|
DNSO Names Council Meeting August 26, 1999 Santiago, Chile (Richard Lindsay participating via teleconference) I. Discussion of Proposed Agenda A. Other business at end? B. Session has to end by 5:00. C. Agenda approved by consensus. II. Constituency Updates A. IP Constituency (Cohen) 1. Revising bylaws for final acceptance. 2. Applications for membership from many groups of diverse nationalities. 3. Meeting in London in September, continuing effort to meet around the world. 4. Will deal with NC representation then. 5. Welcome anyone who can join – regardless of IP or not, language, etc. Just can’t vote, but you can participate and observe. 6. Kleinman: Voting process? a) Members of constituency vary dramatically in size. Makes voting trickier. B. ISPCP (Schneider) 1. Prior to arrival, discussed details of a set of articles. Approved them yesterday. 2. Discussing outreach among officers. Considering expansion from three officers to five so that every region can be represented. 3. Will vote for officers and NC members one per week in order to assure representation from each region. Every nominee from a region already represented will be removed from the nomination list for future votes. 4. Outreach: Less of a problem for this constituency. Members of this constituency tend to be aware of ICANN, DNSO, and this constituency. 5. No questions for ISPCP from Council. C. Business (Swinehart) 1. Meeting on Tuesday. Outreach and awareness, i.e. why this is important. Listserv for communication among selves to keep everyone informed. 2. Understand everyone has day job. Keeping drafting committees small for efficiency. 3. Questions from council: None D. ccTLD (Jennings) 1. Submitted charter at Berlin meeting and discussed with ICANN Staff. 2. Set up administrative committee with members from five geographic regions plus IATLD. 3. Spent lots of time on elections. Discussions with ICANN staff re outcomes, in particular re geographic diversity. 4. Web site up. 5. Working on budget and staffing. 6. Setting up task forces within constituency. Important issue is contract between ccTLDs and ICANN. 7. Questions from council: a) Stubbs: What’s the problem with geographic diversity? Response: Potential concern with two members from same region. b) Kleinman: How many members? (How many ccTLDs?) 243 exist. Lots of effort going into contacting all the ccTLD administrators. Now all but seven of the addresses work. Still not clear how many of the addresses go to people who write back, etc. 89 voted in recent elections. E. gTLD Registries (Telage) 1. A small constituency. But experienced, with lots of detailed & specialized knowledge. Want to share our lessons learned for the benefit of others. 2. Have been participating in WG’s when seems appropriate. Have made personnel available to other constituencies, in particular to Registrar Constituency. 3. Working on UDRP. 4. Also attended ccTLD meeting this week. 5. Questions a) Abril i Abril: Elections? Response: Yes, 100% response, complete consensus. F. Non-Commercial (Kleinman) 1. New, but got up and running quickly. Thanks to others who provided input. 2. Over 60 members from all regions. 3. Active mailing list, web site. 4. Lots of effort going into WG’s. A and B in particular. 5. Support creation of individuals. 6. Questions a) Abril i Abril: Congratulations on getting recognized. All constituencies should prepare for LA documents re why they do or don’t accept a constituency for individuals. G. Registrars (Abril i Abril) 1. Have been involved in outreach, web site improvements. Potential membership of accredited registrars. Hope that NSI and accredited registrars will join. Not members automatically; joining is necessary. 2. Have not been involved as much as would be ideal. Haven’t been in all WG’s, for example, at least not as much as desired. 3. Is the registrar constituency, not just for gTLD registrars. 4. Questions a) Cohen: Re geographical diversity, a distinction between residence and citizenship. Perhaps the wrong way to approach it. Really about “common law domicile” – major presence, based on extended residence. Something comparable in civil law? Response: OK, but what if you have multiple domiciles. b) Stubbs: Should NC have opportunity to present thoughts on geographic diversity? I have concerns re the topic. c) Telage: Is this a cultural issue? d) Schneider (in response to Lindsay via teleconference): Need to be consistent with ICANN board. III. Working Group A. WG-B: Famous Marks (Cohen) 1. New participants, esp from Chile. 2. Contact Michael Palage to get involved. 3. Expect to deliver final report to NC sometime in October. B. WG-C: New gTLDs (Sola) 1. New gTLDs now, or wait? Specific strings chosen by whom? Hard to resolve these issues. Splitting into small questions, considered one by one. 2. Stubbs: Haven’t seen much input from ISPs. Need more contributions from gTLDs. Also from NC who would naturally be interested because new gTLDs may be specifically for individual and non-commercial uses. 3. Schneider: I think ISP constituency had good reasons not to provide input into WG-C. Completely flooded by email traffic. Have other responsibilities. May need another system for participation, input, carrying out discussion. 4. Stubbs: Agree. Use teleconferences because presenting views in real-time is sometimes preferable. Was shouted down re teleconferences which have worked well for other groups in the past. 5. Cohen: Looking at how WGs work in the real world, outreach may not be practical. Let anyone who shows up participate, but beyond that… Where there’s no consensus, pick an individual to represent the different points of view. Best to move the process along, not to let it get bogged down. 6. Chicoine: Is WG-C thinking of adopting a different procedure for getting input? Response: Trying to do work in the WG without procedures. The people in the WG complain that chairs have no right to establish procedure, for the NC hasn’t given the chairs the power necessary to establish procedure. Fix: NC should choose specific procedures, i.e. allow chairs to kick people out of working groups if they don’t “behave.” 7. Swinehart: Discussion is the topic of WG-D. 8. Schneider: Voice of constituencies won’t get lost. Three representatives of each constituency serve on the NC. WG’s report findings to NC, so our NC reps will take care of representing their interests. But those without NC reps are in trouble! Perhaps WG structure is therefore not adequate. 9. Shapiro: WG-D is important. Worry about setting up a structure with moderators who might not really be impartial. 10. Sola: Perhaps trying to make process go faster than is possible. Need a new system. How about balanced working groups? WG-C would welcome alternative structures. 11. Stubbs: Need deliberation. “Benchmarks” – a planned timetable. 12. Telage: Have to have coherent summarizes (“staff report”) of manageable length. Should demonstrate that all affected parties have been polled. It’s when that’s been prepared and there’s consensus that the board can act. It’s a vote saying “consensus has been achieved” rather than “we like it.” 13. Abril i Abril: Want to amend the motion on the table. Contrary to Article VI Section b. 14. Motion (Sola): Balanced working groups with equal representation of each constituency plus several from GA and invited experts. 15. Cohen: Need input not just from every constituency but from every part of the world. 16. Motion: The NC instructs WG-D to include, as one of the bodies that may be delegated to work on a specific issue, balanced working groups which will include an equal number of members from each constituency that wishes to participate and from the general assembly plus experts invited by the chairs of the working group. 17. Motion: When a working group is created by the Names Council, it shall appoint a Supervisory Chair. Shall immediately call for persons to work on the working group including a request to each of the constituencies of the DNSO to provide two members for the working group. Simultaneously, a Supervisory Chair shall call for nominations for the position of Working Chair of the group, who shall not be a member of the Names Council. The Supervisory Chair shall assist the Working Chair in achieving a balanced working group reflecting a diversity of opinion from all stakeholders and all regions. 18. Motion: NC declares that current structure and composition of WG-C is contrary to Article VI(b) Section 2.b of ICANN bylaws in the sense that it’s not adequate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO. In this regard, the NC requires WG-D within two weeks to provide interim measures to allow the working group chairs to restructure the working group in a way that allows it to perform its functions. C. WG-D: Business Plan and Procedures (Swinehart) 1. Whatever WG-D decides on will be unpopular. 2. Lack of participation from some constituencies. Has to do better. 3. Mechanism to ensure work gets done is necessary. 4. Hope to produce something soon. 5. Poblete: Not everyone uses Robert’s Rules of Order. Swinehart: Agreed, some cultural issues, also the Rules aren’t necessarily the best approach for an online environment. 6. Roberts: Amendments above aren’t in the proper format for amendments. 7. Telage: Process is important, but unless there’s an objective we won’t have the roadmap to get ourselves there. Have to know what work there is to do. Do we know what a consensus report looks like? Should show that relevant interests have been polled & consulted. A working group does work, doesn’t just have a discussion! 8. Cohen: There’s only been one working group report, and it’s been reviewed by ICANN staff and seemed to be accepted there. Doesn’t that make it a good starting point? 9. Jennings: Need staff for committees. 10. Lindsay: Timeframe for WG-D? Sola: A few weeks. By making changes such as limiting number of posts per day, number of members. 11. MOTION 1 a) Sola: Reads first motion. Lindsay: Any opposition? Some discussion re number of motions that can be on the table at one time. b) Stubbs: Does everyone understand what is being proposed? c) Telage: Every working group created has to have a participant from each constituency? Response: No, but each constituency that does want to participate gets (no more than) two reps to the WG. d) Amendment proposed by Kleinman – “… when prior exploration shows this structure to be necessary…” – does not carry. e) Stubbs: Don’t waste time on motions that might be redundant. At least consider them all together. f) Shapiro: Shouldn’t do WG-D’s work for them. g) Sola & Cohen: Vote on the motion. 12 for (including Lindsay remotely). h) Swinehart: These motions aren’t so much trying to do WG-D’s work, rather trying to help the process along. It’s hard to do work, and it’s hard for WG-D also. 12. MOTION 2: Cohen a) It would be unseemly if all WGs chaired by NC members. But if no one from NC helps the process, then it stalls. b) Reads motion. c) Considered addition: “The two chairs shall work together…” d) Stubbs: Vote? e) Youn Jung Park: Too hard to follow the details because of the wording. f) Chicoine: Can we make this a provisional motion then? Amendments later as necessary? g) Schneider: Do need to make adjustments for non-native English speakers. Have a break now to allow opportunity to read, review, consult. 13. Change of Chair a) Patricio Poblete declines – not knowledgeable of procedures and wants efficiency. b) Schneider: Suggest Abril i Abril, and he accepts. 14. Back to motion. Vote. In favor: Eleven (including Lindsay). Against: Five. Passes. a) Passed text is: Motion 2: When a working group is created by the Names Council, it shall appoint a Supervisory Chair (member of the NC). The Supervisory Chair shall immediately call for persons to work on the working group including a request to each of the constituencies of the DNSO to provide members for the working group. Simultaneously, a Supervisory Chair shall call for nominations for the position of Working Chair of the group, who shall not be a member of the Names Council. The Supervisory Chair shall assist the Working Chair in achieving a working group reflecting a diversity of opinion from all stakeholders and all regions. 15. MOTION 3: Sola a) Read and displayed. b) Proposal goes directly to WG-C or to NC? Swinehart: To NC c) Swinehart proposes: “If WG-D fails to come up with changes in the two-week period, then …” d) Concern that parliamentarian (someone outside of NC, expert in rules of order) is needed. e) Echeberria: Don’t want to distribute power so widely outside the NC. f) Stubbs: NC will meet sometime between now and November 4. Either will discuss substantive work from WG-D or the lack thereof. g) Youn Jung Park: All motions should be presented seven days in advance of NC meeting for online voting. h) Voting on Motion 3 as amended: 12 for. Passes. 16. MOTION 4 (Youn Jung Park / Kleinman) a) All motions should be presented seven days in advance of NC meeting for vote at the meeting. Any newly-raised motions at the meeting will be voted upon online or in teleconference seven days or more after the meeting. b) Sola: Maybe seven days is more than necessary. c) Amendment: Agenda items should be treated one week in advance except if they’re urgent. d) Roberts: Confused 17. Voting on Motion (Require WG-D to consider in every procedure they make to take into account the cultural diversity particularly the needs of the Asia-Pacific region. Request Hotta and Youn Jung Park to be members of WG-D) Seven for (including Lindsay). One against. Eight abstain. Fails because requires half of those present. a) Schneider: Premature vote. D. WG-E Report 1. Motion 5 drafted and read a) Motion to table (“not discuss now, defer to another time”) – issue is substantive, very important, shouldn’t be hurried. b) Vote: 8 for, 3 against, 5 abstentions At this point Berkman staff began to pack equipment used in the meetings. Scribing continued here by Anne-Kathrin Orth. For additional technical information, please contact: Ben Edelman and John Wilbanks |