| Questions |
Notes from Board |
Suggestions |
|
Pace of review to designate SO’s? |
Board’s role is not prescriptive. |
|
|
How does the board initiate policy should an SO not be willing/able/inclined to do so? |
The board reserves the right to act…
Reconsiderations help cure bad decisions. |
-Board needs a clear statement of authority.
-Chief Technology Officer monitors issues under consideration by SO’s and assists board in determining policies.
-SO’s to provide tech to carry out board policies vs. SO’s initiate policies.
-SO’s should develop policies by open process, not limited to board alone.
-In cases where SO is unable to make a policy recommendation, question should go to membership or back to SO’s.
-Board is ultimately responsible so board must reserve ultimate right to act.
-Board should not attempt to dictate technical solutions to SO’s.
-SO’s should not be able to vote on whether or not board approves SO’s proposed policy.
-Diffusion of policy-making power among several (many?) SO’s makes it difficult for individuals/entities who are affected by the decisions of multiple SO’s to participate and be heard?
-When an SO does not act, there’s an indication of lack of consensus for contemplated policy. Board should act only on strong consensus of internet community. Beware of litigation otherwise. |
|
Can we have a definitive answer on the role of the Names Council? (two interpretations currently: at large body which anyone can join or small elected top tier of the DNSO) |
Roberts: Names community is at mark. Board looks forward to hearing from them. |
December 15 deadline may be overly ambitious for determining identity/structure of DNSO. |
|
How does the board see the funding process: The timescale for ICANN budget and allocation of budget to each SO? Monies direct to ICANN who in turn fund SOs? |
Dyson: Comments are solicited. |
|
|
What is relationship of ICANN and SO concept to existing organizations (IETF, etc.)? |
|
Who serves whom? Board provides service to SO’s, or vice versa?
Bottom-up (too ambiguous) |
|
Qualifications for SOs |
|
User interests should be represented through the membership and board members selected by it. By contrast, the supporting organizations (or equivalent) should be centers of technical and operational expertise in their particular areas, containing people and organizations with significant contemporary stake in those areas, not just interest in the area or passionate beliefs about it, and their associated councils and board representation should reflect this. |
|
To what extent should supporting organizations be limited to people with a technical focus? |
|
|
|
Antitrust issues? |
|
|
|
Two key questions: (1) Domain name conflict dispute resolution, (2) Adding new gTLDs. |
|
|
|
Financial Model |
-Roberts: Internet community must support ICANN/SO’s.
-Conrades: See VI.3.b.i. and vi. |
-Who will pay for SO’s? Will SO’s pay for ICANN?
-SO’s should receive funds by licensing ICANN assets. |
|
What about a user SO? |
Roberts: Back on the radar screen. |
Need to look beyond financial interests. |
| |
-Wilson: Too early to give an opinion.
-Conrades: In general, it’s not troubling that the SO’s choose board members so long as the selection process is open and fair.
-Fitzsimmons: Checks and balances between board, SO’s, and at-large membership.
-Kraaijenbrink: Hidden time bomb may be fundamental differences of opinion among the segments of the internet community. |
-There must be a balance of power between the at-large membership and the memberships of the SO’s. If the membership structures are functionally identical, there’s no balance of power between the at-large and technical communities.
-No need to rush this process, this board is already proceeding too fast. The ISPs and registries will ensure the stability of the internet as this process proceeds. |