March 8, 2000
Names Council Meeting
DNSO Names Council March 8, 2000 – Cairo, Egypt
I. Introduction - Ken Stubbs, Chairman
A. Introduction of new NC members
1. Non-commercial Constituency: Zakaria Amar
2. Intellectual Property: Guillermo Carey
3. Registrars: Erica Roberts, Paul Kane
B. Roll Call:
1. Dennis Jennings
2. Guillermo Carey
3. Caroline Chicoine
4. Phillip Sheppard
5. Patricio Poblete
6. Erica Roberts
7. Theresa Swinehart
8. Don Telage
9. Ken Stubbs
10. Kathern Kleiman
11. YJ Park
12. Zakaria Amar
13. Hirofumi Hotta
14. Antonio Harris
15. Absent: Michael Schneider (ill), Paul Kane
II. Acceptance of Minutes as Posted and Amended
III. Report of GA Chair – Roberto Gaetano
A. Potential changes in mailing list and other forms of interaction are under consideration to provide more effective forums. Specific working lists that are task-oriented. Relationship between GA and NC discussed as well. How can the GA fulfill its responsibilities as described in bylaws. Budget presented. Only real deadline is to replace or finalize interim rules within two months. Personal comment: my general feeling about GA is that in collaboration with WG-E we need to try to represent the interests of people who are otherwise not represented in the ICANN process because those represented by constituencies on Council are happy but little participation in GA because perception that more effective participation to be had in constituencies. GA should be where new ideas will pop up. We must make sure that any new ideas that are not immediately addressed by constituency or working group can be addressed by the GA
B. Questions from NC
1. Telage: How does the GA work between meetings? Was this discussed?
2. Gaetano: So far, work has not been organized effectively. Most discussion has been procedural rather than subtantive. Are working on it. I believe a single GA mailing list is not useful because it doesn’t scale – need smaller, more focussed lists.
3. Telage: Amount of time required to participate in GA list is prohibitive for most people. Is there a tool or procedural mechanism for making GA participation less burdensome?
4. Gaetano: Was initially hoping for periodic summaries. So far the discussion still hasn’t been substantive (so this wouldn’t make sense), but I remain hopeful that this will improve in the future. Currently have a double-list system with parallel monitored and unmonitored lists; only three people subscribe to the unmonitored list.
5. Park: Outreach?
6. Gaetano: Work of WG-E is critical. GA seeks to widen participation, and WG-E studies methods for doing so.
7. Gaetano: People should go to WG-C to discuss substantive issues about creation of new gTLDs. Would hate to see members of WG-C forced to return to GA to reopen all issues discussed by WG.
8. Sheppard: Would it be helpful to lessen administrative requirements by just having a single monitored list?
9. Gaetano: Many people didn’t even participate in the poll re whether or not to have monitoring on the GA list. Consider the chair’s role to be to break a tie, and the low volume of comments received were like a tie. Ask that those who left the GA list return to it, because only with their support will the amount of “signal” on the GA list increase (so as to improve signal-to-noise ratio).
10. Kleiman: Question of whether people want to be informed or involved via the GA. Many people feel/are disenfranchised by the DNSO’s structure. GA may be losing people because it’s “just” a place to discuss, not to decide. Focused lists are a good way to start fixing this problem. But WGs can be difficult to participate in. Giving the GA some sort of direct input to decision-making process will cause more interest in the GA.
11. Gaetano: Agree. But have to address problems one at a time. I personally promised the GA to bring items of importance to the NC’s attention, and I will do so. But we can’t spend our time discussing issues of process instead of substance.
12. Stubbs: Thanks to Gaetano and Alverstrand for working with the GA. Impressed with reports received today.
• Gaetano: Thanks also to Porteneuve.
IV. Budget Report
A. Stubbs: Have received comments expressing concern at the size of the budget. Also received requests re sharing costs with ICANN.
1. Proposal at [http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00428.html].
2. Possibility of reducing costs somewhat via contributions and discounts.
3. Sheppard previously recommended cost-sharing with ICANN. Otherwise, concern expressed at size, but few substantive suggestions.
B. Whether or not constituencies have made their promised contribution to the NC?
C. Telage: This budget seems minimal. Can’t imagine doing this work with any less money than what’s proposed. Ask yourselves how serious you are about what’s proposed, and if we can’t fund what we’re doing, we’re going to fail.
D. Chicoine: My constituency would want to see that all constituencies are paying their share before they paid any more.
E. Stubbs: Registrars have not yet met their commitment, but are working on it. Feel embarrassed that money still hasn’t been paid; need to pay the funds directly to an ICANN account, we understand.
F. Jennings (ccTLD): Have made the commitment by a combination of small amounts from many ccTLDs. Now we need an invoice so that we can actually pay. Are thinking more about the substantial contributions required for the ICANN budget, and until we resolve those, we’re not able to resolve the constituency contributions.
G. Katoh (Business): Are working on it. Would appreciate it if ICANN shared the costs.
H. Park (Non-Commercial): Still working on it. Total budget of $250,000 could perhaps be reduced by using staff in relatively less expensive countries. Or perhaps rely on volunteers rather than paid staff.
I. Hotta (ISPCP): Decided in LA that we will pay our share. But have not resolved how to collect the money or transfer it to ICANN. Members thought that it might be frugal to reduce costs by not webcasting meetings and/or teleconferences.
J. Stubbs: How to send money to ICANN?
K. Touton: Send us a list of who the people are and how much each should pay, and we’ll send them appropriate paperwork. That leaves the possibility that some invoices will go unpaid, resulting in a shortfall, so you’ll have to come up with a mechanism to work with that.
1. Re general funding for DNSO’s operations, the by-laws state that the DNSO (and ASO and PSO) will be self-funding. Therefore there’s no money in ICANN’s budget to pay for the DNSO’s operations, so it seems not to be attainable that ICANN revenues be used to pay for DNSO operations.
L. Stubbs: Wondering about the possibility of job-sharing with an ICANN staff person. Could reduce the DNSO’s costs by sharing expenses for rent, phones, Internet, etc.
1. Touton: Certainly are willing to accommodate the DNSO and will work with this.
2. Stubbs: This borders on embarrassing. Must make progress by next meeting.
M. Katoh: Agree that we should resolve this issue as quickly as possible.
N. Stubbs: It’s hard to believe that we couldn’t find a few hundred dollars per organization when our travel and other meeting expenses are relatively larger. Since the needed funds could easily be raised by a charge at the door, we’d have the needed funds much faster.
O. Park: Worry of overpaying.
P. Stubbs: Budget is subject to review. Want to get needed services at most reasonable costs possible.
Q. Sheppard: It would be helpful if those of us looking at the budget had itemized expense reports. It would be better if we had the opportunity to approve each expense.
R. Telage: Constituencies without a commercial basis might provide their contribution in-kind rather than in cash.
1. Stubbs: Agreed.
S. Porteneuve: It’s expensive to have a person working around the clock running DNSO activities at all hours of the day. But that’s needed for this organization of international scope. Activities have been extremely time-consuming. ICANN is international but all staffers are US citizens.
1. Park: Money and well-balanced participation from all regions. US people have occupied ICANN and DNSO has been occupied by EU people, other regions need to be getting involved as well and outreach could help with this.
T. Swinehart: We could halt all activities until the money comes in, or we could recognize that the expenses are worthwhile and we should continue. For example, 117 people participating remotely. I can’t see halting all now as a viable choice. I am concerned about incurring additional debt without ability to pay them, but let’s move the budget process forward.
U. Harris: People won’t drop out due to non-payment. Let’s give ICANN a list of invoices to track and let constituencies have the responsibility to get things paid
V. Stubbs: Urgency is now present that was previously absent. W. Amar: From the perspective of developing countries, let’s ensure that two classes of membership is not created. A couple of hundred dollars is actually quite a bit of money in some regions.
1. Stubbs: Yes, that’s why we’re trying to keep the budget as low as possible.
X. Jennings: I precipitated a crisis previously by refusing to participate in anything for which there wasn’t funding, and I repeat this now. I won’t be a part of an organization acting when it can’t afford to act. Either we get this budget matter handled and have the money in hand or I will not participate. Y. Touton: It will be easier for us to help you lessen your budget if the staff can work with a smaller group representing the diversity of views on the NC. Z. Jennings: We have now overrun the time during which AFNIC and Porteneuve offered to help; we owe them great thanks (thanks and applause given).
V. Staff Report – Touton
A. Have made arrangements for long-term staff provisions. Obtained larger office space – now have ten offices at favorable rates and without moving (just an expansion).
B. Have added two employees and lost one in the last two months. Added a consultant for the At-Large Membership program. Are actively looking for three new employees, to help with registrar accreditation program, network administrator, business manager, and policy.
C. Have inaugurated At-Large Membership site. [http://members.icann.org].
D. Katoh: International staff?
1. Touton: Currently all Marina Del Rey staff are Americans. Have been discussing with some organizations and individuals the possibility of a fellowship-type program.
E. Kleiman: Did ICANN take on IANA’s staff?
1. Touton: Have some employees on loan from USC/IANA now. Also, ICANN continues to rely on USC/IANA’s technical staff as needed.
VI. Working Group Chairman Reports
A. Palage (WG-B, Famous Marks):
1. Formed after Berlin meeting. Met at last three ICANN regional meetings. More than 110 participants. Most are trademark attorneys or brand managers; others have varied backgrounds.
2. Original chairs: Jonathan Cohen and Palage, but Cohen elected to ICANN Board, so Sheppard and Kleinman took on NC Liaison role.
3. Position papers:
• Non-Commercial Constituency: No creation of famous mark list since it’s impossible to define a universal famous mark. Suggested a new gTLD, .tmk.
• Registrar Constituency: Propose a sunrise period in which all registered trademark members could register a limited number of variations of their mark.
• Palage: Sunrise period like registrar constituency. But would also call for creation of a famous mark list by a WIPO panel, a list to be used only for sunrise period, not for any ongoing purpose.
4. Sheppard: Much agreement within the group – everyone wants to reduce confusion.
5. Kleiman: Aren’t saying that the Non-Commercial Constituency doesn’t want a famous marks list just because it’s difficult to create. Also because famous mark protection doesn’t apply to non-commercial use. Growing cooperation among registrars and intellectual property community in part because of growing recognition that non-commercial marks are different.
6. Questions from NC
• Telage: Registration does not necessarilly determine what the activity will be on a particular site. The task of making such a determination could be prohibitively burdensome. Also, creation of a famous marks list would surely be costly. Will the owners of famous marks pay?
• Palage: Trademark owners would file with WIPO and would bear the costs of maintaining the list.
• Palage: Openness concerns. Anything that comes up in meetings is then circulated
7. Kirk: President of IPC. We met ten days ago on the basis of papers that we submitted to the entire membership. Protection of well-known marks. We were seeking to protect well-known marks in the context of the roll out of new top level domains. We are trying to apply WIPO rules in this setting, not create new protections. We ask that marks that are found by panels to be well-known, determined on basis of criteria chosen by WIPO, would be protected against the registration of identical and near-identical (hyphens, commas, plurals, etc) names. Protections of free speech and non-commercial use are incorporated into our scheme.
• Telage: How determine which is the famous mark?
• Kirk: This kind of issue is much less prevalent in real world than some try to portray – number of marks determined to be well-known would be much smaller even than mark owners might appreciate – hypotheticals don’t portray reality. WIPO would be conservative in granting this status. “United” not a well-known mark; “United Airlines” would be a different issue.
8. Roberts: Interested in seeing how quickly consensus can be reached in WG-B. I’m concerned about timing of development of well-known mark list
• Palage: Six months perhaps as a reasonable period of time.
B. Working Group C: Weinberg: Consensus has been reached on two items (and report is online). First, there should be new gTLDs. That was the last thing on which we had easy rough consensus. Second, the manner of the initial deployment of new gTLDs is now a matter of rough consensus, although it was harder to reach. Compromise position accepted states that ICANN should deploy 6-10 new gTLDs and then have an evaluation period to determine how the deployment went, whether more should be deployed, and whether deployment should be altered at all. Ongoing work includes process ICANN should use to select new gTLDs registries, strings, whether new gTLDs must be chartered, whether they should be specific or general, and what qualifications any new registry should have to have. By March 19, 2000, WG-C members must indicate agreement or disagreement with proposal regarding how registries should be selected. Eight principles originally drafted have been extensively revised (8th iteration) and are still under discussion regarding adoption. I am personally hopeful that we will be able to finish process and generate final report by Yokohama meeting, but this is still in the nature of a hope rather than a certainty. However, it is my goal.
1. Telage: Is it the WG’s sense that the method of actually selecting the gTLDs should be the soliciting of proposals from those interested in having one, or a top-down decision by Names Council or other body? Top-down or bottom-up?
2. Weinberg: Different groups within working group feel differently. Perhaps registries once selected should select gTLDs, perhaps ICANN group should determine, perhaps ICANN should consider applications considering both character of applicants and of proposed gTLDs. This last position is currently out on consensus call.
3. Stubbs: Is this summary in your report?
4. Weinberg: Briefly mentioned in ongoing work section.
5. Telage: Is it the sense of the NC that it would use its considerable connection with the community to try to get the sense of the community on this issue, either via the GA or the constituencies? I don’t think we want to be bypassing the DNSO on this issue
6. Weinberg: Should the process of actually selecting new gTLDs even be undertaken by the NC, or does it simply want to forward the process to the ICANN board?
7. Jennings: Role of the NC is to administer and facilitate these processes. Many are awaiting WG-C’s findings before they invest in these issues. NC needs to consider the process because work shouldn’t go on and on without milestones that are formally submitte to the NC and then transmitted to interested parties so the latter can get involved at appropriate points.
8. Swinehart: We’ve heard from two WGs that have done difficult work and have managed to come forward with digestable reports. From a process standpoint, we as the NC need to start providing the ICANN board with some updates and summaries.
9. Stubbs: It is incumbant on us to start acting more as facilitators here and present the positions to the ICANN board. It may have additional tasks in response, and our delay in passing this information along may delay having a start made on these tasks.
10. Kleiman: Is there a proposal on the table to take WG-C’s work to the ICANN board, and if so, what is WG-C’s status?
11. Jennings: I would move that we publish the two WG reports for public comment on this level, a different one than the public comment periods handled by the WGs themselves.
12. Kleiman: Weinberg, what do you think of this proposal and where it leaves you?
13. Weinberg: I think it is a good idea. I drafted this report with the contemplation that it would present the two consensus items in a way that makes them usable to the NC. Our job is now to handle those items on which we have not reached consensus.
14. Stubbs: And we may find in response that there are now things we want to ask of the NC that we haven’t yet. I am very comfortable with getting this out of the WG and to the public and the ICANN board at this point.
15. Kleiman: We don’t have a WG-B report in front of us and it doesn’t have the clear consensus points that WG-C has offered. Perhaps the timeframe should be different for WG-B?
16. Stubbs: It’s time for WG-B to present such a report to us, I think, so we can put it out to the world. The positions contained therein could change shortly thereafter but the snapshot itself will be useful even if in the form of multiple alternatives
17. Jennings: The lack of a deterministic process with milestones saps energy. I move that we accept WG-C’s report, we publish it as the NC, submit it for public comments, then return it to WG-C and to the ICANN board.
18. Sheppard: Is this an interim report or is this a formal recommendation that we are making as per the bylaws? Important to be clear.
19. Stubbs: Important to present the status of the information we’re passing on, but really key to pass it along at this point one way or another. I’d like to do this with WG-B as well regardless of exactly where they are in the process.
20. Carey: WGs may need some short period of days to prepare report since we didn’t tell them we’d be asking for it today
21. Stubbs: Opportunity must be given in public forum to post minority or opposing comments to WG reports
22. Poblete: We should separate out what is ready to be the subject of recommendations and what is not.
23. Stubbs: Clear identification of nature of all parts of reports is key. No specific recommendation of any action is the point here, just the making public of reports in order to show where we are. Perception that we aren’t getting anywhere will be disproved if we allow public to see how much work is being done and where it is heading.
24. Kleiman: Procedural issues are confusing. Are we taking recommendations and endorsing them or getting status reports and then making them public and seeking input on them?
25. Touton: Bylaw procedures call for public comment period before anything definitive was done, but NC could recognize efforts of WG right now, note areas of consensus with which it agrees and pass the report up. I get the feeling that there are other points that remain to be resolved before a fully working plan could be had, but some of those are big and some are small.
26. Swinehart: Propoal is that we move to thank the WGs for their hard work to this point and that we provide the ICANN board with an update especially with regards to the work of WGs B and C and that we identify those areas in which the two groups have achieved consensus in that update.
27. Sheppard: We have to recognize that what is before us might have been quite different if the WGs had known that we would ask for these
28. Weinberg: This report was prepared for the Cairo meeting and was submitted to the WG one week ago and I think there was general consensus that it reflected our work. However, one week is not an especially long time for us to show consensus, and no official vote was taken on endorsing the report. A week to ten days would allow us to repair procedural shortcomings without changing substance
29. Telage: It seems to me that both Weinberg and some NC members would like a little more time. There also seem to be a number of questions remaining. An interim report could come out of this, but how can we endorse a fragmentary set of answers?
30. Swinehart: Two areas where there is consensus could be endorsed. I suggest that we take that step.
31. Weinberg: I use consensus in the IETF sense – strength of opinion is robust but there is some dissent.
32. Stubbs: When is a report a report rather than a set of observations? If it is a report, we need to make it clear that items listed as consensus items should be able to be considered by NC to be passed along. So let’s give you the time to determine whether this is a report, and if so, let’s move it up to the Board. We may defer passing on those consensus items to allow us to deliberate on the items and confer with our constituencies
33. Jennings: We should then publish that in an NC report to as wide a community as possible so those not ready to participate at the granular level know that it is now time to get involved and give public comment, and then pass it all along to the Board
34. Chicoine: Before we decide what consultation process we need to undertake, we need to have an overview of the entire consultation process, particularly what process the Board will undertake.
35. Poblete: Need to be clear on what there is consensus and on what there is not
36. Stubbs: I’m not saying that we are passing on the propriety of anything in the reports right now, merely that it is vital that we bring what is being discussed into the public eye right now.
37. Swinehart: Since this is within our responsibilities right now anyway, I don’t think we need a motion
38. Stubbs: So if we gave WG-C 10 days to ratify the report, then it submitted it to us and we put it out for public comment that would then be used to examine the consensus points and decide what should be recommended to the Board, would that be an acceptable motion?
39. Touton: I sense from the NC that there is a desire to move this forward. I think the Board would benefit from guidance from the NC about how to move this forward.
40. Weinberg: Basically a variety of WG-C members have suggested that ICANN act cautiously since it is unknown what the ramifications will be of adding new gTLDs.
41. Touton: What may be necessary is some kind of collaboration between the NC and the Board and if any testbed needs to be set up, the NC should communicate it to the Board.
42. Telage: Simply put, we need to pass this to the Board just so it knows where the work stands. Formal recommendations are premature, but an update is appropriate. A testbed couldn’t be implemented based only on the two existing points of consensus
43. Touton: If you are simply making it informational to the Board, say that. The Board might just say thanks and move on. That doesn’t seem to serve a goal of moving the process along in a more deterministic way based on what I thought I was hearing from the NC about the time that has passed and the wide divides that remain to be bridged.
44. Roberts: We need to clarify whether the NC is ready to endorse the two consensus recommendations of WG-C or not. What do we need to do to endorse them if we are ready?
45. Jennings: I think we’re not ready to endorse them without further information and that the WG-C has not really consulted as widely as the NC would like for it to have done due to its small size and granular level of study
46. Katoh: Sending it as a report rather than as an endorsement may be helpful, but since it could be made public what would it add? Might simply increase confusion. I agree that it is not ready to be endorsed.
47. Stubbs: The entire report needs to be aired in public without waiting three more months. NC can vote on it and submit its recommendations to the Board much sooner than three months from now. The only things that have emerged from WG-B so far are proposals, but the Board should be made aware of them because it might have specific requests in response. Let’s give them more to think about and thus greater opportunity and reason to communicate with us.
48. Jennings: Move for a 10 minute break
49. Stubbs: Back at 25 of the hour
50. Swinehart: Proposal: Thank the WGs B and C. Provide an update on the statuses of WGs B and C. Seek public comment on these updates.
51. Katoh: I still have some difficulty understanding what providing an update means – is this any kind of endorsement?
52. Stubbs: I think an update is simply a status report of the current situation without any recommendations or endorsements. With respect to WG-C we could publish it as a report since it is a report
53. Swinehart: Change to an update for information, with four weeks as a timeframe for whole.
54. Motion passes unanimously:
• Thank the working groups B and C
• Provide the Board with an update on the status of working groups B and C for information:
• Seek public comment on the recommendations of WG-C with a deadline of four weeks. After this time the NC will make a decision on the endoresement of these recommendations.
55. Weinberg: I’ll provide a final report in ten days.
56. Stubbs: And carry on in the meantime with these and remaining issues.
C. WG-E: Chon: Problems in that only North America and Asia are currently really active. We will try to finish parts two through five this spring and thus avoid a meeting in Yokohama. Need to make it easier and fun to read. Part 3 outreach (for non-participants) and Part 4 awareness (for current ICANN participant). Part 5 fundraising to do what we propose. We want to submit a final report a couple of weeks before the Yokohama meeting and then have no meeting there if the NC accepts it. Part 2 is informational materials. Three or four areas. First is a good website. Content is not right now a sufficiently good draw. Second is a really good half-hour videotape of current issues to show at the beginnings of meetings. These are expensive. Last is paper materials of various kinds. Gomes of NSI volunteered yesterday to be chief editor. We have a number of others who will help. Outreach is next area, and should complement At-Large Membership drive effort. Ten thousand members, one hundred meetings in fifty cities? Must be collective effort. APTRD visited ten cities last year in Asia-Pacific and Africa and this is a good model since presentations were given there. How do we reach one million people around the world, whether they are At-Large Members or not? It’s not actually a big number given that there are over 20 million domain name holders alone, but still a big number to us right now. Josh Elliott and others are volunteering to work on this part of the report. Awareness: Berkman Center did a workshop before LA meeting, ccTLDs collectively had joint TLD workshop in San Jose that was very popular, a couple of other workshops have been done – these are summarized and considered as models in the report. Day before ICANN meeting is the best time slot. Does it make sense to ask the Berkman Center to do this every time we meet each year? Yesterday’s consensus was no, ask that of local hosts instead. Asia-Pacific is going to organize the workshop in Yokohama with a different flavor than what was done in the US. Funding: Washburn of RealNames is heading this group. It is collecting cost information and try to organize a budget and come up with a funding strategy using grants from ICANN and other organizations. Most funding is from USA right now and we have to work on getting it from Asia-Pacific and Europe as well.
1. Park: ICANN staff needs to coordinate with these efforts by WG-E.
2. Telage: Great job done by WG-E. Have you considered going to major corporations involved with ICANN and requesting real estate on their sites that lead to ICANN? Not an unreasonable request, and TrustE and others have found success using this route.
3. Chon: We tried and met some success; it will be in our final report. The issue of information not in only English has been problematic. DNSO agreed to have a website in multiple languages but we still don’t. Cost is not prohibitive although substantial so we should fund this. ICANN faces same problem.
4. Jennings: Looking at process rather than content; this was a verbal report but can we get an executive summary of it that we can study and pass along to the Board? Since the WG is looking at programmatic actions, need to be clear about objectives, costs, etc – essentially a business plan. Can we get this in two or three weeks rather than waiting for Yokohama?
5. Chon: It’s posted online.
D. WG-D: Swinehart: Thanks for Chairman of group for moving its actions along. A subgroup of WG-D is finalizing the draft report, which will then be posted for public comment. WG-D is not meeting in Cairo but this work will be continued online. Executive summary can be available in a couple of weeks.
E. Harris: WG-E report says some constituencies don’t have webpages; that should be a requirement.
F. Kleiman: Procedural inconsistencies, lack of reasonable notice or opportunity to comment need to be ameliorated so people find their way into participation process.
G. Sheppard: Are we setting a date for the next teleconference now?
1. Stubbs: We’ll work it out on a list prior to next Wednesday.
2. Jennings: ccTLD discussions regarding multilingual domain names suggests to me that a working group on the issue will be necessary in the near future.
H. Stubbs: Thanks to all for attending.
For additional technical information, please contact:
Ben Edelman and John Wilbanks