[wg-review] RE: WG-Review Teleconference notes - rev 1.

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Dear All,

I'm posting my notes of the teleconference in the interests of keeping those who were unable to participate informed about developments in a timely manner and to confirm agreement for the structured agenda for this WG-Review commencing Jan 26th. These notes are not intended to replace YJs comments posted earlier, but to add to them.

 

Participants were a sent a copy of this document for errors and omissions clearance at 15.48 EST USA with apologies to Rob and Danny whose email I did not have to hand. Elisabeth Porteneuve has approved comments in so far as they relate to her input on the DNSO funding and Newserver issues during the 30 or so minutes she joined the group.

 

I would add that it is my understanding the agreed schedule will commence on Jan 26th with item 1, Constituencies, and that voting on the first 3 items will be completed by Feb 15th and that Greg Burton will be preparing a detailed schedule for these and other topics in due course.

 

In view of some of today's posts, one aspect I would highlight would be Peter De Blanc's request to stop copying messages to the ccTLD list. He can explain the details, but it's a reasonable request IMO.

 

Comments? 

Joanna

 

WG-REVIEW TELECONFERENCE

2001-01-23

Notes by Joanna Lane

 

1. WG-Review Discussion of Basic Agenda

1. Constituencies - including IDNH and lack of representation for Registries.
2. GA -
3. NC -
4. Workgroups
5. Standardised Procedures - publish consensus rules applicable to this wg-review, its agenda and timetable, immediately in advance of each topic being addressed, via the list and on website. Suggestions for increasing participation in teleconferences such as dialpad.com.
6. Outreach - topic to include multilingual issues
7. Funding -

1. Procedures - discussion of 1,2,3 as three separate topics, with draft motions prepared at the end of each topic. There will then be a quick review of all 3 to finalise motions, followed by voting. Volunteers will be needed for each topic to collate comments and summarise for report.
2. Polling Booth: - Increase participation by focusing input to only one booth. Joop's Booth is the most secure.
3. Presentation. Documents to be circulated as PDF attachments to reduce risk of virus. Roeland has capability to convert.
4. Comments on Theresa Swinehart TF document: - Satisfactory, but need to fill in blanks. Not everybody has found time to read document. Generally not in agreement with attempts to cut WG-Review exercise short. Need adequate time to present responses properly and not a valid exercise without translation/ outreach.
5. Use of Email in WG-Review process - medium dictates longer discussions and make teleconferences inevitable. Newserver is more efficient as it allows underlying organisation of input by using sub-groups etc. It's a proven answer to the problems WG-Review is facing and software is free. Roeland to provide Elisabeth with tech information to be passed to DNSO.org system administrator with a request to install software. DNSO.net would support distribution. For people on the move, newsgroups work better - no need to be continuously online to access WebPages or use expensive mobile/long distance lines.
6. Multi-lingual:- Alta Vista offer one solution at http://www.babelfish.altavista.com/translate.dyn
7. ccTLDs: - only limited strategic, not tactical discussion within context of funding and budgeting DNSO will be possible. Wg-Review needs to reduce risk of recommendations being nullified and has limited resources. May require WG of it's own. Members welcome to pose questions about ccTLDs through WG-Review list, for Peter to liase with other ccTLDs, but no cross posting by members to ccTLD list. ccTLDs need time to clarify their own position through Hawaii and closed meetings with ICANN, but are interested in preserving mechanism. This will be clarified in Melbourne.
8. DNSO incorporation - Refer Budget Task Force. URL: NC Budget Archives - message no 230. Some NC members support change from political entity to separate Delaware Corporation. Concerns raised include Antitrust issues, DNSO setting itself up as competitor to other route server organisations, also ICANN bylaws which state DNSO is not a separate entity. Elisabeth suggested this came from KPMG Audit, which gave advice to keep DNSO budget separate. Therefore, there was a need to open a bank account, collect funds from constituencies and sponsors, to pay secretariat/ administration and one person in charge of collecting information. Budget of $200,000? This issue would be added to WG-Review of funding.

Present: Y.J.Park, Greg Burton (recused approximately 13.00 GMT), Danny Younger, Peter De Blanc, Roeland Meyer, Elisabeth Porteneuve (joined 13.30 GMT), Joanna Lane, Rob Juno.