NC: Budget Committee.
Wed Jun 26 13:08:02 CEST 2002
Two resolutions. 1. Approve spending $ 8,000 + something for
reimbursement to ICANN on teleconference costs. Budget committee
doesn't have power to approve spending above $ 5,000. Council
approves. 2. Consequences of procedures relating to
constituencies not paying their dues. During 2001, NCDNHC failed to
pay dues. NCDNHC filed "show cause" notice. Budget Committee
recommends that Names Council waives sanctions. No request or
recommendation that dues be forgiven. No implication for 2002 dues.
Philipp Sheppard: Formally discuss at next conference call.
NC: WHOIS presentation.
Wed Jun 26 13:45:30 CEST 2002
Just one thing: Read
the report, and comment. Also, one follow-up remark
on the presentation held at the NC session: When you look at
question 17.d and add up the numbers, you'll see that > 75% of
responses were interpreted to be about opt-in or stricter protection
of data, an additional 10% were classified as generally calling for
stronger privacy protection. That's pretty similar to the results
from question 16.
Wed Jun 26 14:08:34 CEST 2002
Note: I missed part of this presentation.
Task Force works on survey; separate surveys for registrants
and intermediaries. Work was slow - reform process and WLS
took lots of ressources. Work plan: Revisit survey concept.
Get more registrant experience (including from at-large). Have
drafted documents. Task Force to think about uniform deletion
NC: Wait Listing Service.
Wed Jun 26 14:15:33 CEST 2002
Note: The audio feed has been failing occasionally, so this
is not necessarily complete.
Grant Forsythe gives presentation as BC representative to Transfers
Task Force. Process. Gather information from people,
constituencies. Four major areas of concern: Registrant concerns,
competition, registrar concerns, registry concerns. Legitimate
frustration by prospective registrants, concern by existing
registrants. Competition is not a concern for specific company
interests, but concern that participation in market should be open
to any company. Existing services would be eliminated by
introduction of WLS - reselling a single standardized service is
NOT a preferred substitute for competing choice. TF has not
been able to conclude report; draft recommendations: 1. The ICANN
Boards movewith all haste to implement and actively enfoce the
proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Delted Names policy and
practice. 2. The ICANN Board rejects VeriSigns's request to amend
its agreement to enable it to introduce irs proposed WLS. 3. The
ICANN Board rejects VeriSign's request to trial the WLS. WLS does not
address deletion and lapsing domain name issues. TF recommends that
board rejects WLS proposal. Should the board not accept
recommendation, there are four contingency recommendations. 1.
Implement RGP first. 2. Lower price. 3. Inform registrant. 4.
Transparency on WLS subscribers, like WHOIS.
Cochetti: Procedurally confused. Draft preliminary report.
Not status of Names Council document. Don't forward to board?
Sheppard: Board has set deadline. Status reports / work in
progress requested. Ken Stubbs: So we looked at exactly the
same set of recommendations sent to Board at 10 June? Grant
Forsyth: My presentation is current TF work, for NC
information. Based on proposal from June 4; no objections
received. M. Cade: This will be recommendations out of task
force. H. Feld: Hopes that RGP can move ahead without waiting
for WLS. Ken Stubbs echos this. J. Scott Evans (?): Price
recommendation discussed. Understands monopoly concerns.
Trademark interests hope that high price could deter
NC: Reform Discussion (1) - ccTLDs.
Wed Jun 26 14:40:24 CEST 2002
Elisabeth Porteneuve: In favor of number of aspects, including
ccTLD SO; provision of staff. ccTLDs prefer "ccSO" in spirit of
bottom-up discussion. Continuing dialogue. Will produce written
paper on various details. ccTLDs remain committed to funding
ICANN. Wish to make several observations. Like to know exact
cost of various ICANN items relating to various SOs. ccTLD group
willing to pay for ccTLD-related matters. ccTLD group has been
considering that if ccTLD IANA function requests whatever number
of stuff, will agree to pay for this. Rservations about
cross-subsidizing between various ICANN activities. Observation:
gTLD space is space where ICANN develops policy rules. Cost of
this is related to domain name cost. In each ccTLD there is
local policy-development, and cost for this is borne by ccTLD.
ccTLDs not prepared to have Nominating Committee appoint members
to ccTLD council. Are prepared to work closely with GAC. Do
not believe that appointed liaison officer is efficient way.
NC: Reform Discussion (2) - registrars.
Wed Jun 26 14:48:10 CEST 2002
Ken Stubbs: Blueprint an additional step in the right direction of
funding and staff for stable operation. Agree with NomCom and
streamlining. Need additional clarification about increased
per-registration fee. [audio gap] Need judicative contract
interpretation and enforcement. Proposals weak in this regard.
NC: Reform Discussion (3) - NCDNHC
Wed Jun 26 14:51:24 CEST 2002
Note: This one owes much to support from Alexander via ICQ.
Harold Feld: Non-commercial presence in ICANN is shrinking. Only
5-6 of them in the room at any given time. Foundations which have
funded travel to ICANN meetings in the past are no longer doing so.
They think that it's not a reasonable investment. [audio gap]
Deals are cut behind closed doors. Believe it's important for
non-commercial voice to be heared within ICANN. Personally believes
that they can and do have an impact in ICANN process. ... Not happy
with direction of evolution and reform. Greatly concerned that
input isn't heard and not given equal weight. Very few ressources
to participate in face-to-face meeting. Consideration should be
paid to comments submitted via e-mail. [audio gap] Wish to
remind board of critical principles: 1. Individuals have important
role to play. Need formal place within structure. 2. Top-down
processes run risk of imposing unpracticable solutions. (?)
Bottom-up processes critical. May be slower, but products more
sustainable. 3. ICANN was intended as instrument for Internet
coordination without direct governmental supervision. Concerns with
blueprint: Currently only one individual representative among 19
members of nominating committee without At-Large and with GA as
cross-constituency forum. Note, however, that there is $0.25
additional domain charge which is imposed on individuals. Users
asked to provide funding, but denied representation promised in
1988, reaffirmed in Cairo compromise, recommended by ALSC. Board
guiding policy-development bears danger that illusion of consensus
is created; controversial policies may sneak in. Governments
invited, individuals pushed out is wrong way. Commends blue-print
in these elements: Recognize non-commercials and academics, and
doesn't throw them together with individual interests. Glad not to
have been forgotten, but concerned that voice is diluted within
NC: Reform Discussion (4) - registries.
Wed Jun 26 15:00:36 CEST 2002
Cary Karp: Two aspects of blue-print require change. Request
different way of discussion for those constituencies which have
contractual relationship with ICANN. Registries and registrars can
more easily be aggregated than any of the other constituencies.
Cochetti: Both speaking on behalf of constituency which operates
unanimously. Section 5 of blueprint suggests non-binding
arbitration. Constituency finds approach inadequate.
[incomprehensible] Jordyn Buchanan (?): GNSO constituencies ought
to have voice which should be heared beyond gTLD policy. Separation
NC: Reform Discussion (5) - IPC
Wed Jun 26 15:05:47 CEST 2002
Ellen Shankman: [audio gap] J Scott Evans: Can't come
forward with formal position. Constituency members who looked
at material encouraged that board listens to various voices.
Glad about evolutionary instead of revolutionary approach.
Concern that many solutions come at a cost. How exactly should
cost be recovered?
NC: Reform Discussion (6) - ISPs
Wed Jun 26 15:08:47 CEST 2002
Tony Holmes: Will make statement tomorrow. Pleased to see step back
from more radical original approach. Many things they don't like.
Prefer different board make-up. Concerns about viability of
nominating committee, still have reservations. Board terms. Don't
want nominating committee appointees on SO councils. Would consider
one non-voting GAC member on the DNSO (council?). At-large has made
considerable progress. If four unaffiliated persons on NomCom, they
should come from At Large. One of the largest problems with ICANN:
Lack of support. [...]
NC: Reform Discussion (7) - BC
Wed Jun 26 15:13:44 CEST 2002
Marilyn Cade: Extensive consultation. Lateness of delivery of paper
makes complete response difficult. Value greatly the fact that
board members made themselves available yesterday. Paper departs
from whitepaper in key areas. Adjustments can be made. Framework
where details can be worked out. Funding: Businesses represent
significant user community in using and buying names. No one is
more affected by instability. BC on record: 2/3 of funding from
gTLDs, 1/3 from RIRs and ccTLDs. Mission: Policy development.
Support language in statement. Oppose outsourcing of ICANN
functions. On nominating committee: Concerns about implementation.
Support concept for selection of board members. Don't support
nominating committee for SO councils. Could imagine at-large
sending reps to gTLD council. Support strongly separate ccSO.
Expect ongonig dialogue on matters of mutual interest. Better
engage in dialogue than appoint someone. 19 people on nominating
committee will have great difficulty. If four unaffiliated persons
on NomCom, they should come from At Large. (Consistent with ISPs.)
No justification to change of number of board members. Movement
forward in electing board members, as opposed to earlier top-down
approach. Board authority: Policy-approval, not policy-development.
Lead to believe that board agrees on this. Generally: If board
doesn't like policy, pass it back to SO for another attempt.
Emergencies: Interim policies. Governmental participation: GAC and
rest of ICANN are relatively new at this. Believe that there is
better way for consultation than appointing liaisons. Need
methodology for bringing issue to GAC, and consult with GAC. Have
the right people on both sides for particular issues. Core value:
Stability. Private-sector leadership can be successful. Has been
Wed Jun 26 15:40:28 CEST 2002
Harold Feld has introduced this on behalf of NCDNHC. A number of
bidders made presentations to NCDNHC. Briefing helpful. But:
Concerned that there is need to fully participate in evaluation of
applications. Constituency believes to have expertise. Board should
instruct staff to work closely with team headed by NCDNHC, including
volunteers from other constituencies. Portion of funds collected
from applicants should be given to NCDNHC, so they can do due
diligence and produce input to ICANN board for consideration of
applications. Would seek foundation funding to assist in this
significant undertaking. Hopes that NC would at least make request
to board. Further: Request that board makes .org decision during
open telephone conference. Because questions regarding
conflict of interests have been raised, this is particularly
important. At the very least record meeting, and place recording on
web page. Wants stable delegation, avoid law-suits. Last point is
adopted by NC.
J Scott Evans (IPC): Experience from new gTLD process, discussion
with applicants. NCDNHC could do this too. Doesn't want NC
recommendation. Board has fiduciary duty. No need for special
Roger Cochetti: Necessary to evaluate ability of applicants to
reach out into non-profit sector. If reach-out, may remind them
(board? applicants?) about NCDNHC. Even absent such procedures,
can remind board of existence of this constituency.
J Scott Evans: Excellent suggestion to remind them. But much
different than what Harold has suggested.
M. Cade: Not just non-commercials in .org.
Bruce Tonkin: Asking for public comment more appropriate; .org incredibly diverse.
Harold Feld: 1. JSE: Request grows out of gTLD delegation
experience. Treatment of DNSO report by board. Found
difference between having consultive relationship and asking
staff to work directly work with constituency. Will do their
best in the time frame allotted to provide input to
decision-making process. In this particular instance:
Consistently identified as ("most") interested constituency,
greatest expertise in how non-profits are run. Board should
direct staff, so experience can effectively be shared. Money
request: Useful that money paid for evaluation should be used by
NCDNHC to evaluate aspects within constituency's expertise.
Will enhance process, prevent questions as to the legitimacy of
P. Sheppard is going to remind board of interested constituencies.