Along with the scheduled discussion of the three major agenda items, there will be an opportunity this morning for general comments in two-minute time slots. If you would like an opportunity to participate, please drop your ticket in the box circulating around the room.

Esther Dyson
Eugenio Triana
Greg Crew
George Conrades
Frank Fitzsimmons
Hans Kraaijenbrink
Not present: Linda Wilson, Jun Murai, Geraldine Capdeboscq
Mike Roberts

Charles Nesson
Joe Sims
Jonathan Zittrain

Upcoming speakers

Timer stops when questions are being answered by others. Board can ask questions of speaker.

Please identify yourself before you speak.

Ronda Hauben
Sad day. Corporation a product of a secret process. Created by US Government and corporate interests. Policy making powers belong to public interests. Centralized structure fundamentally hostile to the Internet. Should have used online forum.

Jay Fenello
We want to support this board, but do not trust this board/process. Questions of origins, who made phone calls, etc. Concerns not adequately addressed. Board minutes not released. Board not making it easy for internet community to support. Danger that today will be a dog and pony show.

Michael Sondow
Did board members wonder who it was that contacted them? Where does authority come from? Was John Postel designated the person to choose the board members of the international central internet authority? Did board members question the source of their authority? Why were you called/chosen? Why not someone else? Board members not contacted by government but by Postel/legal representatives.

Harold Feld
Access to information, how to build trust. Suggestion for membership structure could be adopted in short term. Goal is dissemminating information rather than directly electing board members. Create general membership category for individuals and corporations with rights of access to books of account, board meeting, like shareholders of private corporation.

Richard Snow
A user. Corporation should operate in an enabling capacity, not taking ownership of internet. Must not be biased towards any particular groups – groups, nations, etc.

Richard Lindsay
Came from Japan, people from around the world recognize importance. Question analogy with former Soviet Union. Key issue is time, consensus is impossible. If system doesn’t work, people should revolt. Process should be unique, don’t need another committee, this is a new way of doing business. Open membership, open voting via web.

Einar Stefferud
Meta-problems. Lack of trust, trust must be earned, not transitive, board must earn trust, begging won’t work. Process should be organized around principle, not people. If bylaws based on principle, identity of board members doesn’t matter. Currently bylaws make board unsue-able and not accountable. ORSC says accept board, use their bylaws.

Dan Steinberg
Should have ADR for quick relief to simple problems, other than attorney general of California.

Dan Parisi
Power corrupts. Whitehouse.com engineers fighting with NSI engineers. Board will have chokehold on economy of US and world. It’s not right that citizens of world will have no protection from ICANN, wrong for US government to hand ICANN power.

Carl Oppedahl, via the internet
“The latest NSI contract says "By November 1, 1998, NSI shall provide functional and interface specifications for the Shared Registration System and a milestone schedule for its development and implementation. "
NSI says it provided the spec, but refuses to let the Internet Community see the spec.
Will ICANN permit the Internet Community see the spec that NSI provided?”
Response from Mike Roberts: Spec provided to Department of Commerce, government takes the next step, nothing secret about this process, panel of experts will be created to review spec. DoC the custodian of the spec.

Heather Boyles
On behalf of University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development, a not-for-profit corporation to develop Internet2. Support ICANN, believe international not-for-profit corporation the most appropriate mechanism to assure stability. Agrees that board has made its very best effort to balance effective representation and timeliness. Want to be helpful by providing advice re membership.

Tom Barrett
Technologists, dispute resolution. Trademark and copyright research. For ecommerce to succeed globally, need to resolve DNS infrastructure. Three suggestions: recommendations on how to prevent trademark conflicts (global product directory); waiting period, publish proposed address for comment, to protect applicant from litigation later on; ask for additional information at the time of application to understand intended use.

Don Telage
Mechanism to deal with policy decisions is no longer among us, need a better and more robust mechanism to deal with commercialization of internet. Legitimacy comes bottom-up, but authority doesn’t come from US government. Authority comes from contracts with suppliers of internet services, providing stability to ‘net. Model of US government contract with NSI. Recommend contracts be put out for public comment before being signed.

Daniel Karrenberg
Fully supportive of board. A number of concerns: there are original processes for policy-setting (address and protocol areas), worried that this discussion will supplant those existing processes with global processes. Objects to SO’s not appointing members to board. Legitimacy of ICANN must be bottom-up.

Nigel Roberts
Assume that process will work. BWG proposes broad elections be proportional and reflect diversity of electorate. Under proportional system, minorities afforded representation in proportion to their support. Models of Cambridge, Northern Ireland. Asks board to make statement in support of such principles.

Jonathan Robinson
Been through a long process, many feel that it could have been faster and more efficient. Need to move forward efficiently.

Antony Van Couvering
Does ICANN board think that relation between ccTLDs will be governed by a contract directly between ICANN and domain administrators?
Response from Dyson: Not on today’s agenda, but to be dealt with, comments welcome.

Richard Forman
Thank you to the board! Part of authority from US government, part from internet. Recommendation: ICANN commit itself to cooperative agreement. That, by March 31, there will be five new registrars interfacing with the NSI system and that Newco ensure that the registrars are chosen.

Tony Rutkowski
Internet a private shared user network, legally. Authority does not come from US government for ICANN. States do not have authority over internet domain names. These are not sovereign domains. Unlike domain name system governed by international agreement.

Mark Luker
Speaks for Educause. Members believe that present board and bylaws are an excellent start, want to get on with process.

J Hauben
No one represents the public (students, senior citizens, etc.) who use the internet as a communications medium. A constitutional crisis in US because government has been encouraging process without authority. Now Congress investigating. ICANN is not Newco. Asks board to identify legal/constitutional authority for its existence. Asks board to consider stepping down. Response from Dyson: Considered stepping down.

By net: Mikki Barry, Domain Name Rights Coalition
ICANN should not become involved with these conflicts. ICANN is not a governance body. That being said, ICANN MAY decide to become unfortunately entangled with issues that are beyond its charter and its intentions. Perhaps the greatest example is in the area of domain name/trademark issues. The Internet is primarily a medium of communication, of which commerce is a subset. An important subset, but a subset nonetheless. ICANN should not, under any circumstances, become involved with deciding which uses of the Internet are more important than others. Specifically, trademark holders should have no greater rights on the Internet than they do in any other medium. Waiting periods are unduly burdensome for a medium that is as instantaneous as the Internet. Burdens placed on those wishing to register a domain name that are greater than those wishing to register business names, or "screen names" or other names by which communication is maintained are patently unfair. Do not fall into this trap. Let the registrars and registries decide their own policies in accordance with existing national laws (which already favor trademark holders).

By net: Dave Crocker, Brandenburg Consulting
The way to get work done is to do work. The way to establish trust is to do good work.
Please resist the requests for constantly re-starting and re-targeting, and re-defining goals, structures, processes and participation .
Internet work has always depended on a balance of people, as well as principles.
Please resist the requests to view this as Internet governance. The task of IANA has only and always been one of straightforward administration. (The goal has always been straightforward, but of course doing the WORK well has almost never been.) ICANN has the job of continuing IANA's work. Please do tha and ONLY that.
This process has gone on for more than 4 years. It began with the purpose of producing additional name space and introducing competition for the registration of names. Users have been prevented from obtaining these benefits for more than 4 years. The scope of the work was expanded to be privatization of IANA. It is of direct benefit to a few parties to cause delay. It is direct detriment to users to continue that delay.
Please find a way to end the delay.
d/

For additional information, please contact:  

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