Month: October 2002

The notetaker having arrived slightly late, it seems like the board accepted much of the input from the GAC, and from some DNSO constituencies who yesterday asked for a constituency concept where one entity can simultaneously be a member of several constituencies.

Moderately good news for the ALAC: Subject to the transition article of the bylaws, the At Large Advisory Committee is going to have a non-voting liaison on the GNSO Names Council. If I got it correctly, ALAC is not going to be explicitly included with the policy-development process. The Board is now going into resolution mode. The plan seems to be to adopt the bylaws, but only make them effective once the transition article has been accepted. Blokzijl is concerned that the board is going to put some instrument in place which does not exist. worried about future coordination of crucial internet technical functions. Supposes that this is only one stop on the road to the final set of bylaws. Wonders how many times the board is going through process again, adopting bylaws that are known to be subject to fundamental change in the close future. Too early to adopt them. Blokzijl is particularly concerned about the relationship with the RIRs and the ccTLDs. Cohen and Katoh-san vehemently disagree with him. Schink also suggests to vote on the changes now, but wants caveat language on ccTLDs and RIRs in the resolution. Also wants to stick closer to GAC suggestion with respect to expert advisory panels/bodies, as far as international treaty organizations are concerned. Abril i Abril doesn’t really like the proposed structure, but seems to find it better than the one we have now. Andy wants to add “free flow of information” behind “innovation” in core value 2. Both Auerbach and Abril i Abril second. Friendly amendment from Kraaijenbrink to delete “free”. Accepted unanimously. Further suggests to not just disclose financial contributors, but also amount of contributions. Accepted with two abstentions.

Article 4 section 2, point 16, procedures of the reconsideration committee. Suggests to end the first sentence of this point behind “abusive”, and remove the clause on parties unwilling to participate in the public comment period. Rationale: You can’t prove that you didn’t know. Cohen: Common to have publication in an acceptable way. Lynn agrees with Andy’s intent, but would like to see different language. Extensive discussion. Lynn proposes to accept amendment with the understanding that precise wording be voted on in December. Cerf proposes not to have any complex language about future changes. Kraaijenbrink doesn’t want to remove it, but suggests to revisit it later; so does Schink. Vote: 7 in favor, 8 against, 3 abstain.

Article XI, section 2.1, GAC principles; point c. Andy wants publication of GAC charter and operating principles and procdedures on the web. Accepted.

Article XI, section 2.4, ALAC. Have a liaison clause in there. Funding? Does not have proposed wording. Would like to raise the question how to deal with this. Lynn believes that funding hard-coded in the bylaw would be a mistake. Vint: Nothing prohibits funding. Karl: There is something which prohibits ICANN funding for regular GNSO Council members. GNSO article forbids funding for GNSO participants. Liaison considered as a GNSO participant? Louis not sure. Cohen could argue both ways. Important and well-taken point. Sympathy on the board for possibility of trying to provide assistance to ALAC as it starts going. Refer to the counsel. Have this on the December agenda. Vint: Take this into general discussion about ALAC. Rather than specifically put this onto agenda as bylaw discussion, put this into general ALAC topic.

Lyman Chapin suggests change to Ssection 2 of article XI: “f) Subject to the provisions of the Transition Article of these bylaws, the At-Large Advisory Committee may designate a non-voting liaison to each of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to the extent that the at-large advisory committee deems it appropriate and useful to do so.” Language taken from GAC description. Procedural confusion: Andy thought Lyman was addressing funding. Withdraws and re-introduces at a later time. No proposed text on Andy’s funding question; defer.

Andy again: Article XIII, section 9; new paragraph about conflicts of interests. Wants public statements on conflicts of interest. Serious concern. Alejandro afraid about privacy implications. Must make sure that information is available to committee. Unduly hasty to write this into the bylaws. Lynn asks about director statements. Louis: Currently information is made available confidentially to conflicts of interest committee. Rationale: People may be unwilling to disclose all investments. Lynn: Deal with this in the policy. Don’t do it in the bylaws. There may be a chilling effect on future directors or officers. Karl does believe in public disclosure, even when there is chilling effect. Improve confidence. Andy asks for vote. Lynn: Would have to vote against even if he would support substance, since directors not covered by suggested change. Either both or none. Linda Wilson: Disclosure of material interests is common. Prefers to have this discussed by the CoI committee, in order to not take it to extreme. Lynn: Take off the table, consider again. Vote: Not accepted, three in favor, one abstention.

Finally: Andy quotes publication safeguards about policy changes, and suggests to apply this. Vint: Provisional, not final adoption of bylaws.

Break until 11:15.

The GAC finally moves at “Internet speed”: Their communiqué is available.

Peter Dengate Thrush at the microphone again, warning the board: If there is no agreement on an SO, ccTLDs may prefer to “attend ITU meetings instead of ICANN meetings”. He also warns that the ccTLDs may be leaving ICANN faster than they left DNSO. .ca, .be, .se representatives at the microphone. .ca: Leaving ICANN is plan B. Not complete consensus behind every point of the communiqué. Also, Elisabeth Porteneuve has posted two communiqués to the Names Council: ccTLD constituency; ccNSO assistance group.

Peter Dengate Thrush speaking up at the public forum, presenting ccTLD comments: 144 representatives of 65 ccTLDs met in Shanghai. Completion of withdrawal from the DNSO; took effect with the close of the NC meeting yesterday. 2. Reconfirm the detailed response to the ERC blueprint which had been produced and delivered in Bucharest in June 2002. Noted with dismay that the ERC has not yet taken into account what was produced. First work product of assistance group is a useful tool. In view of continuing failures by ICANN in conducting its stewardship of the IANA function, particularly in relation to ccTLD database updates, managers agreed to set up a working group to develop a plan to set up an independent system to manage the relevant root zone entries. Will be worked out in parallel with the setup of an acceptable ccNSO and used if that work is unsuccessful. No ccTLD meeting in Amsterdam. Wholeharted support of the blueprint. Hope that ICANN will be the trusted partner expected from the white paper, but better to have an alternative ready.

Paul Twomey is now presenting the GAC’s wishes as far as the new bylaws are concern. GAC wants one month instead of 14 days for policy review. GAC should take care of its own review. Non-voting liaisons shall be entitled to use possibly confidential material in the constituency they are representing. The GAC board liaison can’t be removed by the board. GAC prefers Advisory Committees to be called Advisory Bodies in the bylaws. GAC membership should be open to determination by the GAC, but not to determination by the board. GAC can adopt its own charter. GAC wants timely information on anything from ICANN, SOs, or advisory bodies seek public comment. GAC may put issues to the board directly; either comment or advice; recommend action, policy development. ICANN has to inform GAC on how to take into account GAC advice. If ICANN can’t follow GAC advice, it must give reasons, try to work out things, and may ultimately override. General public policy rhetorics. Cerf concerned about this rethorics, since it may pose potential for massive mission creep. Karl Auerbach concerned about the end of ICANN as a private body. Twomey: No intention to take away final decision-making power of the board. If you don’t follow advice, just put down in writing why. Transparency point. Twomey continues with specific wording in XI-A; it’s not clear at the moment what the actual changes to that text are, since there is no redline.

Right now, Stuart Lynn and Raoul Echeberria are signing the LACNIC agreement. Congratulations to LACNIC.

Lynn: Budget schedule for 2003/2004 is delayed; need to integrate with reform and how to integrate. Schedule will be proposed and posted shortly. Preliminary posting of 20003/2004 budget in february time frame. Future of budget advisory committee should be factored into reform planning. Invitge people from other than the funding constituencies to participate in budgeting process. Process will start at December meeting. Break till 10:45.

Bruce Tonkin: Walking through resolutions. Resolutions re ERC process. Structure of new GNSO. Want three representatives per constituency; review 12 months after the formation of GNSO council. Second resolution: NC underlines principle of equal stakeholder representation. Third and fourth: updating of name servers at the root level and DNS data quality issues. NC recommends that ccTLD managers and ICANN committee for security and stability with input from IANA staff develop procedures at interface between IANA and ccTLDs. Fourth resolution re Lynn and Cerf letter on security and stability: Look at data quality; also concerns WHOIS data. Chairs of task forces no longer need to be members of NC. Terms of reference and procedure for deletes task force. Discussions around WHOIS and Transfers: How to actually implement conclusions and recommendations from Task Forces? ICANN is about contracts, not laws which can just be imposed. Even after looking at improvement at policy level, need to figure out how to practically implement these. Complex with multiple registries and hundreds of registrars. Difference between policy decision and detailed implementation information? Need to review output of task force from that point of view; permit for registry and registrar flexibility in implementing. Transfers: What’s the most effective way to assure that registrant has actually authorized transfer? WHOIS: Accuracy is a concern, but can only be accomplished when privacy is properly addressed. WHOIS is very complex. Process will be to prioritize. Like to report that ccTLD constituency has ended involvement in the DNSO as of yesterdaqy. Would like to thank for the contribution of the ccTLDs to DNSO. Cerf: Thoughtful, timely.

Richard Hill from ITU-T; presentation technology courtesy of W3C. Brief report, see slides for details.

Barbara Roseman, chair of address council. Progress with LACNIC and AFRINIC. Establish BoD selection processes; publish by Januaery 2003. Ongoing discussion to review RFC 2050 and replace it by something outside the domain of the IETF. Mailing list. AC working closely with RIRs on ICANN reform process discussions.