Antony and all,
Pardon me if I say I do not trues your "Rendition" here of the CLOSED
meeting minuets. Is there a audio recording of these meetings or was
there a registered stenographer present? If not than this is just your
"Recollection", and not really any creditable meeting minuets.
Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> Jan 21 "closed" meeting minutes - Part 2 of 2
>
> These are non-verbatim minutes, and especially in this second half, there
> was a lot of quick back-and-forth, so not all comments were caught.
> Participants and sponsoring organizations were noted in Part 1. [Note:
> Theresa Swinehart wrote to note that for the purposes of this meeting, she
> was representing WITSA, not MCI].
>
> ****************************************************************
>
> [Coffee break concluded, the participants re-assembled].
>
> Marc Chinoy (moderator) - We are not going to recreate the presentations,
> nor are we going to craft a new presentation. We'll try to get into some
> points that were raised. First, are there any points that ICANN should
> clarify?
>
> Jay Fenello - ICANN is not in a position to answer.
>
> John Englund - (1) What is the relationship between ICANN and the
> registries? (2) What are the funding requirements from ICANN for the DNSO?
> (3) Does ICANN expect the DNSO to incorporate?
>
> Kent Crispin - The answer to that last point doesn't matter.
>
> Marc Chinoy - How many feel that clarification on the incorporation issue
> would help?
>
> David Johnson - There are legal problems with a contract depending on
> whether DNSO is incorporated or not.
>
> Roger Cochetti - The real issue is a strong DNSO vs. a weak DNSO.
>
> Marilyn Cade - Agreed on strong vs. weak. Incorporation will have liability
> issues. Clarification needed on the scope of work, scope of authority, how
> free is any SO to refuse work? Which questions should we ask the Dept. of
> Commerce?
>
> David Maher - What is the relationshipship between ccTLDs and "sovereignty"?
>
> Siegfried Langenbach - ICANN will always come back to us and say that the
> answer must come from us.
>
> Michael Schneider - ICANN and the DNSO must work together.
>
> Roberto Gaetano - The problem is that we are not a separate body, we are
> required to integrate with ICANN and the other SOs. (1) The relation
> between DNSO and ICANN is not under our control (2) We must reach common
> ground; we are getting close to having all parties at the table. The
> proposal, commonly made, will force answers to these questions.
>
> Bret Fausett - Strong vs. weak DNSO? What does it mean? The ICANN bylaws
> define DNSO's powers.
>
> Marilyn Cade - Strong means: (1) Controls funding (2) able to act promptly
> and effectively (3) It has buy-in from the membership - representative
> democracy.
>
> Ken Stubbs - Are the ICANN guidelines ones we can live with? Will they
> work? Are ICANN's marching orders legitimate? Is there an appeal to the US
> Govt if a certain party doesn't like ICANN's decisions?
>
> Roger Cochetti - I don't believe that ICANN has focussed on a lot of issues.
> If the ICANN Board and the DNSO groups concurred, there shouldn't be a
> problem.
>
> Don Heath - IANA (= Jon Postel) had an elaborate network of people --
> informal yet formal method of working. Jon's view was to create an ICANN
> that would work the same way, but more formally. *But* it would need to be
> advised, just as he took advice as IANA. *But* he believed in checks and
> balances as well. We must achieve a vehicle for providing input to ICANN,
> but they have their own identity.
>
> Roger Cochetti - Symptoms of a strong DNSO (1) controls the purse strings,
> (2) streamlined decision-making process. It's not necessarily about
> incorporation.
>
> Don Telage - There is the question of a strong vs. weak DNSO. But there's
> also the question of a strong vs. weak Names Council within the DNSO. These
> are completely different issues. One is about how policy is determined
> (Names Council), while the other is about the relative powers of ICANN and
> the DNSO.
>
> Fay Howard - You can't collect money if you aren't incorporated. Also, if
> you're part of ICANN, there's no way you'll get a lot of power, since they
> are taking the responsibility.
>
> Marilyn Cade - Disagree - there can be a contractual relationship which
> covers all these areas.
>
> David Johnson - There is a problem with the enforcement of contracts, if all
> the contracts are with ICANN.
>
> John Englund - What are ICANN's powers with regard to ccTLDs?
>
> Jay Fenello - DNSO or the ICANN Board - who's making the decisions.
>
> Antony Van Couvering - The relative strength of ICANN and the DNSO will be
> determined by the event, not a prescription.
>
> Roger Cochetti - If the DNSO lacks a funding or decision-making process, it
> will be weak.
>
> Bret Fausett - Is there any doubt? Doesn't it say "ICANN shall accept the
> decisions of the DNSO"?
>
> Roger Cochetti - It's ambiguous, there's lots of wiggle room.
>
> Michael Schneider - We must move on. Let's decide what are the
> deal-breakers, and what we can decide to agree on.
>
> Marc Chinoy - What decisions can the DNSO make?
>
> Kent Crispin - It can pay it's own phone bill.
>
> Roger Cochetti - It decides operational matters only - when it meets, etc.
> For important matters, the DNSO can either "decide" or "recommend to
> ICANN" - same difference.
>
> Antony Van Couvering - The DNSO can elect three people on to the ICANN
> Board.
>
> Siegfried Langenbach - getting impatient with the process.
>
> Jay Fenello - If DNSO makes recommendations, not decisions, what is DNSO's
> liability?
>
> Roger Cochetti - The ICANN Board members cannot escape liability, whether
> they approve or veto.
>
> [General agreement that there is no substantial difference about what ICANN
> can tell the DNSO to do, incorporated or not.]
>
> Hal Lubsen - Let's get on with it.
>
> Amadeu Abril i Abril - Whatever people feel about incorporation, it's a
> problem for later. Let's get on with it.
>
> Jay Fenello - The answer may differ now and in five years.
>
> Marc Chinoy - We're talking about the initial start up.
>
> [Following is a series of "straw polls" on various matters identified by
> Marc Chinoy as important. There was lively discussion about whether these
> were the important questions, and some of the questions were modified more
> than once before being polled. In all the polling except for Question 4
> (q.v.), the following scale was used:
>
> Position 1 - Absolute necessity
> Position 2 - Strong value to the proposition
> Position 3 - Some value - a solution that *could* work
> Position 4 - Won't work - dead against
>
> Participants were allowed to vote only once, and abstentions were not
> counted.]
>
> Question 1 - Should the DNSO incorporate separately?
>
> Position 1 - 1 vote
> Position 2 - 9 votes
> Position 3 - 17 votes
> Position 4 - 6 votes
>
> Question 2 - Should the DNSO have substantial control over prices?
>
> Position 1 - 8 votes
> Position 2 - 4 votes
> Position 3 - 2 votes
> Position 4 - 3 votes
>
> [Note: several participants complained that they didn't understand the
> question. As I understood it, the question referred to fees charged to
> registries/members or whoever was funding the DNSO, and perhaps therefore
> ICANN.]
>
> Bernard Turcotte -- The question is whether ICANN imposes a levy, or DNSO
> budgets money for ICANN.
>
> Question 3 - Should the DNSO have substantial control over its budget?
>
> Position 1 - 28 votes
> Position 2 - 5 votes
> Position 3 - 0 votes
> Position 4 - 0 votes
>
> Question 4 - Should the DNSO use a consensus model or a structured
> representation system?
>
> [This question used a different scale. Instead of progressing from strong
> agreement to strong disagreement, the four positions were used to indicate a
> spectrum, progressing from consensus to structured representation. Thus a
> vote for Position One indicated a strong preference for the consensus model,
> while a vote for Position 4 indicated a strong preference for structured
> representation.]
>
> Position 1 - 7 votes
> Position 2 - 1 vote
> Position 3 - 12 votes
> Position 4 - 6 votes
>
> Question 5 - Is the primary purpose of the DNSO to make policy
> recommendations to ICANN?
>
> [There was a unanimous consensus on this point.]
>
> [Following this were some announcements and discussions about scheduling for
> the public meeting the next day]
>
> END
>
> Boundary, n. In political geography, an imaginary line between two nations,
> separating the imaginary rights of one from the imaginary rights of
> another. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
