Short answer:
No, open v. closed was not on the agneda (or discussed) on the phone call
yesterday. You can see what we *did* discuss - the NC, and the rationale for
the decisions - in the minutes posted at the ICANN site.
The GAC sets its own agenda, and we are not responsible for what it
considers....or advises.
Esther
At 01:48 PM 13/08/99 +0000, Kerry Miller wrote:
>
>
>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.
>
>===
>
>
>
Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 (212) 924-8800
1 (212) 924-0240 fax
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org
High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
