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 __________________________________________________ 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____________________________________________
