To: ga@dnso.org
From: J J Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [ga] the physical GA and the Names Council (Melbourne)

Dear fellow GA members,

What follows is my subjective take on yesterday's events in Melbourne.

I expected that this would be a watershed ICANN meeting and it is turning
out that it may indeed be so.
The first signs are bad for ICANN and they are typical for impending
revolutions or shipwrecks: passengers are getting off. The physical GA has
lost its spark and many of its participants. It reflects what has been
happening on the GA list: many serious and keen participants have left.
This co-incides with the explosive activity that has started in the
non-ICANN world of Domain Names in the last few weeks.(especially New.Net)

The constituencies of the DNSO are unhappy with what their Names Council can
do for them. The WG for the review of the DNSO was furious because of the
way they were not given time to do a proper job (less than 3 weeks).

My first meeting was with WG members. YJ Park, Eric Dierker and Danny Younger were already there when I arrived on the evening of the 9th.Danny Younger is the man who put a 60 page report about what came out of the WG to the ICANN comment area (NC task force report comment). A report that contains much of the substance that the NC task force report left out.

This
is the new blood that has come into the discussions, thanks to the WG.

On-line too, it was WG members who were active. The GA looked abandoned. Gone were the traditional long row of speakers, waiting for their turn at the microphones. There was perhaps some built-in discouragement, since only a microphone on the podium was available.

There was perhaps some built-in discouragement, since only a microphone on the podium was available. When Roberto asked for public comments on the Verisign deal, there was just silence. (!)

The result of all this was, that, after YJ's report on the WG in the absence
of Greg Burton, and Danny's summary of the WG's recommendations, yours truly
ended up addressing the IDNH -part of the WG report, the current state of
organization of the IDNO (in response to inquiries by Chuck Gomez) and, of
course again the well worn arguments for the necessity of an IDNO (or IDNH)
constituency.

The Names Council was aware of the mood of the GA.

Just as I thought hat the NC would settle into its usual routines (I had already walked out), I came back into a presentation by Joe Sims and Louis Touton on the Verisign deal, which changed the mood of the NC members radically. Finally it was their turn to be , uhm... irritated.

Michael Schneider proposed a resolution, (please check the Berkman archive for the precise text) asking the Board not to sign the deal, until enough time had been given to the constituencies to properly evaluate it.
Staff strongly argued against the resolution.
But the bypassing of the DNSO by the Staff was not appreciated and it gave
the NC the much needed opportunity to finally score points with their
constituents.

I have no doubt that that the aggressive attitude of the Staff (Touton: it's
either plan A, take it or leave it or plan B (falling back on the '99
agreement), take it or leave it) aggravated the NC members further.

The mood had changed. Michael Schneider's motion was passed with one opposed (the GTLD rep.) and 5 abstentions. See the scribe notes at

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/scribe-icann-031101-nc.html

The NC has finally found the chance to redeem itself and it was ironic that
Peter de Blanc (ccTLD's) drew applause using the exact words that a WG
member had posted in protest against the treatment that they had received
from the hands of the NC. <g>

The NC report (Phil Sheppard) to the Board today did contain a reference to
the need to fix the lack of an Individuals'constituency.

More tomorrow, when the Board is expected to address the Verisign-deal
process and DNSO Review issues.

--Joop