[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Open and closed





Per the posted minutes of the Berlin meeting (5/27/99), 
   http://www.icann.org/minutes/berlinminutes.html :

"Finally, on a related matter, staff reported that ICANN had 
solicited public comments on the question of whether "initial DNSO 
Constituencies currently identified as 'ccTLD registries' and 'gTLD 
registries' be re-categorized as 'open registries' and 'closed 
registries,' identified according to whether the registry is open to 
any registrant, worldwide ('open'), or is instead limited to certain 
registrants based on geography, intended use, or other criteria 
('closed')," and that the response had been largely negative; 
therefore, the staff did not recommend taking any action on the 
matter at this time."  


Why then has the issue been put on the Governmental Advisory 
Committee agenda? Does the GAC originate "advice" for the BoD? 
Is there a record of the BoD asking the GAC for this advice, against 
the recommendations of "staff"? Although there is no evidence that 
the issue was revisited 6/23, was it on the agenda for the 8/12 
telephone meeting? 
  
On a related note, I suggest that ICANN and its associated groups 
and committees make an effort to put the dates of origin and last-
modification on their web pages? In particular reference to 
amendments to the Bylaws, where the 'paper trail' itself might be of 
interest, could this annotation be expanded to preserve rather than 
over-write the earlier version(s)? 

Appreciating that following this up with any consistency is likely to 
have only low priority for staff resources, I volunteer my hard drive 
as a repository, and will provide the 5 Jun version of the ICANN 
Bylaws, on request. (The relevant sections (2) and (3) are 
appended below.)  I hope someone with more resources can 
archive the  "extensive public comment," including the 
documentation when "this matter was first discussed at ICANN's 
May meetings in Berlin."  (I note at the URL given above, that 
 Resolution 99.35 says only that" the Board requests that the 
Constituency for gTLD registries agree... to select only one 
individual (rather than three) to represent that Constituency on the 
provisional Names Council, and the Board states that if such 
Constituency does not agree to make only one such selection, the 
Board will amend the Bylaws to effectuate such goal." The minutes 
make no note of extensive public comment at that meeting, or that 
the resolution embodied a consensus of attendees altho I agree 
that some of the other resolutions (also appended) suggest there 
was some concern at least on the part of the Interim Board.

While there is certainly a "need of the DNSO Names Council for
prompt clarification of its membership structure," I confess I am 
surprised that this reversal of policy was not considered a 
"significant Internet policy issue" to be discussed at a quarterly 
meeting rather than on a special meeting teleconference.  Has the 
DNSO in fact "amended its proposal"? (icann.org/dnso/ does not 
apparently refer to any proposal, nor have the "organizers of the 
provisional Names Council" done so at http://www.dnso.org/ 


kerry miller

====
References: 
http://www.noie.gov.au/docs/gac1.htm

Agenda for ICANN GAC (Meeting III,  9:00am to 6:30pm [!],  
8/24/99 ) Santiago, Chile

4.Discussion on domains containing restrictions or conditions on 
registration that serve to ensure certainty with respect to the 
application and enforcement of laws ("restricted domains"), as 
opposed to domains containing no such restrictions or conditions 
on registrations ("open domains").  

5.Discussion on principles for the delegation of management for 
ccTLDs.

====

As posted 5 June, VI (2) a reads in its entirety:
" The NC shall consist of three representatives from each 
Constituency recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set 
forth in Section 3 of this Article." 
  
VI (3)c reads in part:
   " Nominations within each Constituency may be made by any 
member of the Constituency, but no such member may make more 
than one nomination in any single Constituency; provided that this 
limitation shall not apply to any Constituency with less than
three members."

As amended 12 August: 
  "The NC shall consist of representatives, selected in accordance 
with Section 3(c) of this Article, from each Constituency 
recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 
3 of this Article."  


  "Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Constituency may have more 
representatives on the NC than there are members of the 
Constituency."  


=========
Further minutes of the Berlin meeting (my emphasis):

FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.32), that the President of 
the Corporation is directed to work with the Constituencies to 
amend their proposals to address deficiencies noted by the Board,
which amended proposals must include a commitment of the 
submitting Constituency to *hold a new election of Names Council 
representatives* promptly following the approval by the Board of 
such amended proposal. 

FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.33), that, when such 
proposals are so amended, the Board should examine such 
proposals to determine *whether the deficiencies have been 
satisfactorily addressed* and whether to extend the recognition 
today made.  

FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.34), that the Names Council 
*representatives chosen by the provisionally recognized 
Constituencies shall constitute the provisional Names Council, with 
all the powers set forth in the Bylaws* other than the selection of 
ICANN Directors (pursuant to Section 2(e) of Article VI-B of the 
Bylaws), which selection powers will be deferred until such time as 
the Board determines it has made sufficient final recognitions.  

FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.35), that the Board 
*requests* that the Constituency for gTLD registries agree, for so 
long as Network Solutions is the only participant in such 
Constituency, to select only one individual (rather than three) to 
represent that Constituency on the provisional Names Council, and 
the Board states that if such Constituency does not agree to make 
only one such selection, the Board will amend the Bylaws to 
effectuate such goal. 

===