|
|
Contents
| Special
Features |
News
| Order
| Glossary
| Opinions
| Acknowledgments
| Contacts
ICANN
BOARD MEETING
- SANTIAGO,
CHILE
- AUGUST
25, 1999
-
-
- INFORMAL,
UNOFFICIAL, INCOMPLETE and UNAPPROVED NOTES
FROM THE
ICANN
FRONT - SANTIAGO
MEETING
-
- Notes
by Ellen Rony, who is not responsible for misspelled
words and names or other inaccuracies.
These notes were made by remote participation using
the Real Audio connection
generously supplied by the Berkman
Center for Internet and
Society
at Harvard Law School
-
11:30 Santiago time - Wednesday 8.25.99
Discussion is currently dealing with DNSO and acceptance of the
constituencies.
Staff (Andrew McLaughlin) proposes: if one of the constituenjcies wants
to extend its time to organize itself (not his words) the board should
go ahead and accept the provisional NC and formed, with the current six.
Randy Bush: How to resolve exclusivity of participation, i.e.,
eligibility for more than one constituency. "I personally qaualify for about
five of them, but would prefer to be on none."
Jonathan Cohen: Would it be allowable for a constituency to elect
three alternate members to work within the terms of office, to assist,
to show up at a meeting when it makes sense for them to, and it would
build more talent on the Names Council ready to step in for a subsequent te
term?
Spanish speaker: ICANN website is difficult to navigate.
McLaughlin: One of our projects is to make substantial improvements to]
the website, which is nothing more than a product of my evolving understanding
of Dreamweaver 2. I am confident that we will be able to establish a
threaded comments list. we are investigating translating documdents into
spanish, Arabic. Until our bylaws are widely available in many languages,
we are not properly fulfilling our requirements.
12:04 p.m.
GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION RESOLUTION:
Dennis Jennings: Geographic diversity approach is based on the outcome.
By having open and global nomination process and then having open and
global election process, then ipso facto, the outcome is representative of
the geographic region. It may be appropriate to take a geographic
representation view rather than focus on the outcome.
Heltzer, INTA: Clarify resolution on geographic diversity. We held an
election in New York; we elected two representatives from one region and a
third from another. What if that were to occur again. As a result of the
election, this is what happens after nominations debate. Will the ICANN
board say, sorry, go back to the drawing board.
Esther: I believe so. Counsel is checking.
Unfortunately, the results of your election are not valid according to the
bylaws, unless you come up with a reason that is not possible.
Fitzsimmons: There will be a requirement that you have worked hard at
diversity. Waivers will not be granted easily. Recognize the speed at
which we are moving and need to get the board in place as required to do so
by governments. Prove that you have done your homework.
Heltzer: I was referring to the Names Council. Within the intellectual property
constituency, you're telling me that we need to go back and elect on
geographic diversity.
McLaughlin: Constituencies, unless they have obtained a waiver "ahead of
time", will have to adhere to bylaws requirement for geographic diversity.
?: I'd like to hear from constituencies that feel that passing over
qualified members to achieve diversity is an unreasonable outcome.
McLaughlin: We won't retroactively apply this provision. The idea is to
apply this progressively. Until your constituency receives final approval,
you can have any provisional representation you want.
Dyson: Keep comments brief. We don't want to short shrift next two
proposals. The board has strong feelings for having geographic diversity.
Jennings: It would be inappropriate not to have a mechanism for
reanalyzing the election that would result in not having the outcome you
want. One could see us going around for loops forever.
Dyson: We are suggestion that you build it into your own procedures.
McLaughlin: Include any application for a waiver at the time you apply for
final approval of the constituency.
? - (Spanish speaker) with applause.
Dyson - Instead of having an omnibudsman represent you, we are trying to
let you represent yourself.
Swinehart: No reason that geographic diversity cannot be achieved and there
should be no exceptions.
Sola - Only one constituency that ......{remainder in Spanish}
Jennings: We have already built into our processes but just wanted to know
whether board is looking at outcome or representation,.
Dyson: Outcome
Online: R. Lindsay: It would not be a terrible thing if a constituency
had two repre;sentatives if they could not find geographic representation.
McLaughlin: If you are looking for a waiver, find me earlier rather than
later. /we haven't done this yet, so we need to look at it sooner in the
process.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
EXCLUSION PROVISION:
Randy Bush: NCDNH proposes anyone can be a member but if you are in
another constituency, you can't be a voting member.
McLaughlin: Points out a vagueness in bylaws. Reads "no individual shall
be excluded in a constituency merely because of participation in another
constituency." Each can define its own membership. Should be okay to
participate in both if they have overlapping criteria. That was original
ICANN thought of how they can compliment each other. But there are some
organizations that should be required to make the choice of whether they
are commercial or non-commercial.
Bush: We are suggesting that you decide where you vote. You can only vote
in one but can visit others.
Dyson: This is a complicated topic. We might ask staff how to feel we
should deal with this, should talk to NCDNH constituency.
McLaughlin: Joe advises me that this is an issue for the bylaws. Requires
a bylaws amendment.
Kleiman: Trying to bring in organizations that haven't been part of our
framework before. If we allow the field to be monopolized by people who
have been players, there won't be room for the others.
Sola: In business constituency, we recognize are two types of
constituencies. There are companies that work for the Internet and there
are users. We have not excluded people from other constituencies. We are
trying to have companies that develop business on the Internet. For
Non-commercial, same thing. It doesn't have to exclude others.
Amadeu: More and more constituencies try to restrict entry. I urge vote
not to change bylaws. Should be open to all those qualifying.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NON-COMMERCIAL DOMAIN NAME HOLDERS CONSTITUENCY
12:30 p.m.
Dyson - Fortunately, doesn't seem to be controversial.
? (Spanish) a long presentation followed by applause.
Christopher Wilkinson: Member of the GAC. I was responsible of the
original text of this constituency. It is an important sector. I am
speaking for the importance of outreach. Aiming toward the whole spectrum
of information , local authorities, academic and educational sector. They
don';t have lots of time and money to cover their interests. (applause)
Dyson: Any objections to this constituency.
Andrew Shapiro, Markle Foundation: Recommends approval of NCDNH. Our aim
is to broaden the involvement of the .ORGs and .EDUs in this constituency.
We like to get input of international players here to expand participation
of NCDNH in this constituency.
Dyson - Any questions from board about this proposal?
{None given}
Joop T: With regards to outreach, so far individuals will have great
trouble funding outreach programs. Our press coverage achieved on and off
line due to rejections have been the best outreach. Must thank Esther for
her last rejection letter, which is helping us receive wider global
outreach. One of the reason the board did not want to receive IDNO
constituency, there were concerns that we did not adequately represent
individual. I must ask board to clarify where this originated. Is this
in our charter or in our procedures of open discussion or of new members
voicing their concerns. This has not been asked of the other
constituencies, e.g., business constituency does not represent the world's
business interest. Board, please clarify.
Dyson: I've given our reasons.
Hans: At the start of the forming constituencies, we have to define the
representatives as either commercial or non-commercial. We still have the
question of would we like to see individual domain name holders. For me, there is a formal
reason, not to discuss at this time, which is judicial. We have agreed to
go on in a provisional DNSO, after the final DNSO, the process is open to
new constituencies and IDNO would be first on the list for consideration
at that time.
Joop T: There is a disadvantage in postponing the decision because then
the people who join will be angry. I would rather have balanced
membership. We also would like to get feedback from on board on additional
changes they would like on our charter. We have very straight-forward
membership criteria. If you show ownership, color of title to domain name,
;you can be a member. key is you are not an organization.
Dyson: One of the big problems of IDNO is actually getting large
membership. It would be better to put all the firepower behind one outreach
project, which we hope to get funding for. "120 members is a small number
in the grand scheme of things."
Joop: I don't think it will stay there. Our outreach hasn't started.
People have found me and agreed there were very specific individual
concerns. At large members of ICANN must be individuals that have
different concerns from domain name holders. There will be Internet users,
dealing with ISPs, Telcos. have concerns with intellectual property
issues, Domain name holders contracts, etc.
Dyson: AT large membership is not about bandwidth, dealing with ISPs.
Online comments:
(darn--interrupted here at home, sorry)
Mikki Berry: Mikki Barry (DNRC) Given that individuals are the single
largest group of Internet users, it is remarkable that substantive issues
that speak
directly to the rights of domain name holders are being resolved with
neither individuals, nor non commercial
organizational users being represented. The very idea that the individual
constituency is being questioned sends a very
strong message to the general public that they are "not welcomed" at the
ICANN table.
? - Can we publicly hear other board members views on petition of this
constituency?
Jim Higgins, NZ - Strongly supports this petition.
Fitzsimmons - It is difficult to say no at any particular time, especially
this early in the process. Feel confident that {individual} voices will
be heard in the short term.
Crew - Board wanted initially recognized constituencies before going on
with new ones. Question of Esther, At large membership, where is that
coming from. I have to take note of that comment as well.
Dyson - Not to see it established but to see it CONSIDERED to be
established. Second point that we should form a committee to consider new
constituencies, but I'm not sure that is necessary if we consider them
slowly as they come up.
? - We are still in middle of organizing efforts in At Large and DNSO and
would be comfortable to see it come back in November.
Online (Schaeffer): Got involved because trademark owner launched dispute
challenge for my son's domain name. Cast him as a cybersquatter.
Froomkin: Other constituencies have small numbers. This concern is met
through representation through trade associations, e.g., EFF.
Dyson: Those concerns would be met by NCDNH
Siegfried: If you look at numbers, at large membership is for individuals,
will have 9 people on the board. Can't understand that someone says
individuals aren't represented. Fear we will having as many constituencies
as persons.
Dyson: Kind of like having millions (?) of TLDs.
Eileen Kent, individual DNHO. I support Joop;s proposition. At large is
not a constituency. Board members not chosen by peers but by another body.
There is a momentum here to consider individual domain name holders.
?
Dyson: It seems that the sense of the board is to defer this proposal at
least until Los Angeles.
Break for lunch. 1:07 p.m.
|
|
