Antony
**************************************************************
MINUTES -- DNSO.ORG Transition Team Teleconference
Jan 15 1999, 9 am EST
Present:
1. Ken Stubbs (KS)
2. Antony Van Couvering (AVC)
3. Kilnam Chon (KC)
4. Lynn St. Amour (LSA)
5. Roberto Gaetano (RG)
6. Nii Quaynor (NQ)
7. Javier Sola (JS)
8. Bernard Turcotte (BT)
9. Amadeu Abril i Abril (AAA)
[Very informal agendas were sent out by KC and AAA; these were followed to
some extent]
KS: We need to choose one list everyone uses.
JS: One list necessary -- if it's sent to discuss@dnso.org, it doesn't need
to go to the other lists as well.
AVC: The drafting and transition teams are small enough so that if they
absolutely need to converse privately, they can just CC each other
KC: Let's use the discuss@dnso.org list
AVC: Let's say that "participants", "transition" and "drafting" are not
authoritative lists. We shouldn't close them down, otherwise we'll hear
howls, but people should know that they're not authoritative.
JS: Can we ask Bob Shaw to simply reject mail that's cross-posted?
AVC: Don't know how technically feasible that is.
AVC: We need to move to online methods of participation and voting
mechanisms.
KS: Who has the right to vote? We'll face the same problems as the mailing
lists.
AVC: What's the objection to everyone voting?
KS: No problem, but we have to be clear what we're voting on. Potential for
fraud.
AVC: Fraud less of a problem that not doing it at all.
KS: Outreach and proper notification very important.
RG: Vote by email. Do you have to join the discuss@dnso.org list first? If
so, fraud is much less likely. So far, the people that are "excluded" are
those who don't like using the list. So, maybe the vote can get people on
to the list and increase participation.
KS: Makes sense.
NQ: Maybe we can stop subscription to the list while the voting period is
going on.
AAA: We shouldn't use the vote to make decisions, as no vote could bind
anyone. Better used as a relative measure of support.
AVC: 3 purposes to vote. (1) Gather information -- what do people
agree/disagree with (2) Increase participation (3) Is a move toward
transparency, required by ICANN.
RG: It's not a vote, it's a poll. More like a general inquiry. We'll get
more than DNSO.ORG people participating, get a wider basis than a physical
meeting.
LSA: How many people are on the list.
AAA: 100 on the discuss@dnso.org list, another 70 on the
participants@dnso.org list, of whom about 25 are also subscribed to discuss.
AVC: We have to publicize this widely. If we do so, and then people don't
join to vote, then we've done what we can.
KS: Participation will go up a lot once a vote is announced. It will assure
to some extent adequate input.
LSA: Legitimacy depends on a large turnout.
KS: People who don't vote have the legitimacy of their criticisms lessened.
AVC: We must encourage participation on the lists. It's the only way to
have transparent discussions. If people don't want to get their hands
dirty, they should choose another line of work.
BT: Time frame is a problem.
AAA: Feb 5 99 is the application deadline. It's more important from that
perspective to get supporting signatures than it is to have a straw poll.
KS: If application needs to be in Feb 5, then we need to produce a draft,
and ask for comments, soon after the Jan 22 meeting [referring to the
ITAA/ICC meeting in Washington DC].
AAA: The official comments period begins after filing.
KS: These are living documents. Even after the filing changes can come up
and be incorporated. ICANN hasn't fixed their bylaws yet.
[Javier Sola leaves]
[KC suggests moving on to AAA's agenda points]
KC: Amadeu proposes a teleconference for the Transition Team from 8 - 10 am
on the 23rd [Saturday] to go over the meeting on the 22nd. Prefers
face-to-face meeting 8 - 10 am for people in Wash DC, followed by
teleconference from 10 - noon. It will be useful to have a summary ready
for the teleconference so that a lot of time is not wasted on the phone.
BT: Have the teleconference on Monday.
KC: Need to have face-to-face, Monday too late.
AAA: Good to share ideas in summary meeting.
[Teleconference arranged, without objection, for 10 am - noon Jan 23 99,
preceded by face-to-face summary meeting from 8 am - 10 am]
KC: Next point. What do we know about the ICC meeting on Jan 21/22.
AAA: They are slow getting back to me. This is what I know now: The Jan
22 meeting is open. I was promised an agenda for today but it hasn't
arrived. It's $50 to cover lunch, etc., everyone welcome. Informally, this
is what it looks like:
a. Presentation by organizers, summary of the 1/21 closed meeting. Written
summaries will be circulated
b. Speech by Esther Dyson
c. They insist, against my objections, on having a professional facilitator
d. Presentations by organizations that have made substantial input (e.g.,
DNSO.ORG, INTA, ORSC)
e. Intervener's period - for those who have made comments but not produced
complete drafts (e.g., NSI, CENTR)
AVC: Why is Esther Dyson attending this meeting, but not the one in
Monterrey?
[Ken Stubbs leaves]
AAA: They asked about participating in Monterrey, I told them we would
welcome it, but it wasn't crucial since we were still working things out
internally. Plus they had their own meeting the day before.
AVC: Lots of people went to both, not sure I see the problem.
AAA: I have a list of people who might be attending the closed meeting, but
it's not sure.
RG: Esther Dyson attending because they want ONE application, this meeting
promises to bring a lot of interests together.
AVC: I'm concerned that it makes it look like ICANN is giving their
imprimatur to this meeting, and that we'll all be professionally
"facilitated" to a result we're not comfortable with. What if they announce
that they're having a further meeting to "finalize" the results.
[Bernie Turcotte leaves]
AAA: I agitated very strongly against a follow-up meeting, there seems to
be some assurances for this. I wanted very strongly *not* to have a
professional facilitator.
KC: What's happening with the drafting team.
AVC: Kent Crispin is working on a "merged" draft between the DNSO.ORG and
INTA proposals. We need to be very clear which is authoritative.
AAA: Discussed in last teleconference. The Monterrey consensus draft is
authoritative, Kent's draft is trying to integrate other points (from ORSC,
discuss list) into the "merged" draft, but INTA had their draft there first.
AAA: Our presenters at the Jan 22 meeting took as a responsibility to
present not only our points of view, but others (comments and
disagreements).
KC: We need a comparison table and a list of outstanding issues. This
should be done in Wash DC before the meeting.
[Various people indicate that they will be in Wash DC on the 21st and can
help]
KC: What other issues with the drafting team.
AVC: Not enough communication between members. Kent seems to be doing most
of the work.
LSA: Who is doing what?
AAA: Kent is the editor. Everyone is discussing process, very little on
substantive issues.
LSA: We need to see that draft today so that we have the weekend to comment
on it.
KC: What are we doing after the 23rd?
AVC: We must contact other organizations, try to get them on board. We have
two weeks until the application deadline, we need comments.
AAA: Realistically, no-one is going to comment who hasn't done so already.
Hopefully, however, something will come out of the Washington meeting.
KC: Maybe they should join us.
AAA: You have to understand that they are largely made up of American
commercial interests; they aren't likely to join anyone esle's effort taht
easily. And not all of them has a clear sense of the deadlines we face.
Also, many of them are dead set against individual membership, and don't
want to sit at the same table as some of our "prominent writers" on the
lists.
AVC: We can ask them to submit comments by Jan 30 - it doesn't mean we have
to accept them.
AAA: I asked a lot of people not only what they wanted changed [from the
Monterrey consensus draft] but also what would be a show-stopper.
AVC: Our application should show not only our draft, but also (in an
Appendix) what the substantial disagreements are, and who the dissenting
parties are.
AAA: It's a procedural problem. These other groups are used to being in the
kitchen, doing the cooking. It's not that they have substantive
disagreements much of the time; they consider this more important than
substantive comments. We *must* have suppport by at least *some* of the
other substantial organizations, as demanded by ICANN.
RG: Who then is with us?
KC: Probably many of them support us conditionally.
AAA: Where is the trust, that's the important thing. They don't know who we
are. Some don't have anything to say, they just want to oversee the
process. We have to bring some of these people on board.
KC: We need comments by Jan 29, so that we can post our new draft Feb 1.
Who will do the work and how?
AVC: That's a good thing to do for Jan 23, put them on paper.
LSA: We talked at a previous teleconference about getting comments by Jan
27.
AVC: We can take comments made informally at Wash DC, put them on paper,
send them back to the commenters, get their confirmation.
NQ: We must go with the application that has the most support.
LSA: Let's start a list of who and how many support us. It may be that we
submit the Monterrey consensus, while we keep working on the "merged" draft
even if it misses the Feb 5 deadline.
AAA: What does a "critical mass" mean exactly?
AVC: We need to bring on board at least one party from each end of the
spectrum, for instance ORSC and INTA.
LSA: Let's have a list of who is with us/leaning toward/leaning
against/against. Let's find out where the bulk of the support is.
NQ: What do we have to submit in terms of supporting signatures?
AAA: We have a problem with the Monterrey draft: the question of
incorporation. At the time we thought it wasn't a good idea, now ICANN is
basically forcing us to incorporate.
AVC: Well, they say that we don't *have* to incorporate for the purposes of
the application, we can leave that question for later.
AAA: We should prepare a list of those who have participated, whether they
agree with us or not.
[Nii Quaynor leaves]
AVC: We need to turn the time pressure around. We have our deadline. It's
not unreasonable to say to commenters that if they don't comment, we can't
include their views.
LSA: Get list of support for Monterrey draft vs. "merged" draft - we should
note points of dissension, then note whether they are leaning for us or
against us.
AVC: I'm going to pursue the online voting mechanism. We should have had it
in place already; even if we can't use it right away, there will come a
time. I don't see any reason to delay.
KC: What about putting Mikki Barry on the drafting/transition teams
[Some discussion about what she requested]
AAA: She will be more useful on the drafting team.
KC: Why not both?
AAA: We need to broaden our base.
AVC: Why don't we ask the ORSC who they want to put on? I can ask Stef.
RG: The drafting team is unbalanced. ORSC should be put on. Add Mikki
Barry to the drafting team.
KC: Let's ask the drafting team to put Mikki Barry on the drafting team.
KC: What about the transition team. Put someone from ORSC on transition
team, since we asked Stef at the Monterrey meeting in November.
RG: We asked Stef in Monterrey, he declined. I would like to see a
statement from ORSC why they are changing their mind.
AVC: I don't care why they are changing their mind. Let's just ask them
again.
AAA: Let's just make sure they really want to be there.
[AVC leaves] [Teleconf ended shortly thereafter.]