by a maximum of 6 months.

In the discussion the Redemption paper was given as an example of where a
quick
decision had to be made.
In time critical situations, the Board should be able to direct staff to
make a
recommendation, test out the recommendation with the Policy Development Body
(PDB), rather than expecting the PDB to do the work.
Businesses could not be expected to act on interim decisions so this was
acceptable.

New wording:

Recommendation 24 - extremis
Ordinarily all policy development should be via the policy development
bodies
and subject to recommendation 10 in terms of obligation on the Board. In
extremis when externalities dictate, the Board should be able to direct
ICANN
staff to draft a policy for fast-track consideration (not to exceed 60 days)
by
the policy development bodies.

Recommendation 24: Accepted by All

Recommendation 21
Philip Sheppard addressed the recommendation, adding Thomas Roessler's
contributions.
In addition to the General Assembly, the idea of fora was added and the
distinction was made between genuine stakeholders who should self organise
and
be part of the process, making the General Assembly a genuine assemblty of
all
those stakeholders and having in addition an effective means of consultation
on
proposed policies whereby those individuals not part of the stakeholders can
ordinarily participate
Suggested wording
The General Assembly:
The gTLD policy development body should have a general assembly whose prime
role
is to provide a forum for broad inter-constituency exchange. Consequently
membership should be limited to the agreed stakeholders who are represented
in
the policy development body.

Recommendation accepted by all.

Discussion on public consultation pointed out that:
Public consultation should be clearly defined, it is always costly and can
be
fundamental as it educates people. However care should be taken that values
are
not created through public consultation as it tends to become a dumping
ground
for personal issues that minimise the issue at stake.
Ken Stubbs gave the example of public consultation in Domain Name Transfers
which should not focus on alternate roots.
A time limit is important without fixing it definitely.

New wording:

Public Consultation:
There should be public consultation on proposed new policy within strict
time
limits, typically not to exceed 30 days. Such consultation should serve as
the
channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the stakeholders/
constituency scheme participate in policy-making. Fora of self-declared
interested parties should be specifically requested for input during such
consultation. The necessary financial and human resources will need to be
made
available for public consultation.
Accepted by everybody.

AOB - none
Philip Sheppard concluded saying that he would formally submit a report as
edited on this call. He confirmed the next teleconference on May 29, 2002 at
15:00 Paris time.

1.NC comments on evoluion and Reform Committee working paper on ICANN's
structure and the nominating committee concept:
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/working-paper-structure-09may02.
html

2. Function and process on Recommendation 20
3. Report on Wait List Service (WLS) - Marilyn Cade
The teleconference ended at 17:15
Next NC teleconference May 29 at 15:00 Paris time, 13:00 UTC.
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

 Information from:
      © DNSO Names Council

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1243
*************************