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


SEPTEMBER 23, 1999

Note: These notes were made from the Real Audio archives of the teleconference, posted at Although a sincere effort was made to capture the full discussion, some comments which could not be clearly heard are not incorporated below.

Three members of the Names Council are unable to participate in the teleconference.

Ken Stubbs: I get calls on a regular basis asking how this is going to work, how the whole system is supposed to work and I have to tell them that I don't have that information yet.

Amadeu: It's simple, the NC will select the best three nominees for the board.

Chair: NC will focus teleconference on Item 3 (Election of Permanent Names Council Members) and Item 9 ( Election of ICANN Board Members) of the posted agenda. 

3. Election of Permanent Names Council Members

ICANN has received 4 applications for permanent recognition of constituency groups, one application for a geographic waiver and are considering a second..

gTLD - only one member, hasn't adopted any formal procedures. ICANN board likely will approve without any problem.

NCDNH - duplicate of proposal that board accepted in Santiago along with a commitment to hold elections within 6 months. Fine with board so long as next 6 months will be used for outreach. During that kind of period, the ICANN board intends to make the Names Council a permanent NC for purposes of electing DNSO representatives to the ICANN board even if one or two of the constituencies haven't held permanent elections for their NC representatives, and those constituencies won't be precluded from voting and wont have their votes be diluted because they haven't held their permanent elections. Board seems willing to go along with that.

IP and business constituencies. Difficult to get all the ICANN board for a teleconference. We were hoping to do all applications together in a package. Have routed around that. - went to board's executive committee and they are okay with that, with a caveat that it's okay if they want to impose an additional geographic requirement above bylaws requirement. Citizenship is the test for geographic diversity. IP has an ambiguity in the bylaws to make clear about the test for geographic diversity.

cctld has held elections and two of the three have come from countries in Europe. Rob Hall submitted a geographic diversity waiver. Used STD procedure and Rob Hall was third member. Board has agreed to a 90-day waiver only. Less burdensome option is adjusting STD transferable vote rules that they used, which would mean replacing the third highest vote getter with another from a different region.

registrars have sent informal waiver because accreditation is not geographically diverse and that forms basis for waiver request. ICANN gives the sense that it will agree on a 90-day basis.

ISPs - no application received by ICANN board to the best of my knowledge. (someone said that ICANN has received it).

Bottom line is that the ICANN board really wants to enforce geographic diversity provisions. The sense that if the ICANN board is not even-handed in applying those rules, there will be some feeling of favoritism.

Amadeu: we thought September 15 deadline is for amendments to the charter.

Andrew McLaughlin M: You should all send a formal application even if it is the same as the original charter.

Board is sensitive to fact that there are unfairnesses and bizarre results created by the geographic diversity requirements. Board is interested doing a full scale review of that policy but comments have been few and far in between in reviewing that policy and will make a concerted effort to get public comment before Los Angeles meeting. There is a waiver provision if the registrar really can't make it work.

Executive committee may meet by Internet as early as today to see if revisions are necessary.

Don Telage: Isn't the registrar issue example similar to that of the gtld constituency in that it's hard to impose diversity when there aren't sufficient members in each region.

Ken Stubbs: Want to be clear on what does the 90-day waiver means. You're telling us is that any election that we hold today, with respect to any potential exception that is created for this election, would be tolerated for 90 days, and if two members of the registrar constituency were according to ICANN bylaws citizens of the same region even if they represent corporations and be residents in another region, that situation would be allowed for 90 days and then would have to be remedied. Correct?

Andrew McLaughlin: For sure the registrars and ccTLDs can have a 90-day waiver essentially to get us through this election period without too much disruption. If registrar constituency concluded that it needs a permanent waiver on the grounds of impracticability, which is the standard in the bylaws, the registrars should make that waiver request, but ICANN will want them to find a way to comply.

Jonathan Cohen: We are going to be requesting a waiver of short duration because we didn't decide until London ten days ago the fundamentals of our constitution and now have a backlog of more new members than existing members and we want to give them a proper election. What we did is confirm our current members, we will hold new elections no later than March 31, 2000.

Andrew McLaughlin: Executive committee is giving waivers to others, most likely will give it to IP. Don't feel comfortable speaking for them. I think the board will grant final accreditation subject to holding final elections with some specific time.

Ken Stubbs: with respect to registrar constituencies and I'm going to treat it as status quo for 90 days.

Andrew McLaughlin: Proceed under plans you have been operating under. Assume that the geographic diversity requirement is waived as to one person. We should take up off line what to do after that 90 days.

Reports on individual constituency elections:

ISP - will have three new NC members in time for the ICANN elections. Candidates will come from three different regions.

cctld - Three now on NC will be the same at the time of the ICANN elections.

business - NC elections will be held before elections for the ICANN board. Will not be the same people who are now on the NC

gtld - Don Telage again; "Last three people I tried to appoint to this job quit in protest, so I guess I'll have to stay on the job"

NCDNH - will be same ones now on NC during elections

registrars - currently running election; new members by October 8

IP - three we have now will be there until new elections are held.

Andrew McLaughlin: Names Council should think about whether revision to geographic diversity requirement should be changed and how to do it. GAC is coming up with some diversity advice across the board , both for At Large and SO level.

Jonathan Cohen: Concerned that the board, by pushing for new NC elections before the ICANN board meeting who not only don't have NC experience but also may not be in a position to know new candidates as well as one may like on an election of this import.

Item #9: ICANN elections

Andrew McLaughlin: Board intends to approve these amendments. Staff has posted five different amendments to clarify and make easier to get SO elected directors on the ICANN board. 15-day notification is now a 7-day notification period, to allow SO directors an additional week to elect directors in October. Aggregate rules on geographic diversity will be borne by on the At Large side. Its not feasible to tell SOs which regions are first in sequence. SOs should have autonomy within the bounds of the rules.

Art 6, Section 4. No one can serve simultaneously as SO director and ICANN board member. We thought that this was implied in bylaws. Basic principle of conflict of interest: Nominees cannot participate in any discussion or vote of the SO council relating to election of directors.

Restatement of provision of geographic diversity extended to ASO and PSO.

Don Telage: I can see the intent of the provision. Disturbed to have it characterized as a clarification. It has stronger import and it represents a significant change.

Amadeu: a suggestion about having non-voting members attending NC meetings. No objections raised.

Stubbs: Candidates don't lose their status on the NC if they aren't elected for the ICANN board.

Don Telage: What is rationale for barring a constituent from voting. If the gTLD constituency nominated me for a board seat, that constituency would have no vote for that election.

Andrew McLaughlin: Justification is the basic principle of conflict of interest is that when you are a member of a council that makes policy decisions or things of nature, members should not vote for matters on which they have an interest in that outcome. People on the inside have advantages over those on the outside. e.g., they can swap votes. Concern that the SO elections would be very closed and have significant advantages for those on the inside.

Not the board's intention to deprive anyone of a vote. Each constituency can choose Names Council members in any way they want, so if someone wants to run for the board, that NC should select another individual who serves on the NC during the election process.

Amadeu: We are running our nomination process in parallel, so you are not a member of anything during that period. On October 8, you are depriving them because you don't have time to run a new election and select someone else.

Ken Stubbs: There are situations where the SOs have a very limited representation by certain regions. If someone who is a member of an SO is also in a specific region, you then minimize their ability to represent their region in the election.

Don Telage: The focus is not from an individual point of view. We are representing in most cases large classes of participants, so the focus should be on what impact these changes would have on the constituency itself, rather than on a particular individual.

Theresa Swinehart: On universities, when committees need to vote on issues and say the parent of one of the students is on that committee, the parent will step aside during that voting period. Is it only the individual who been nominated who abstains from voting or the whole constituency who cannot vote?

Andrew McLaughlin: An individual who has a stake in the outcome should not vote. I can understand the constituencies setting up a requirement that in the event the NC representative is nominated for the ICANN board, the administrative committee can appoint a temporary representative to the names Council consistent with the geographic diversity requirements.

Jonathan Cohen: To suggest that by having anyone on the NC who chooses to accept the nomination cannot vote changes nothing.

Theresa or Caroline: You are arguing about an unfair advantage. There is also an unfair advantage for the constituencies that are all developed who represent certain interests not to be able to vote for the ICANN board. There are strong competing unfair advantages.

Amadeu: Need to have all constituencies represented in full force for this decision. Not enough time to find replacements for this election. Perhaps should not apply it for this election. I don't feel that these changes are coming in a bottom up fashion. This is a top down decision from the board and I have seen very little support for this from the general membership.

Ken Stubbs: The board should say who is making that decision. We need to understand the logic behind this. It would be very difficult for constituencies to change their bylaws to allow for a substitution in such a short time. Also concerned with disenfranchisement of constituencies.

Andrew McLaughlin: Idea is not to disenfranchise any constituency, just individuals who are in a conflict of interest situation.

Stubbs: You are asking us to conduct a Chinese fire deal. Not giving us enough time to deal legitimately with this change.

Andrew McLaughlin: Public is afraid that the fix is in and that the DNSO will choose three of its own and will do some internal horse trading. Where you have a personal stake in the outcome of the vote, you should not be allowed to participate in the vote.

Theresa Swinehart: If this concern is being raised outside the NC, and the concern is about a capture of the NC, we need to take a look at that. Whoever is on the board is representing the DNSO in its entirety, so whoever is on the board, they have an obligation toward the entire DNSO as part of their responsibility to the ICANN board.

Michael Schneider: Who are making these suggestions? I think the board is being lobbied by a few individuals. No objection in principle to the intent but I think changing the rules in the middle of the process is unwise because people might have made different decisions if they had known. Want to clarify if Administrative Committee can appoint a temporary NC member purely for the purposes of the election.

Andrew McLaughlin: That is what we would hope but this isn't yet a done deal and we have to wait for the comments. Even with the pressing nature of the elections, we have to wait and read the comments of the SOs and NC.

Amadeu: We need agreement that this does not affect voting rights of constituencies but only of the individuals.

Andrew McLaughlin: This is not the way we like to go about making significant policy changes like this. In the best case, we would have thought of this six months ago.

Item # - Election Process.

End of Real Audio. 













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© 1999 Ellen Rony and Peter Rony. All Rights Reserved.