[ncdnhc-discuss] Names Council resolutions

[Harold J. Feld]

the following are the NC resolutions to be voted by the members of the 
NC for Shanghai.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: NC-vote
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:30:57 +0200 (MET DST)
From: ncvote at dnso.org
To: hfeld at mediaaccess.org

Names Council Vote on 3 Resolutions
DNSO Secretariat
1 October 2002

Re: b12

    * This vote is on resolutions/motions proposed by members of the Names
      Council, for the attention of the ICANN Board as decided at the Names
      Council teleconference:

         o http://dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020912.NCteleconf-minutes.html
         o http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020926.NCteleconf.mp3

    * The time for this NC vote is:

         o Starting Tuesday, 01 October 2002, 12:00 Paris time (11:00 UTC)
         o Ending Tuesday 15 October 2002, 12:00 Paris time (11:00 UTC)
           or when all 20 ballots from the NC have been received, whatever
           occurs first.
	
    You can find text of resolutions below the ballot or at the 
following URL :
	http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021001.NC-resolutions-vote.html

    Results to be published no later than 16 October 2002.


    * Four Resolutions:

Resolution 1
============

Proposed by Philip Sheppard on 13 September 2002
Amended on 27 September 2002

1. Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) has published its
second implementation report
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-report-02s
ep02.htm

2. Whereas the NC has previously commented on the need to make geographic
diversity a reality within the proposed Generic Names Supporting
Organisation (GNSO) Council.

3. Whereas the NC has previously commented on the need for constituencies to
have sufficient council members to share workload and allow for substitution
where required.

4. Whereas the ERC's supposition that a 21 member council is too big to be
efficient is unproven and does not accord with the experience of the Names
Council.

5. Whereas the ERC has acknowledged the above in its proposal to allow three
representatives per constituency on the proposed GNSO council for the first
year only

The Names Council resolves that:
The proposed GNSO council should have three representatives per constituency
in perpetuity but that this situation be reviewed 12 months after the
formation of the council, so that an intelligent judgement may then be made
based on the merits of the competing arguments and 12 months experience.

A further review may also be neccesary should new constituencies be created.


Resolution 2
============

Proposed by Philip Sheppard on 13 September 2002
Amended on 27 September 2002

1. Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) has published its
second implementation report
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-report-02s
ep02.htm

2. Whereas the basis for stakeholder representation in ICANN SOs to date has
been to give equal votes to each affected stakeholder constituency;

3. Whereas the report suggests a significant change in the voting balance of
ICANN stakeholders to be represented in the new Generic Name Supporting
Organisation (GNSO) council whereby it gives twice as many votes to the two
stakeholders who have contracts with ICANN (gTLD registries and registrars);

4. Whereas the 4+4+3 proposed voting structure gives a veto to the
contracted suppliers over all ICANN consensus policies, thus negating the
balancing role of the three neutral council members,

The NC therefore resolves that:
any variation from the principle of equal stakeholder constituency
representation and votes in the proposed GNSO council is unacceptable.

Resolution 3
============

Proposed by Elisabeth Porteneuve on 13 September 2002
Amended on 1 October 2002

Whereas the ccTLD Managers have been seeking an efficient process
for updating the IANA database as explicitly specified
in the Amendment 2 to the MoU of 11 September 2000, requesting
for "Documentation of IANA procedures for root zone editing,
root zone generation, and root zone WHOIS service."

Whereas the ccTLD IANA Service Requirements have been restated
once more in Bucharest on 25 June 2002 and approved unanimously
by the active ccTLD Managers within the ICANN community
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/cctld/ccTLDbucharest-communique.html

Whereas the global interoperability and stability of Internet
depends on the TLD name servers,

Whereas the recent bankruptcy of KPNQwest which provided secondary
services to several ccTLD Registries resulted in the need for
prompt actions by IANA to update the name servers records
as requested by the ccTLD Managers,

Whereas there has been excessive delays in updating nameserver information
resulting from disagreements between ICANN staff performing IANA function
and ccTLD Managers over the procedures to be followed at the time
of nameserver updates.

The Names Council resolves:

That ICANN promptly process the backlog of nameserver change requests in
the root zone and make the appropriate recommendations to the United States
Department of Commerce (which must approve changes to the root zone),
subject to external checks to verify that the name servers are
authoritative for the appropriate ccTLD.

The Names Council also recommends that the ccTLD Managers and
the ICANN Committee for Security and Stability
(http://www.icann.org/committees/security/), with input from the ICANN staff
performing the IANA function, jointly develop procedures
at the interface between the IANA function and the ccTLD Managers that
improve the quality of DNS data at the top level of the DNS.

Resolution 4
============
Proposed by Bruce Tonkin on 27 September 2002 as a response to the Stuart
Lynn letter
Amended on 1 October 2002

Whereas the stability of the DNS depends on the quality of the nameserver
information contained in the zones at all levels of the DNS hierarchy.

Whereas Stuart Lynn and Vint Cerf have written to the Names Council
on 21 September seeking the opinion of the Names Council on the
suggestion to ask the Committee on Security and Stability
(http://www.icann.org/committees/security/) to develop a recommendation on
the most sound technical practices to follow to improve the DNS data quality
at all levels in the system,
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cerf-lynn-letter-to-names-council-20sep0
2.htm

Whereas the responsibility of the DNS data quality is
a shared responsibility, which comes in addition to the core IANA function,
and methods to improve the DNS data quality need to consider the increased
cost on Registries and Registrars and Registrants altogether, in the TLD
space.


The Names Council resolves that:

The ICANN Board should ask the Committee on Security and Stability to work
cooperatively with the ICANN staff responsible for performing the IANA
function, the TLD managers, and registrars, to develop a
recommendation on the most sound technical practices to follow to improve
the DNS data quality at all levels of the DNS hierarchy.



---
	DNSO Voting Automaton (Powered by GVS)