Names Council Report 14/07/00

— filed under: gTLDs, ICANN, DNSO

REPORT TO ISOCNZ COUNCIL

14 JULY 2000

The Names Council meeting began slightly later than the advertised time of 1.30, commencing with a roll call (Y J Park, Theresa Swinehart, Ken Stubbs (Chair), Roger Ciochetti, Paul Kane, Erica Roberts, Dennis Jennings, Patricio Poblete, Ni Quaynor, Caroline Chicoine, Michael Schneider, Horo Hotta, Tony Harris).

Report from General Assembly

Roberto Gaetano presented a brief report from the General Assembly meeting just ended. He noted there had been better conduct on the list, as a result of adopting an AUP and voting procedures, and members were returning to the list. He referred to the Dengate Thrush motion on the individual domain names constituency which had been passed by an overwhelming majority of the General Assembly meeting. He also referred to the request addressed to the Board re the formation of an IDO constituency. Discussion followed on whether to admit these to the agenda. It was agreed to consider the Dengate Thrush motion and that Roberto should pass the request of the Board to the Board.

There was then a review of the Names Council agenda. Michael Schneider appeared to be trying to get an extra item on the agenda which had been posted, but had not reached the agenda.

There was considerable discussion on the establishment of an "intake committee" to review items for the agenda. (Talking about what they should be talking about occupied a considerable amount of time, then and later during the meeting.)

Having accepted the principle, a number agreed, including Theresa, with the report that Philip Shepherd (absent) was happy to volunteer. Paul Kane supported and volunteered, as did Y J, Erica and a number of others. Erica reported that it needed to develop fairly clear principles, which could be the first item for consideration at the next meeting. It could include the General Assembly chair also (suggested by Richard Lindsay). Roberto agreed to assist. After some discussion about membership and procedure, it was suggested that each constituency might provide a member to the intake committee, to prevent it from being a "filter" blocking material reaching the Names Council

ICANN Staff Update

Louis Touton provided summary of staff levels, resources, profits and financing.

Resources - they had been hiring at a modest rate and now had 10 fulltime employee equivalents, and two part-time. One of the team was Rebecca Nessan, who was responsible for the membership at large. They are looking for new offices. Much effort had been spent on the TLD expansion consultations, with approximately 1,300 submissions to the website. Other organisation matters reported on included the formation of relationships with the CCTLD managers (not stated as to which ones), registries and the at large membership. They are also working with the root server advisory committee to get enhancements of the root.

Finances

Reference was made to a financial report posted 14 July 2000. There had been agreement to assist in a collection effort, invoices been sent out to those constituencies that could receive a single invoice. Other constituencies needed multiple invoices, requiring names and addresses.

Considerable discussion took place on what should have been a trivial issue, sorted out by list email or phone call, and at any event before the meeting. There seems to be no concept of a straightforward accounting process.

A number of constituencies have not paid their share of the DNSO expenses, a large part of which is paid to the Berkman Institute, for the cost of web-casting ICANN meetings. There was considerable discussion on this problem. Perhaps the best comment was from Ken Stubbs that one needed to be a fully paid up member to take part in discussions. Others suggested outsourcing the invoices and collections.

Initiation of DNSO Review

Pindar Wong, a New Zealand citizen of Hong Kong elected to the Board from the ASO, reported on a new initiative of the Board. The Board felt it was time to comprehensively review the functioning of each of the support organisations, with an initial report to be produced before the November meeting (basically completed in October). The repeated question was "is it working". Paul Kane noted that it was very good to have periodic self-assessment and noted that it was time for the Council to define the role of the secretariat.

Board Nomination Process

There was some confusion about the process, and the election date (the Chair was unprepared for the topic).

In the end, the matter was dealt with by agreeing to adopt the methodology previously adopted. Patricio Poblete noted that as only one position was this time, up for election, it would be much simpler than the last time (when there were three).

It was agreed to open nominations on 20 July and close them in the same period as was available last year. Noting geodiversity, Ken Stubbs noted that there could not be nominations from North America, Latin America or Europe, as those were the current directors. (Wrong.) The discussion seemed to ignore the fact that Jonathan Cohen (whose term expired at the end of November) could stand for re-election.

Y J Park wanted to urge geodiversity by requiring that there be some form of rotation so that if there had been directors from North America, Latin America, Europe, next directors must come from Asia and Africa, as the unrepresented regions. Ken Stubbs said that the bylaw did not permit that, Paul Kane said they could urge candidates to come from Africa, Asia to stand. The motion to this effect was carried with five abstentions.

Names Council Chair

Ken Stubbs was re-elected as Chair.

Working Group G

There was discussion on the creation of new Working Group G to carry out the DNSO review. There was discussion of both a task force and a working group with some confusion as to their separate roles. It was agreed to finalise the details in the next Names Council telephone conference.

Michael Schneider amended the motion to require incorporation as to whether or not there should be an individual domain name owners constituency.

Funding

The general problem with funding and the lack of administration resources was raised. Roger Ciochetti on behalf of the gTLD registry constituency (i.e. NSI) made an offer to contribute up to $US100,000 on a "matching" basis against contributions from other constituencies.

This caused some discussion, including what the effect might be on employing staff if funding was then not repeated in future years. Some permanent solution was required.

Working Group E Final Report

Kilnam Chon presented his final report. See it at the archives under DNSO 0710.htm.

New gTLDs

Having spent most of the meeting time debating items which could have been dealt with online, the meeting (now running short of time) came to the crucial topic. Y J Park had previously expressed considerable difficulty with the way the matter had been treated by the Names Council. She had objected to the recommendation that was made by the Names Council to the ICANN Board and had, several times, unsuccessfully tried to get the matter put back on today's agenda. Now it was Michael Schneider's turn (ISP constituency). He moved a motion that the Board not take any action about the process of how to introduce new TLDs before the Names Council had provided a further statement.

Roger Ciochetti objected on the basis that it was involving the Council in preparing detailed policy. The Cairo resolution had passed the matter to the Board to decide implementation details. There followed a relatively acrimonious debate in which Ciochetti and Stubbs lined up against Michael Schneider. Schneider was trying to involve the Names Council in further policy and procedure over the new gTLDs - the others were happy to leave it to the Board.

The matter was eventually "rescued" by Dennis Jennings, who proposed a resolution reminding the Board that the Names Council was available to consider policy implications should the Board wish to refer to it. Six were in favour of it, three were against and five abstained, so it is not clear whether it succeeded in being passed under the Names Council quorum rules.

Public discussion followed, primarily from further non-commercial constituency members who repeated the position previously stated by that constituency.

Government Advisory Committee Communique

The Government Advisory Committee had been meeting all that day as well, and we adjourned to the room to receive its communique.

The GAC meeting was apparently highly contentious. It finished well over time, and after waiting for an hour or so when a postponement announcement was made, we adjourned to celebrate Bastille Day in a Japanese restaurant.

Sections

Personal tools