Domain Name Handbook
DNS NewsDomain DisputesU.S. PolicyICANNMailing ListsArchivesTable of ContentsReviews & CitesViewpointAcknowledgmentGlossarySpecial FeaturesBooklist


NOVEMBER 2, 1999 
Notes by Ellen Rony, who is not responsible for misspelled words and names or other inaccuracies.
Real Audio connection and archives are provided by
Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School
See also Notes from the ICANN Public Forum in Los Angeles, 3-Nov-99 



NCDNH - Milton Mueller

Decided not to open NCDNH voting to individual members, which does not indicate lack of support for a constituency for individuals on the Names Council.

gTLDs: Don Telage

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 position.

ccTLD: Fay Howard

Talked about 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 diversity requirements.

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 seriously.

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?

IP: Steve Metalics

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 requirements.

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 data.

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 cybersquatting.

Business Constituency: Phil Sheppard

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 Europe.

Discussed membership 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 constructed budget.

Registrars - Mike

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 renegotiated.

ISPCP - Hotta

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 report


Q - Pindar Wong:: Heard of some concerns to proposed agreement between DOC/ICANN/NSI. Would like to have concerns clarified.

Registrars: Richard Lindsey - Would like to organize a brief presentation of that clarification. Will put that on agenda in 20 minutes.

Rich Forman: - 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 registrars.

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 have
d) No service level agreements. All registrars feel SLAs are required
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 listen (contrary

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 principled discussion.

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 go

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 ... ?



WORKING GROUP B - Famous Trademarks

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.


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 NC.


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 areas:

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 ( 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.

QUESTIONS to 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 list.

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 magnitude larger.

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 well?

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.


[missing first 10 minutes - please check onsite scribes notes]

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 than Indians.

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 issue.

Show of hands: Perhaps 40% of audience is participating in one or more working groups.

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 process.

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.

Dana Gallup: 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 ICANN board.

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 GA.

Hand vote: how many realize that GA can make a proposal for a working group (no one).

Auerbach: This implies discretionary power by NC. I propose to remove that discretionary power.

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 GA.

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 effectively.

Dennis Schaefer: 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 GA.












DNS in Congress

Policy statements and Congressional testimony on private sector implementation of the U.S. government Internet White Paper.

International Forum on the White Paper

Meetings in Summer 1998 which culminated with the creation of ICANN.







Contact | Order | Site | News | Disputes | Policy | ICANN | Lists | Archives
Contents | Reviews | Viewpoint | Acknowledgment | Glossary | Special Features | Booklist
 The Domain Name Handbook: High Stakes and Strategies in Cyberspace
Copyright© 1998, 1999, 2000 Ellen Rony and Peter Rony. All Rights Reserved.