APTLD On-line Meeting Logs

18 November 2002

Chair: Ramesh Kumar Nadarajah

Meeting started at 09:58 Malaysia time (GMT+8)

Participant:

.au: Chris Disspain

.kr: Lee Young-Eum

.my: Ramesh Nadarajah,

.nz: Peter Dengate Thrush,

.tw: Joanna Tso

Secretariat: Ian Chiang

Chris	Hi all
Ramesh	Hi Chris Hi all
Ian	morning everyone
Peter	Afteroon from NZ. I have a little crisis in my email, just to coincide with a very very busy day.
Peter	I assume we are waiting for somethoing like a quorum of members? Is it worth getting started anyway?
Ian	Vincent has another meeting this morning.
joanna	Good morning! this is Joannna
Ramesh	Maybe we can start with a listing of issues while waiting for others?
Peter	Or do we just join the names Council and make our comment that 7 days is an unsuitable time for meaningful input. It seems that there is no driving need to comment now. The whole paper of the cc AG will be advertised in good time before any board meeting which considers it. This is piecemeal, and possibly not likely to result in productive comment. This needs to be considered in the light of the whole.
Dr. Lee	I'm in.
Dr. Lee	Are we waiting for more people to join?
Chris	Given that the ccTLDs in Shanghai accepted our working methodology and given that that methodology was based on the AG putting out prelim recommendations for comment on all 5 areas, it seems to me that the ccTLDs should make the effort to comment. On the timing - we are considering feedback at our meeting on Wednesday week (27th I think) so any ccTLD who wishes to comment has until then. However, if you decide not to comment then that is fine and we will proceed to consider the feedback we do receive.
Ramesh	1. Issues Manager - who is she? Should she not be from the ccTLD constituency? 2. To what extent should General Counsel comment on item 2 sub-3 and sub-4? 3. Voting on initiation of PDP (item 3) by Council - doesn't the 100% of 2 regions appear to be a minority vote? 4. Voting on initiation of PDP (item 3) by Council - is majority vote (50%) too low? 5. Is the scope of the Task Force too narrow? Why do they only collect info whereas the Issues Manage (at the post-TF or Initial Report) can decide what info should or should not be included? 6. The process for rejection by Board of the Council's decision needs to be talked about. Shall we try to wade through these first?
Ramesh	Please add as you wish
Ramesh	Can we come up with general comments on these issues on behalf of APTLD?
Dr. Lee	This seems plenty to start with. Chris, can you give us a clarification on the concept of the "issue manager?"
Dr. Lee	I also definitely feel that APTLD should try to come up with general comments on these issues.
Peter	Chris, Please try and be accurate. The cctlds DID NOT agree to a 7 day response period, on this or any other suggestions. They agreed to a "timely" procedure. No one thinks this is timely. Nor is the cctld agreement all that is required. All of the other players in the DNSO< the ASO etc are involved in Reform. I know that the NC objects. However, I called this meeting to see if, even under very tight constraints, something could be achieved. I assume this is interim, and that there will be a "timely" point at which to make detailed comment. Lets look at Ramesh's list, and see where we can get to. I have abouut 45 minutes available.
Peter	The most important part of this is in clause 13. This allows the board to treat the council resolutions as "advice" and to do something else. This is all about who has the power to govern cctlds. This allows the board to make a policy which will bind the cctlds thorugh their contracts. Can we deal with this first?
Dr. Lee	I would also like to add one more item
Dr. Lee	7.
Dr. Lee	7. The concept of supermajority of Council vote needs clarification.
Chris	Peter, I did not say that anyone had agreed to 7 days. I was responding to your other comments, specifically, " The whole paper of the cc AG will be advertised in good time before any board meeting which considers it. This is piecemeal, and possibly not likely to result in productive comment. This needs to be considered in the light of the whole."
Ramesh	There is a need for someone who will manage the PDP process. To that extent, the Issue Manager is a good idea. But this person has to really understand ccTLD issues, i.e. should be someone appointed by ccTLDs. BTW, I don't think Chris should be defending the recommendations. He can provide us with clarification where necessary and give us some insight into the reasoning behind it.
Dr. Lee	Yes, Chris. I think we would all appreciate the reasoing behind the "issue manager" and 'supermajority vote'
Chris	Give me a minute to finsi up this phone call
Dr. Lee	While c
Dr. Lee	While Chris is taking his time, I think the APTLD statement should also make clear that the PDP process that will occur within the ICANN process will only apply to those limited areas defined in the 'scope'
Peter	Why don't we begin with the hardest one, as we are sure to run out of time. The rest we can do online. Who has the authority to make policy? the ccTlds in council, or the Board? We have always said the ccTLDs. What is the reasoning behind allowing the Board to disagree with a council resolution? And to YE, this process applies to policy outside both the ICANN mandarte AND the SO scope.
Chris	Supermajority - this has been taken to mean 66%
Chris	As for disagreeing with a council resolution - what would happen if the ccNSO agreed that a particular issue was within its scope and made a recommendation BUT the GNSO (also acting within its scope on the same issue) made a different recommendation?
Peter	Why has the cctld definition of "majority" ie 2/3 from each region, been ignored?
Ramesh	Hmm.. I always thought a supermajority was 75%. Especially since the recommendations actually state (in one instance - item 13(b)(3)) 66%.
Dr. Lee	Policy outside the ICANN mandate and the SO scope...? Why should this be determined by ICANN's ERC?
Peter	Chris, On what issue could the GNSO make a recommendation within its scope, that was different to one made within ours? They deal with such different areas, affecting differnt peorple, contracts, and registrants The fact of the scope difference implies a separation,. If you can identify an example of "overlap" it may lead to a solution -such as a joint group between the SO's, as suggested in the Liaison [paper, for e\xample. But in the absence of an actual likelihood of overlap, we don't need a solution...?
Chris	I am not going to get into a discussion of why this was ignored or why that was ignored. The reality is that nothing has actually been ignored. If the apTLD or any of the individual members think that a 'supermajority' should be 2/3 of each region then i suggest that you provide that feedback...cont
Chris	And, if you think that the issues manager should be apptnd by the ccNSO then provide that as well
Chris	Can i suggest that we keep to one topic at a time
Chris	otheriwse this is going to get very confusing
Dr. Lee	Agreed.
Peter	YEL -no, not the ERC, but the Board. The ERC is recomending( if it acceptsd this suggestion) that the Board can resoolve policies made outside the mandatre, and outside the scope. This is normally preveented in an organisation by its rules, which first have to be changed, or, allowed only with very great caution
Chris	Ramesh, what would you like us to discuss first?
Ramesh	Agreed. Can we go back to point 1 - issues manager?
Chris	OK -
Chris	Let me see if I can clarify something
Chris	As far as the Ag is concerned
Chris	the concept of an Issues Manager
Chris	is a good one
Chris	The question is
Chris	whether that person should be
Chris	appointed by the ccNSO or
Chris	should be a designated ICANN staff member
Chris	Why is there a problem with it being an ICANN staff member?
Ramesh	My proposal: Clear statement that the IM should be appointed by ccTLDs since we would know the subject matter best and be able to appoint a person we trust. We have to acknowledge that trust is an issue at this stage..
Chris	OK - who pays for this person/provides office space etc?
Dr. Lee	The ccNSO Council can provide for this.
Ramesh	I presume it would be the ccTLD Secretariat's budget?. Whatever the ccTLDs contribute to ICANN that would go towards the IM will now go instead to the ccTLD SEct.
joanna	can the IM be someone from the ccNSO secretariat? surely ccNSO will need to have a secretariat, right? Someone on the ccNSO structure is always better than someone from ICANN, because it's ccTLD matters
Peter	I have no problem with a person being specifically "in charge" of the Policy process. Its the role I suggested for the VP.Works. The problem with it being a staff member has been aaffected by the unsatisfactory relationships many cctlds have had with the staff to date , This may change in future. The RIRs prefer to continue wuith their own staff - oour Council can employ its own policy development people - and needs to. Agreed with Ramesh about financing...
Chris	This is all true BUT
Chris	the purposes are being confused i think
Chris	the IM is supposed to be the liaison between ICANN the ccNSO and the other SOs on a particular issue
Chris	They are supposed to do the leg work and you will recall
Chris	that it was an ICANN proposal that they budget
Chris	to pay staff who will work
Chris	with each SO
Chris	What is the problem with it being an ICANN
Chris	staff member
Chris	DO you think they have power or can
Chris	influence things in some way?
Dr. Lee	ICANN can have their own staff to work with each SOs. That's all fine. However, the issue manager that deals with ccTLD issues SHOULD come from the ccTLd community.
Ramesh	Trust is an issue that we must acknowledge. The problem with getting contact details etc changed in the IANA databse is one example.
Chris	Maybe the answer is to designate 2 people - one an ICANN Issues manager and 1 a ccNSO issuesd manager to work together - would that work
Ramesh	May not be cost effective to have 2 people. Do we expect them to have that much work?
Dr. Lee	Also, I think the final decision about issues important enough to be included in the PDP process should stay within the ccTLD community.
Ramesh	At this point, may I suggest that we adopt the GAC method of drafting comments. Different positions can be noted separately.
Chris	But the final decision IS with the ccNSO - the IM simply provides help with the leg work
Chris	It seems there is a clear opinion that the IM should not be an ICANN staff member - if so then I suggest the apTLD provide that as feedback and we now move on to the next topic
Dr. Lee	Agreed.
Ramesh	Agreed. Item 2: To what extent should General Counsel comment on item 2 sub-3 and sub-4?
Peter	This person could have a lot of influence - and they ought to if they are doing their job properly. A person appointed by some else will possibly suffer, as other staff membbers have done. Even tho' there should not be a lot of global policies to consider, it would be better a person appointed by the cctlds.
Chris	Peter, good point - and as Ramesh has said several times - it's all about trust
Peter	General Counsel opinion on an Issues Request: A good idea, but their influence must be limited to legal, not policy matters. (they can always be asked to stray into that ) I'd be happy with an opinion on items 1, 2 and 5 only.
Chris	Surely, since the comments of the GC are only opinion and are there for guidance rather than being binding, it makes sense to requuest the GC to provide an opinion on the big picture
Ramesh	I agree with both Peter and Chris. The GC in coming to a conclusion about the opinion on whether the issue is within scope of ICANN should only look at items 1,2 and 5. But his views on the other 2 items would be helkpful. But they should not be tied to his opinion of whether it is within ICANN/SO's scope.
Dr. Lee	How about changing the wording?
Chris	OK - so you would recommedn that in coming to his opinion he examines 1, 2 and 5 but may also comment on 3 and 4?
Dr. Lee	General Counsel shall examine whether the issue: 1. is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; 2. is within the scope of the ccNSO pursuant to the ccNSOs Scope Matrix; 3. is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates; 4. will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or General Counsel shall examine whether the issue: 1. is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; 2. is within the scope of the ccNSO pursuant to the ccNSOs Scope Matrix; 3. is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates; 4. will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or "General Counsel shall examine whether the issue:" would include 1,2, and 5 only.
Dr. Lee	oops...
Peter	I am sure you don't really believe that. Opinions from the staff have to be kept to the minimun necesary to allow the policy makers to make good policy, unaffected by staff opinions. One of the constant criticisms and failings of ICANN has been staff capture. This is one of the ways to ensure the staff do not have to defend themselves against that sort of complaint, at least on our "patch" The stafff are always available to assist when required. What you must avoid is undue influence in the critical formative stages, when an idea is just getting off the ground, people are unsure and thinking out loud. An infleunntial opinion at that stage is powerful beyond whats proper. 1, 2 and 5 - with the ability to equest anythiong more we want
Chris	From a personal point of view, I'm happy with PDT's proposal
Dr. Lee	I agree. Let's move on.
Dr. Lee	3. Voting on initiation of PDP (item 3) by Council - doesn't the 100% of 2 regions appear to be a minority vote? 4. Voting on initiation of PDP (item 3) by Council - is majority vote (50%) too low?
Chris	Re 3 - yes it does but bear in mind this vote is only to initiate the PDP
Chris	it is not a vote on policy itself - I will explain
Chris	THe AG's view is thnat if 2 regions believe that an Issues Paper should be prepared on something then it would be unfair for that to be blocked by the other regions
Dr. Lee	Also, we need to define "supermajority" vote
Chris	Bear in mind this is only a vote about whther the PDP should be initiated
Dr. Lee	I can understand this.
Dr. Lee	Can we move to the most important topic that Peter suggested? 6. The process for rejection by Board of the Council's decision needs to be talked about.
Ramesh	I think we're doing pretty well.
Dr. Lee	I believe this can only be accepted if the scope of the PDP process stays within the ICANN mandate and the scope of the SO.
Peter	Starting the PDP process Sorry -slow typing! Personally, I would like the SO to be a forum where there's a ready development of ideas. What this is about really, though, is the special case of a binding policy. Then, we need to be sure that everyone is on board, and will implement a decision if one does eventually emerge. ie there's no point starting the process if its clear some large chunk of cctlds will not implement the outcome. Why should any group be able to impose its will on any others? Clearly, only when something fundamental is at stake.... I am not sure that the SO members from say, Africa and Noth Amerioca, who are largely to account for a very small minority of actual cctlds, and a tiny fractipon of registrants, should have the ability to start a process, which, as we shall seee, permits the board to do something entirley of its own making. This process should be started with great care, and for compelling reasons
Chris	Starting the PDP process - I have explained how we got to our opinion. I still hold that view but the AG will be happy to recieve contrary feedback.
Dr. Lee	True, Peter. But I can also see where Chris is coing from. Other regions have the chance to participate in the PDP process through the Task Force.
Ramesh	My objection is to the fact that 100% of 2 regions is actually a minority. Can we just keep it at simple majority (50% +1) of the Councillors?
Dr. Lee	Agree with Ramesh.
joanna	TW also agrees
Dr. Lee	Let's move on to item 13. Board Vote.
Ramesh	Yes. Lets move on.
Peter	As I said above: The most important part of this is in clause 13. This allows the board to treat the council resolutions as "advice" and to do something else. This is all about who has the power to govern cctlds. This allows the board to make a policy which will bind the cctlds thorugh their contracts. Can we deal with this first?
Ramesh	Currently only 66% of Board is needed to reject a Supermajority Council decision. At least an equivalent level (i.e. supermajority) in the Board should be required. This of course is assuming that a supermajority is 75%.
Chris	Hold on a minute
Chris	The PDP does not allow the board to make policy that binds the ccTLDS - why do you think that it does Peter?
Chris	For the purposes of this discussion, assume that supermajority for Board and Council is set at the same level be that 66 or 75
Peter	Theindividual cctld-ICANN contracts, (including yours, Chris contracts say ( see: http://www.icann.org/cctlds/model-tscsa-31jan02.htm ) 5 Establishment of Specifications and Policies 5.1 Procedure for Establishment. The specifications and policies set forth in Attachment G shall apply to the operation of the Delegated ccTLD under Section 4.5.1 beginning at the commencement of the Term of this Agreement. During the Term of this Agreement, new or revised ICANN specifications and policies applicable to the Sponsoring Organization shall be established according to procedures that comply with ICANN's bylaws and articles of incorporation. In addition, new or revised ICANN specifications and policies established during the Term of this Agreement that are required by this Agreement to be established in the manner specified in this Section 5 shall be developed according to procedures that provide the Sponsoring Organization with input into the decision making process, including where feasible (a) prior notice (by web posting, by e-mail, or according to Section 6.8) to the Sponsoring Organization explaining what specification or policy is being considered for adoption and why; (b) reasonable opportunities for the Sponsoring Organization to comment, in writing and at a public forum, before the specification or policy is established, and (c) a written statement of the specification or policy that is established and the reason(s) for its establishment. This means that a policy made via this SO policy will become binding on cctlds.
Chris	Yes Peter but it is the CONTRACT that says that NOT the PDP. And there are only a handful of contracts and unless a ccTLD has one it is irrelevant. If the PDP was drafted another way that made it clear that the board cannot bind the ccTLDs, any contracts would STILL take precedent.
Chris	I do not believe you can fairly link one with the other.
Ramesh	Hmmm.. the PDP item that we are discussing is with regards REJECTION of policies, not adoption. Right?
Chris	Yes
Chris	It is about the ccNSO making a recommendation and having the Board NOT adopt it
Ramesh	Whereas the Contract talks about policies being imposed after going through a process (e.g. the PDP). Correct?
Chris	It makes provision for compromise but ultimately it allows the board to not adopt a ccNSO recommendation
Chris	The contract says that .au will abide by ICANN policies
Chris	So if a policy recommendation of the ccNSO wer