UNOFFICIAL, INCOMPLETE and UNAPPROVED NOTES
FRONT - ANNUAL
by Ellen Rony, who is not responsible for misspelled
words and names or other inaccuracies.
Real Audio connection and archives are provided by
Center for Internet and
at Harvard Law School
from the ICANN Public
in Los Angeles, 3-Nov-99
BETWEEN GA AND NC
NCDNH - Milton
Decided not to open NCDNH
voting to individual members, which does not indicate
lack of support for a constituency for individuals on the
Held a tutorial on new
gTLDs, led by new general manager of NSI. Discussed
issues of scaling up registry. Discussed all the measures
being taken to separate NSI registry and registrar as two
separate corporations. Only have tiniest amount of shared
services, such as CEO, legal and Don Telage
Administrative Committee to pub together an election
process but it's for each region to decide how they will
be represented and they will form their own rules. ccTLDs
elections for Names Council members currently has two
European members.. We are currently in breach of ICANN
representative. On a 19-day waiver for the second
European currently serving on the NC. Working on new
election procedure to assure that ccTLDs meet geographic
Working on funding for
secretariat. Talked about contracts with ICANN. ccTLDs
feel they need a more formal relationship with ICANN in
regard to services they receive. Code of Best Practice.
GAC working on it. NC representatives will talk with GAC
later today but ccTLDs take these issues very
Met yesterday with IANA,
called by Josh Elliot to discuss ccTLDs. We want to have
procedures to make changes in the root and changes in the
database. We have questions -- who is currently running
the root and managing the database?
Serving in interim
capacity as president. Met yesterday. Plans in place for
an election to be held in December for permanent NC
members. Will also fill position of president on
permanent b as is. This will enable constituency to meet
January deadline to meet geographic diversity
Put into place
provisional dues structure to meet ICANN requested
payment of $5000 for webcasting, etc.
Much discussion about
issues coming up this week: First, is tripartite
agreements among DOC, ICANN, NSI. General support for
these agreements but some concern about unfettered access
to WHOIS. IP are major consumers of WHOIS data and
concerned about anything that raises cost of bulk access
to this data. Want to provide ready access to
UDRP: Deep disappointment
form many members of IP about outcome of UDRP. Concerns
cluster around conditions that domain holders
conclusively have rights to the registration. Fundamental
loopholes. Feeling that it it goes forward, trademark
holders won't use it and it won't be a viable alternative
to litigation. Strong sentiment that implementation of
UDRP is not inconsistent with national laws on
Discussed a range of
things on meeting, including slight amendments to the
charter to comply more fully with ICANN bylaws.
Objectives. What is described in our charter is
imperative business., engendering of consumer confidence.
We want electronic commerce to work for consumer.
Membership breakdown: 91 members from 5 regions. Largest
representation is North America, next is
voice, our role as issues manager, to help form opinion
and participate. Finished the election process. We had a
chance to discuss with three new ICANN DNSO board
members. Have approved an ad hoc funding arrangement.
discussed need for more permanent situation, carefully
This was one of the most
well=attended ICANN meetings to date. Well represented by
a number of registrars. ICANN funding task force of
registrars. Expecting to contribute 50% of the ICANN
funds. Met also to discuss UDRP and how it will impact
registrars. Discussed election to replace Abril i Abril,
who was elected to ICANN board.
Agreed to work on service
level service parameters to work with NSI. Discussed need
for centralized or distributed WHOIS database. We are
trying to address concerns. Discussed funding of NC. No
agreements made yet. Intend to pay our NC contribution by
end of ....?
Discussed new US caselaw
that impacts registrar activity. Voted on DOC/ICANN/NSI
agreement. 18 registrars voted in agreement with current
agreement. 17 do not support agreement in current form.
"We have serious concerns that need to be addressed." 14
felt that these concerns needed to be modified. 1 said
concerns needed to be clarified. 1 said concerns need to
30-40 people. Some
discussions referred to DNSO funding, interim funding
approved to cover three physical meetings and the long
term funding will be discussed in mailing list.
Bylaws amendment to
separate officers and NC members. Amendment to redefine
the regions to completely comply with ICANN bylaws.
Wording will be worked on.
Improve publicizing ISPCP
mailing list. Outreach - to maintain some extent of it,
we will design links to member organization websites.
IDNO - No
Q - Pindar Wong::
Heard of some concerns to proposed agreement between
DOC/ICANN/NSI. Would like to have concerns
Lindsey - Would like to organize a brief presentation of
that clarification. Will put that on agenda in 20
Registrar.com - Five issues that 14 or 15 other
registrars submitted comments on: AOL, ATT, Concentric,
Vario and others. Not everyone had same concerns but
these five were concerns from 50 of attending
- a) NSI can use
proceeds from sale of registry to enhance and
compete in registrar space
- b) NSI can enter
in enter in exclusive arrangements. Possibly a
drafting error in agreement.
- c) Credit policies
are not uniform. NSI is using to tech capability to
- d) No service
level agreements. All registrars feel SLAs are
- e) Super majority
issue where NSI can have veto right over
accreditation fee changes.
- Marilyn Cade: ATT - ATT
has submitted its own responses, in addition to access to
WHOIS, and service outages. Section indicates that NSI
could temporarily limit access for three days (with
notice provisos). This is totally unreasonable for a
critical resource. There seems to be no incentive to
maintain an always up database.
Q: How do you want to
safeguard the interests of the DNSO?
Jon Cohen: When you
become a director, you are no longer a DNSO
representative and you are required to act in the best
interest of the board and the Internet. We all understand
where we came from, went through crucible of DNSO
formation. I would be most pleased and hope to hear from
all the constituencies and I hope to bring different
points of view, and there are some strong ones, and share
them. I have some initial confidence that there is an
open set of minds. Best thing I can be available and
Pisanty: There is a
responsibility for looking at ICANN business as a whole.
I don't think there's strong opposition between DNSO and
other SOs, but can work in collaboration. For DNSO in
particular, I will keep an open ear to all points of view
and keep a rational based perspective to contributed to
Q. What are your
positions on allowing individual stakeholders
representation within ICANN?
Cohen: Obviously been
discussed for some time. A difficult issue. There are
some constituencies which allow individuals (e.g., IP). I
think that's a healthy thing. there is still a move to
form a new constituency for individuals, a lot of debate
about whether that is necessary or advisable. Many feel
the proper way for individuals to participate is through
the GA. I don't have an opinion about which way this can
Amadeu: I am absolutely
opposed to a new constituency for individual domain name
holders. I think that individuals should be present in
this process in the General Assembly. I am in favor of
representation for individuals, but I am against
individual representation. Being an individual is not a
function, it is a fact. Like being Catholic or Moslem,
like being a good person or being a freak. We are not
deciding about citizenship here. We have some functions
that have to be represented. Providing registrar
services. Providing name services. Providing connectivity
serv ices. This can be performed by families,
individuals. Functions o Internet are natural
constituencies. We want a constituency, but individuals
don't represent a practical function.
Pisanty: A way to
approach consittueion of individuals is to strengthen GA
by more active participation of organizations who are
also individuals. Once working actively with entire
spectrum, if individuals can overwhelm by their numbers,
we can have self-organizing assembly ... ?
OF WORKING GROUP ACTIVITES
WORKING GROUP B -
56 participants. We tried
to learn from Working Group A mistakes after Santiago. We
have denied no one participation. On any issues voted
upon, all individuals are allowed to participate fully.
Engaged in outreach program, to small business interests.
First vote two weeks ago on Question 0 regarding famous
marks. Are safeguards needed at all. Yes, needed. WGB is
engaging in process of call for position papers, due
November 17. Drafting committee will prepare a report.
Want preliminary report to NC by December 31.
WORKING GROUP C:
Core group of members not
more than 30. Will generate interim report for public
comment very soon. Contains two pieces, 2.5 pages,
summarizing two points on which we have found rough
consensus: Yes, there should be new gTLDs. 2nd, question
of how at what pace they should be introduced. Sharply
divided on pace. Some urged that ICANN should immediately
enter process for 100s within next two or three years.
Others envisioned at halting pace. Compromise proposal
advanced, course for ICANN to take 6-10 as a testbed
followed by general evaluation period. Compromise gained
sufficient support for rough consensus. On other issues,
individual members have drafted set of position papers of
their own views. Attached to preliminary report and have
submitted them to NC to indicate where we are now. We
want public comment and reaction outside of working group
regarding how to proceed. Report is linked from
WORKING GROUP D:
Policies and procedures
Chartered by Names
Council in late July, began work in weeks before
Santiago. Have published an internal draft for WG member
purposes. Will be meeting later today. Have reached
pretty good closure. On today's agenda: what level of
formalism should a working group follow in its internal
workings. Some want Internet free-flow list discussions;
some want Roberts Rules. What happens in a working group
when it lacks consensus. Finally, whether a working group
shoul dhave some testing of implementation of its work
product. Should the report recommendation include the
result of some of tests. In next few weeks, will be
publishing a public comment draft. By end of November or
no later end of year, will have a report to send to the
WORKING GROUP E:
Began in June to July
time frame. Initially, did not have enough members, only
20-30. Need to have 40-50. Met to discuss three
1) Do we need further
outreach for DNSO membership. Currently DNSO mailing list
has 200 members. Is this enough? DNSO total may be 500
but 200 on DNSO mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org).
How many more do we want. 1,000 for mailing list would be
reasonable for DNSO community. Next step is workshops,
seminars and a video. This should be a collaborative
effort. Only two or three of constituencies and working
groups doing a reasonable job to make mailing lists
available. Others not. Re: At Large - probably half only
interested in DNSO activities. Other half interested in
ICANN in general, which forms a starting point. ICANN
must meet 5,000 threshold of members before elections can
be held. Recommend we work on outreach from perspective
of DNSO. Another working group to work on perspective of
ICANN in general. We need funding to sustain this effort.
Need collaboration with leadership with ICANN. Next ICANN
meeting in Africa, and we will be on our way to
membership. Conceptual paper is available now.
Working Group Co-chairs:
Q: Dennis Schaefer:
Working Group excluded remote participation in
yesterday's meeting. Members expressed concern regarding
a trade association bias in the vote. This group needs to
focus more on openness and transparency.
Mike Pelage: Lack of a
telephone bridge was issue of funding. But no substantive
issues or conclusions raised in meeting yesterday. Will
draft summary of meeting and forward it to
Q: Karl Auerbach:
Regarding size of DNSO. 1,000 seems to be a very low
target considering there are millions of domain name
registrants. Suggest it should be several orders of
Q: Wendy Seltzer: How
much of your discussion has focused on the issue of fair
use of famous marks. If trademark law is to be applied to
domain names, will its exceptions apply has
Mike Pelage: Have a call
for papers. Last 4-5 weeks have been focused on are
safeguards needed. Now discussing what are the scope of
protections. There are filter protections that Olympic
Committees and Red Cross had asked the registrars to sign
voluntarily. concern over First Amendment rights to names
used as a protest.
Speaker: Please remember
that U.S. is not only country in world and "fair use"
does not mean anything elsewhere.
NAMES COUNCIL CAN WORK MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH GENERAL
[missing first 10
minutes - please check onsite scribes
Comments read: Patrick
Greenwell and Mikki Barry
Art 6B, Section 2i says
NC shall elect the chairman of the GA.
Amadeu Abril i Abril:
Still confused what the GA is. GA is expressed in many
ways: All the WGs and the NC are part of the GA. General
participation and the structure of the groups doesn't fit
together well. Participating in the GA is not that easy.
There is some general hostility (?). We have more chiefs
Kent Crispin: Advocate
patience with this. There is tremendous structure. How it
works together is not yet clear. How to fill in more
structure until we understand how current structure is a
recipe for chaos. If we, indeed, get 1,000 members in the
GA, then indeed, we need to look at structure.
Bret Fausett - Something
is not right. GA as a list is only a place for the
disenfranchised. Some of these people feel they are not
welcomed in these constituencies. If we could pull people
out of the GA place and integrate them better into the
life of the DNSO, then GA list could be a lace for all
constituencies to meet together.. Then DNSO could look at
the list and see if there is general consensus for an
Show of hands: Perhaps
40% of audience is participating in one or more working
Dave Crocker: Tensions
and diffic ulties and complaints that have been voiced
remain troublesome. Recommendations: Everyone who
participates in the DNSO shall be given the title
"chair". Do everything in the GA all the time, with
everyone participating in every decision. Some
participants want mathematical precision on this process.
When you have a reasonably selected group of people
representing reasonable diversity, they make reasonable
decisions. The idea that we can have 19 people on a panel
and have no faith in them is not proper. They have not
been elected all by the same people through a productive
Karl Auerbach: "It ain't
structure, it's power." The GA has no effective power,
and that is what we have to change. We have to create a
voice who are not among the view people who have a voice
on one of ht eselecte constituencies. Proposal: All
working groups should be formed by and report to the GA
and reports should be approved by the GA before they are
passed by the NC.
Teresa Swinehart: This
provides a unique opportunity for GA this afternoon, to
contributed to ideas about how this work.
Fundamentally, the structure of DNSO is a failure. It
looks as so you have so many constituencies as entrance
grants on to a freeway and you have a classic bottleneck.
Never going to create a process where constituencies will
create a consensus because they are all too disparate.
Recommend that DNSO be disbanded and replaced solely with
constituency groups having direct input and access to the
Patrick Greenwell: Bylaws
are in v8iolation of the concept of self-organizing
constituencies and should be altered accordingly.
Auerbach: Propose that
WGs should be formed by, report to and have reports
approved by the GA. Seconded by E. Rony.
Crispin: Why are we
voting on this. What significance does it have to take
such a vote.
Quaynor: Will give
signals to NC to express the sentiment of the
Hand vote: how many
realize that GA can make a proposal for a working group
Auerbach: This implies
discretionary power by NC. I propose to remove that
Chicoine: The perception
that the NC is controlling working groups and where they
are headed is unfounded (exception WG A). We would
prioritize based on what we had heard from the
Touton: Some people say
this is excercising control by the NC, some say the NC is
just excercising responsibility.
Lagenbach: Won't work
because people will vote on things that they don't have
sufficient knowledge about.
Mueller: The idea that
the GA should play a role in the ratification of the
output and formation of the WG groups is a good one. That
is step 2. Step 1 is more structure so that it can
excercise this participation more effectively. Working
Group C formation was a disaster. NC gave WG C with an
impossible charter. Told it to solve the most dififcult
problem ICANN has to resolve must be reported on and
resolved by amailing list of people who have been
figthting with each other for four years in six weeks.
Results were struggling with devisive issues that brought
ICANN into being that we had to take much more time. This
is an example of how we perceive the NC has a specific
agenda that it wants to force upon us. Could we at least
get an expression from the NC members here and the ICANN
staff simoply saying that the GA's function and role as a
concensus building group needs to be exploited more
Perception is that NC members should chair working
groups, hence an elem\ent of NC approval.
Pilage: To try to get
consensus form 1K to 2K people is a yeoman's task, just
not workable. Even the WGs with about 15 members have
difficulty coming to consensus.
Consensus (faint voices)
that Karl's recommendation goes to Working Group D to
strengthen the relationship between the NC and the