ICANN Open Meeting
May 25 & 26, 1999, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm
Hotel Adlon, Berlin, Germany
Real-Time Remote Viewing and Participation

Constituency Groups | DNSO General Assembly | GAC Open Meeting | ICANN Open Meeting

DNSO General Assembly

Chaired by Dennis Jennings

I.   Inter-constituency problems - geographic diversity
II.   Too soon to have a meeting of the GA? ICANN board said not to do so in Berlin?
III.   Studies
   A.   Committee to study ICANN budget and make recommendations - specifically re "domain name tax"
   B.   Committee to study/evaluate agreements between registries and ICANN
IV.   Share knowledge re GAC - Necessary? "Too closed"?
V.   Y2K
VI.   Request for meeting to make a recommendation for the ICANN board re admitting the IDNO as an eighth constituency
VII.   3 motions (Sexton)
   A.   A proposal that the GAC not meet in secret
   B.   A straw poll show of hands for who wants GAC. (About 9 people raised hands in support.)
   C.   Should ICANN have the power to remove a TLD from the root? (No response from audience.)
VIII.   3 motions (Robert Hanke, germany.net)
   A.   Constituencies failing to meet geographic diversity rules should have one or two of their seats vacant until they meet the requirement.
   B.   To open the root for new TLDs and registries this year.
   C.   To prevent one entity from making three nominations to the names council.
IX.   Re speed: WIPO report too dense, long to for so quick a response. No need to go so fast.
X.   Ask ICANN board to postpone further decisions until Names Council formed?
XI.   Need to meet and deliberate electronically. Shouldn't hurry to make bad decisions.
XII.   How can interim names council members be elected when membership of the constituencies has not been defined? Even to suggest candidates for names council members is premature. This is a non-democratic process.
XIII.   Fears that people asking for delay are ones who are simply on the losing side of particular political battles.
XIV.   Need for credibility and responsibility, which in turn is based on legal authority. Such authority has come from USG, white paper. Caution against breakneck speed.
XV.   If there is to be an ICANN GAC, should it not respect the same principles of openness and transparency that other elements must respect?
XVI.   If purpose of mechanisms is to constrain, how to accomplish that? To some extent we have to rely on Board's discretion, and keep in touch. But how to do something "in the negative"?
XVII.   GAC's closed meeting policies may necessitate a GAC'. Chair: Concerns expressed about WIPO report, GAC, geographic diversity issues; perhaps discussion is needed before the formalities solidify constituency memberships. Issues to be worked on by "interm names council" or "interim constituencies"? Some present say yes. No one seems to think we should do nothing until formalities completed. Completing the record: (David Johnson) Go down list of topics, get show of hands for those which require research study? - Orderly procedure for opening root. - Contractual provisions between ICANN and registries. - ICANN budget and fee structure. - Mechanisms for dealing with geographic diversity. - WIPO recommendations. - Y2K issues; stability of the root. - Opening the GAC. - Individual domain name holders
XVIII.   Mood of the meeting:
   A.   Purpose, goals, status all unclear. Seems like we're going too fast.
   B.   In the mood to disagree. This meeting results in comments for presentation to the ICANN Board.
   C.   Chair: Meeting is an "airing of issues." This forum is for discussion, for identifying work items, not for decision-making. Items will either be addressed by constituencies or will require cross-constituency research groups.
XIX.   Registrars that operate in ccTLDs seem to have been excluded from registrars constituency. So they need their own constituency.
   A.   WIPO research began at request of US Government
   B.   Expensive, included a lot of work, had diverse supporters
   C.   Why reinvent the wheel? Why do another round of studies? Seems like a stall.
XXI.   On research committees - bylaws specifically anticipate them.
XXII.   Must be open and transparent - WIPO research was not sufficiently open to be valid/credible?
   A.   Dissent - process has been slow, deliberate, has provided ample opportunity for public comments.
       1.   Agreement with the dissent - process has been sufficiently open, there's been lots of comment, now time to get going.
       2.   Perhaps issues already studied in as much detail as is practical, should start going forward now and make corrects as necessary if necessary
   B.   Agreement - WIPO process is suspect because it was closed. The more transparent DNSO should evaluate the WIPO report.
XXIII.   WIPO report makes a variety of recommendations on various subjects, including calls for further study of some issues. Are those who oppose following WIPO's recommendations also against following the recommendations for further research?
XXIV.   Need to emphasize content, not process.
   A.   Some agreement. "Look for positive solutions."
XXV.   OK for GAC to be closed so long as it allows a public comment period, public discussion & discourse
XXVI.   Chair: Perhaps it would be appropriate to set up study groups, create a mechanism for internal communication.
XXVII.   Ask the board to consider DNSO constituency issues early Thursday morning. If recognized, have a follow-on dialogue on Thursday.
   A.   General agreement to ask board for priority consideration on Thursday agenda.
   B.   Attendees about evenly split as to whether they can make a 11:00 Thursday meeting.
   C.   Online communication
XXVIII.   Speed versus representativeness: Some constituencies already well-organized and well-represented, others need more work. Some groups better connected to what's going on, others less so.
XXIX.   Missing interests
   A.   Education and research - traditionally major contributors to Internet development

Translate with Altavista Babelfish: Deutsch, Francais, Espanol, Italiano, Portugues


For additional technical information, please contact:  

Ben Edelman and Wendy Seltzer
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School