November 3, 1999
Los Angeles, California
ICANN Public Meeting
Remarks - Dyson
A. Want to introduce Yvonne Burke,
member of Board of Supervisors of LA County. Force for inclusiveness.
Celebrate diversity in audience and Board.
1. Welcome to LA
County. 10 million people -- would be the twentieth largest nation in
the world. Continuing to convert from aerospace industries to peacetime
industries for the next millennium. Tribute to Dr. Jon Postel, key for
developing Internet. ICANN has real challenge. Impressive Board; tremendous
responsibility to move into private sector what has been considered
a government enterprise. Confidence of people regarding access for business
and government is very important.
B. Introduction of Joe Sims. He
will in turn introduce Mort and Lois Postel.
1. Sims: I have
the pleasure and privilege of starting the meeting by remembering Jon
Postel. The journey has been longer and more complicated, and certainly
more contentious, than expected. It has also been infinitely sadder
due to our loss of Jon, whom all of us had come to like as well as admire.
I think today he would have been proud of where we are and how we have
gotten here. The credit must be shared among many, too many to name,
but in a significant way I think Jon would have been most proud of and
grateful to the ten he invited to join the Board. I think it would be
appropriate to begin this meeting with an appreciation of their efforts.
* Without this
group, which has put individual feelings aside to work as a group, we
would not be where we are. We have missed Jon's credibility and common
sense but we remember him as we look to where ICANN is and to what it
will become. We are fortunate to have his mother and two of his brothers
here to give us some thoughts. Lois, Mort and Ross Postel.
2. Lois Postel:
When Jon received the silver medal in Geneva from International Telecommunications
Union, he got up and said "thank you" and then sat down. But
I'm going to go on. In the year since he died, he has been honored by
a number of organizations and individuals. In the few years before his
sudden death, he received the Dvorak award and others. He was there
when the first computer network was born. On the day we received this
invitation to speak, I had just sent a snail mail letter to a group
with a scathing article against ICANN. The group was unhappy about the
overblown secrecy issue and the funding problems.
* Jon knew ICANN
would not be easy to establish, and that the process would be politicized.
It may be well to remember RFC 793 and Jon's conciliatory skills. "Be
conservative in what you do, and liberal in what you think of others."
* The grove in
Jon's honor has ten trees, all alive and prospering, just as ICANN will.
3. Mort Postel:
What would Jon say, and what did he intend? This is what he intended.
There are many conflicts, and the decisions made here will have many
repercussions. I know he would apologize to the interim board for involving
them in such a contentious process, but he would be glad that no one
dropped out. This board has set a standard of integrity that will be
hard to meet.
* You've all heard
the joke, "On the Internet, no one can tell you're Canadian."
There is still concern that this group is biased towards the US, but
diversity is increasing.
* The board and
ICANN must keep posterity and global impact in mind.
* The trees are
still small in Jon's grove, but I hope that they will grow. ICANN is
still a seedling, but let's not chop it down yet.
* I have mementos
for the Board. I have a pile of rocks from some of Jon's favorite places
that have been shaped by the actions of nature. ICANN must be so shaped
by its experience. Also, they can symbolize the rocks thrown at you
during your efforts to do the right thing.
* I often think
of a condolence message. [Paraphrase] "Deepest condolences from
Morocco. I never got to know Jon Postel personally, but I feel that
I have lost a big brother." On the Internet, people you never meet
can be your big brother.
4. Sims: I would
like to single someone out for recognition and gratitude because she
is a government functionary who represents the best of government. There
are many conscientious, skilled and honest people in government. ICANN
was created by the Internet community but it was midwifed by a government
trying to get out of peoples' lives on the Internet. This was a unique
privatization because it was of a global resource in which all of the
world's governments claimed rights and had interests. Many legal issues,
lawyers, technical types, nongovernmental organizations, multinationals,
etc. A tough problem with strong players on all sides, and all people
had to keep talking in order to make this work. The person who made
sure that everyone stayed at the table was Becky Burke.
5. Burke: This has
been an incredible team effort. Karen Rose, Lynn Beresford, etc. I want
to thank the interim and new board members, the ICANN team, and all
of the members of the community who have dedicated many hours and much
emotion to the process. We sometimes get so involved in the day to day
issues that we fail to stand back to examine what we're doing, why,
and whether it is working. I reminded myself that what we are doing
is a breathtaking undertaking, not because we are privatizing management
of a large system because that's been done before. Rather, we're moving
this into private-sector management when all is in flux. We don't know
what the impact will be on our economies, our relationships. We haven't
all interest groups around the table or how long this domain name system
will be in place. We are acting in the eye of a hurricane, which is
important because it expands the possibilities for what this process
can be. We should all stop and think about how big a deal we are doing.
* I was called
by an audience member after the Green Paper was published who was shocked
by the fact that the US was really going to turn this power over. We
are truly committed to this, and to the same degree or more than on
the day when we first said it publicly. We are very impressed with the
accomplishments of this body. We have competition, the beginnings of
an organization to which there is no counterpart.
* In a conversation
with Magaziner about our status, I said it's going ok but we underestimated
how hard the private sector management would be to implement. He told
me that was a good thing, because we wouldn't have done it otherwise.
* I knew Jon Postel
only briefly but he made a deep impression on me. He didn't like being
in Washington, DC, very much, but he ate lunch there in the White House
mess. He didn't look like many of the other people eating there, and
I wish I could have heard the phone calls Magaziner must have received
about it later.
* I think we will
look back on this and be proud of what we have accomplished.
of New Board Members
Dyson: One of our great birthday presents is the arrival of our
"younger sibling" in the presence of our new board members.
Two (Cerf and Abromatic) send their apologies
* We don't know
where we're heading, but we want to an extent evolution in the market
to take its course, but with the guidance of all of the Internet community.
* Wong: I am here
through the ASO. Hong Kong native and resident. New Zealand citizen
educated in the UK. Co-founded first licensed ISP in HK and have been
involved ever since in groups throughout Asia -- academic and business/trade
and operating groups.
* Blokzijl: Netherlands.
Nuclear physics background but haven't touched it in ten years due to
Internet involvement. IP operators forum in Europe, also Netherlands
Internet exchange. Elected by ASO. Background is more in numbers than
names but I do know about names as well. I will be actively involved
in all different composing parts of ICANN and Internet.
* Pisanty: National
University in Mexico. DNSO elected me. Telecommunications and networking
efforts in Mexico. Much trust has been placed in us through election
process and I hope to show that it was not inappropriate to do so. As
an academic, I have a commitment to keeping a wide-open outlook on issues.
An expectation exists for non-US and non-North American members of Board
to help foster a more realistic and strong participation by others like
* Fockler: Canada.
Networking and Internet since early 1980s. I have been heading Internet
organizations since retiring from IBM. I have general management and
Internet governance experience to help support maturing of ICANN to
the benefit of the Internet.
* Cohen: Canadian,
but I will slip unnoticed among you. Intellectual Property lawyer. DNSO
formation involvement for quite awhile. I have been helping create intellectual
property constituency of DNSO and have been elected to .ca ccTLD management
body as well as this one.
* Davidson: PSO
council; techie engineer. Group Standards for BT but it doesn't direct
my activities. National and regional standards organization cooperation
background. I hope to bring that experience to bear in my ICANN work.
ITU involvement. I will work to the best of my power to forward all
in the best interests of ICANN.
* Abril i Abril:
DNSO and lawyer. Continued commitment to make ICANN succeed. Coordination
in public interest to ensure oversight and competition where it is beneficial.
Private sector leadership in increasingly global way. Names Council
sent me here to make these meetings longer and theirs shorter. I am
rather radical and colorful in my opinions but seek to be reasonable
and practical in my actions.
7. Dyson: I would
like to recognize our staff, which has done an enormous amount of work.
Mike Roberts, like everyone else, walked into this without knowing how
much he had taken on, but I would like to show our appreciation. [Applause]
* Dyson: Touton
from Jones, Day is our newest staff member and McLaughlin who helps
us keep the wheels running and in the right direction. Josh, Suzanne,
Joyce, and Anne-Marie should be recognized as well. We have a great
team to move forward this year.
Reports from SOs
1. ASO Agreement
signed by ASO representatives, Roberts.
B. DNSO/NC: Chicoine
1. Since Santiago,
have focused on elections -- procedures, nominations, elections. All
votes are public on DNSO web site.
2. Meeting yesterday
had sixteen of nineteen NC Members present.
3. Discussed method
of choosing chair of NC -- rotating versus semi-permanent. Will nominate
someone on the next teleconference to be Chair until the ICANN meeting
after next (Summer 2000).
4. Discussed proposed
* Concern about
lack of bottom-up process. Formal statement to be submitted shortly.
* Variety of views
on NC re the agreements. Not sure if the agreements are within NC's
jurisdiction. Deadlock re substance.
5. Discussed NC
relationship with GA. Need better understanding.
* Berkman Center
procedure proposal ([http://cyber.law.Harvard.edu/icann/dnso/ncprocedure])
perhaps solves a portion of the problem.
* If the GA lacks
power, is it useless? Need more structure? Further consideration needed.
6. Funding: Each
constituency to pay $5000 for past expenses (room rental, webcasts,
etc.). In the future, need to discuss how costs will be distributed
7. Procedure-- Berkman
Center proposal presented. Lack of procedure a problem in prior meetings,
especially Santiago. Procedures to be approved by general consensus.
Further consideration to come.
8. Discussion of
9. Question &
10. Thanks to secretariat
(Porteneuve) and to Berkman Center.
C. PSO: Moore
1. MoU signed in
July at IETF meeting. Four signatories: ITU, IETF, ETSI, W3C.
2. Members of protocol
council now in place.
3. Secretary support
to be shared among signatory members.
4. Have put forth
three Board Members to ICANN.
5. Ready to support
ICANN with technical expertise.
s Report - Roberts
A. Work could not have been accomplished
without support of community.
B. Presentation of Highlights
1. Thanks to staff,
esp Molly Shaffer Van Houweling.
and Project Reports
A. Governmental Advisory Committee:
to new members of Board.
2. Thanks to ICANN
Board and Staff, supporting international organizations, host countries.
3. 31 distinct economies
& national treaty organizations present this week.
* It's pleasing
that so many countries and organizations have chosen to participate.
4. Working on making
meetings more open while keeping them effective. Example: Invited representatives
of ccTLDs to participate in the relevant portion of the meeting, and
that part of meeting was open to all.
* GAC website available
through ICANN site.
B. Root Server System Advisory
C. Ad Hoc Group: Kraaijenbrink
2. Charter now prepared.
3. Comments received
from AIP, others.
4. "Birds of
a Feather" meeting yesterday was constructive.
* New text resulted,
for consideration tomorrow. Clarifies that group will only identify
(not resolve) issues since actual problem-solving work to be done in
other parts of the Internet community.
5. Work of Group
to be conducted in ICANN Public Comment Forum. Small drafting group
to be chosen by Board. But conclusions to be reached in Public Forum.
D. Implementation of Uniform Dispute
Resolution Policy: Touton
1. Consensus received
from DNSO in Santiago that a UDRP be adopted.
2. Board approved
and accepted that recommendation, but noted that language was needed
to adopt the policy. So staff instructed to prepare the appropriate
3. Small drafting
group suggested wording. Further refinements and corrections to assure
consistency of text with the Santiago resolutions.
4. Text approved
on October 24 as consistent with Santiago resolutions. Staff instructed
to go forward with policy by working with registrars, dispute resolution
5. Policy documents
[posted on web: http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-24oct99.htm].
6. Intend to watch
policy closely to assure that it's workable, fair, predictable.
7. Anticipated implementation
registrars to follow it starting on December 1.
* At least two
providers to be approved by December 1, perhaps as many as six.
* After NSI accredited,
it will use policy also.
A. Dyson: Think legislative record
is complete. Wanted to balance various interests, subtleties. May not
last forever, but it's clear and predictable. Think it successfully
clarifies intersection between domain names and trademarks.
B. Rony: What was urgency of UDRP?
Why not wait until newly-elected Board Members could weigh in on this
1. Dyson: Work on
basis of consensus. New members and old members would have come to similar
conclusions re whether or not there's consensus. DNSO wasn't unanimous,
but there was a fairly clear sense that a UDRP was needed. Registrars
want to go forward with their business, and that's why we moved ahead.
2. Cohen: Understand
the concern. But having listened to all concerned in the DNSO-- including
non-commercial and other interests -- it seems that this process is
badly needed. Not important whether the Board at the time was elected
or appointed. Most important that there be a policy in place. It's too
bad there was as much of a delay as there was.
3. Abril i Abril:
Challenge assumptions: that Initial Board not legitimate enough to take
these sorts of decisions, that the Initial Board made the policy (not
the case -- others contributed), etc. This policy is worth a try.
C. Remote comment (Mikki Barry
#642):"UDRP not consistent with the Santiago resolutions because
there was no provision for any type of reverse domain hijacking preventions."
1. Touton: Tarnishment
was always in documents. 99.83 section 3.a included that language. Drafting
committee discussed at length how to express that language; ultimate
wording was extremely close to what the Board had directed the staff.
Thought it inappropriate to be "punisher" of reverse domain
name hijacking -- so not appropriate for it to impose sanctions (fines,
etc.) as some proposed. Board asked for implementation that would minimize
reverse domain name hijacking. That's what this attempts to do.
D. Menge: SBA wants to assure
that rules are fair to small businesses. Wrote a letter expressing concerns
but have received no response. Concerns re openness and transparency.
Process must be usable by all affected policies, not just large corporations.
Chief counsel is extremely concerned.
1. Dyson: Letter
received and posted. Timetable for response seems short, but working
on it. It's an issue of concern. ICANN does want to "operate on
Internet time" -- to be faster than traditional processes. 10 and
15-day comment periods are only as part of a larger sequence of comment
periods. Nothing begins one day and ends ten days later. We believe
there's adequate time to comment under the current procedures.
2. Fockler: Take
the suggestion as friendly. Ready to work with staff on making improvements
3. Wong: Thanks
for offer of assistance. Would prefer a formal policy.
E. Parisi (Whitehouse.com): Received
a letter: "USG has assigned control of DNS to ICANN & represents
big business & intends to tax Internet infrastructure & ICANN
will hold meetings November 1-4 & please attend." Don't know
much about the process. But it seems like ICANN is too generous to the
trademark lobby. Were threatened by a company called White House which
makes applesauce, etc. 200 world-wide trademarks on the term White House,
32 of them in the US (coffee, tea). Some companies own literally thousands
of domain names. Policies cannot prohibit "companysucks.com"
and similar sites.
1. Dyson: Note that
policy doesn't prohibit whateversucks.com. New policy gives you a sort
of defense against people trying to sue you.
2. Touton: Comments
are heartfelt, but realize that they're not tied to the UDRP. Indeed,
only relation between those concerns and this UDRP is that this UDRP
is not some other UDRP that would justify those concerns. This policy
specifically protects the "sucks" sites. And note that this
policy doesn't address the difficult questions on borders of trademarks
and domain names.
F. Gallup (Domain Name Trust,
registration service for .MD): Have requested openness of meetings of
GAC. In Berlin, meetings of this Board were closed; now they're open
as a result of Congressional criticism. Bylaws says "operate to
maximum extent feasible consistent with procedures designed to promote
fairness." Also required is for minutes to be posted; don't believe
that takes place with GAC. GAC meeting should at least be open for observation
if not for comment. At conclusion of yesterday's eight-hour meeting,
the GAC came forward and said "have noted contracts and considered
ccTLD issues" with nothing more of substance.
1. Dyson: Twomey?
GAC is not a subordinate group of ICANN. ICANN recognized GAC, didn't
create it. Whatever we think of its rules, it sets its own rules, and
we don't control it any more than it controls us.
GAC not a subordinate entity in ICANN. It's an advisory committee to
ICANN. Sets its own rules. Personally support the GAC's rules.
G. Datoc: Question for later:
Why weren't the .com, .org, .net registries put up for competitive bids?
1. Dyson: That will
be asked and considered later.
H. Concerns re WHOIS: Recommend
pointing the WHOIS to the registry. When customers register through
competitive registrars, the internic.net WHOIS doesn't reflect the registration
and they blame the registrar.
I. Bariarz (Remote #643):
Yesterday someone said corporations wouldn't use this UDRP under its
existing form. Considering this? Why not just let courts decide?
1. Touton: True
that many trademarks would have liked a more expansive policy to resolve
disputes. Instead, the policy refers many questions to the courts. Other
questions best directed to DNSO. Future refinements to the process should
come from DNSO bottom-up process.
J. Connelly: Would like to challenge
GAC's membership based on citizenship rather than residency. GAC yesterday
said they were aware of people with residencies in multiple countries,
but that's not the general case and shouldn't be how these questions
are decided. Should let constituencies use their own judgment re who
contributes best to the work at hand.
1. Crew: Has been
considered. Were swayed by the GAC -- to which we looked for advice
since they're concerned about, expert on the subject. Their position
is that citizenship is a more firm factor, less easily changed, so the
best way to identify regional diversity. In general, members of ICANN
will be identified by their mailing address. But people running for
office should have to demonstrate their citizenship.
2. Abril i Abril:
Residency more important than citizenship.
3. Dyson: Will need
to revisit this in the context of geographic diversity generally. Hope
that common sense will prevail.
K. Bibbins (SBA): Support Menge,
also want to add: Need to ensure actions affecting small businesses
have been reviewed by constituents of the small business community.
Small business drive modern US and global economies so their needs should
be taken seriously. Note that charter of ICANN requires that small businesses
be taken into account. Need representation in ICANN not just of a few
small businesses but of many.
1. Roberts: Well-taken.
Discussions with DoC last March emphasized low barriers to entry of
competitive registrar companies. Set criteria for accreditation relatively
lower than others might have liked in attempt to lower barriers to entry.
Many accredited registrars are small businesses.
2. Abril i Abril:
My clients are small, so I understand. Most important issue is not the
length of comment periods but making the process generally.
3. Dyson: Important
that we make process approachable to small businesses generally, not
just to let small businesses be registrars. Question for audience: Who
thinks they represent a small business? About half of audience. See
these small businesses as an important part of the community.
L. Auerbach: Small businesses
grow to be big businesses, and small businesses grow from individuals.
Individuals going to be the victims of the UDRP. If UDRP were simply
inferior to national law, we wouldn't need it because we'd just use
national law. Need to recognize individuals as a constituency of DNSO.
1. Cohen: Need to
be able to get justice without years of process.
M. Connelly: Some individuals
participated in the UDRP process.
1. Auerbach: How?
* Connelly: WIPO
process, voice was heard.
N. Wilson: Much discussion about
protection of famous trademarks.
1. Touton: Concerns
are valid. Report in process.
O. Remote comments displayed on
screen, discussed by Dyson: #648, 644, 640, 638 from Barry, Schaefer,
1. Touton: Expect
that administrative proceedings can be completed in 57 days. Cost of
about $1750 to $2500. To #648, it's not actually correct-- paragraph
4.c.3 where "Tarnishment" appears speaks of Tarnishment as
a factor to go against allegation that a domain name holder is making
fair use of the domain name. Re #644, personally believe that there
was consensus although Barry is entitled to her viewpoint. Further modifications
of the process should come from the WG.
2. Dyson: Tarnishment
is just one criterion.
and Recommendation of Task Force on Funding-- Roberts
A. Copies of TFF report are on
B. General consensus that TFF's
report reflects general consensus of members.
C. McLaughlin: ICANN budget is
for a fiscal year starting July 1 and was approved in Singapore in March.
1999 to 2000 budget in May summary. We may be able to retire working
capital loans if surplus is realized. Task Force noted that the budget
is provisional because we have little experience with our operating
costs. We will continue to examine the accuracy of our estimates. Budget
may need to take into account potential for extraordinary one-time charges
such as start-up charges, etc. These might be extraordinary legal expenses,
for example. Context of process that is bottom-up, subject to review,
and to approval of board.
1. Reiteration of
existence of prior year losses, loan obligations, and need to build
up one-time expense fund
2. We must recognize
that funding may need to be available in future for functions currently
done for free on volunteer basis
3. How can ICANN
assure public that its budget will not bloat beyond its necessary functional
expenses? Over and under recovery issue. Task force suggested that budget
deviations less than 10% either way be allowed to float. Others (>`0%
in either direction) should require interim budget adjustment by the
Board on a quarterly basis. Public comment and policy making process
4. Task force recommended
future budget process providing for components such as formal involvement
by registrars, registries, etc in the process of budget formulation
and approval since they are from where funding comes.
5. Proper formula
for allocating budget among relevant funding entities.
* Key principles:
- All ICANN constituents benefiting from ICANN efforts should contribute
to budget - Not for profit and for profit entities should pay equally
because they benefit equally (a) Drawing distinction is not feasible
(b) However, realistic assessment of ability to pay should remain some
component of process
* NSI registry
operation is capped at $250K contribution and NSI registrar is capped
at $2million for all intents and purposes for the moment.
6. Task force recommended
that continuing funding requirements should be allocated among name
and IP registries and registrars on a per capita basis. This may not
be the formula forever but makes sense for this transitional period
* Experience will
be best teacher
* gTLD community:
55% - 10:1 50% to registrars, 5% to registries - Question of why gTLDs
are asked for separate contributions according to registries and registrars.
Rationale is that 1) reality is that one company is both registry and
registrar in gTLD area. Concern of other registrars that not separating
the two will allow capture of ICANN by NSI. 2) looking forward, there
may be additional gTLDs registries in future so this system preserves
flexibility for that possibility
* ccTLDs: 35%.
Allocated among 250 ccTLDs, less than $6000 per. This is still infeasible
for some ccTLDs.
* IP address registries:
10%. They are not for profit entities, member driven, don't charge per-number
fees and have small budgets. Share works to $428,000 for the three registries
7. Given global
shares, how do we divide them among the individual members? Contracts
will be the funding vehicles (see examples in agreements). How do we
get from global shares to language providing funding obligation in contract?
gTLD registry is easy. gTLD registrars contract to accept ICANN funding
system. Fixed fee and variable component. Registrars have been concerned
that it be proportionately fair to all, so no subsidies.
* Formula: [see
web location of TFF report for details]
D. Roberts: Salient details from
1. Three columns.
* Actual results
are left-hand column. Financial report is posted on website. All Internet
start-ups are supposed to lose money, but since I haven't detected an
IPO in our future, I don't like it.
* Center: Budget
adopted by Board last May.
* Right-hand column:
* No certainty
about financial activities, but this is a better snapshot than was last
E. Task force member comments:
Thanks for all your hard work. Task force worked hard and should be
congratulated. Two major things have been achieved.
* Moving away from
charging based on address and names fees. We have found a way to charge
based on shared division, but a better shared division. We can still
* We are opening
a door for whole community that contributes to ICANN to have a voice
and a role with ICANN in preparing future budgets.
* We seek feedback
from all and welcome your comments. - Help us define the rules by which
each constituency will allocate the burden of its funding obligations
2. Maruyama: I was
a ccTLD person in the Task Force and contributed from its point of view,
but helped to draw a picture to help all.
* ICANN must maintain
and preserve its rights of free speech both within and without ICANN.
Financial stability and independence are vital for this purpose, so
we must collaborate as a community on the funding issues.
* Why do ccTLDs
have to help fund ICANN while it still does not fund root name server
service? Root name server service is one which must be provided by ICANN
yet it is not funded. My answer to this question is that Internet has
previously faced problem of inconsistent alternative root servers that
caused chaos for Internet. Now we don't have that problem, and that
is result of current democratic system of ICANN and DNSO. Their role
functions as a protection against this variety of anarchy. ICANN is
not providing root server service at the moment but is still providing
stability for it already. Therefore ccTLD and gTLD and IP registry communities
are all already receiving benefits from ICANN and they should respond
with fair funding for ICANN.
* If ICANN fails
for financial reasons, then we will see the emergence of anarchies reminiscent
to those in past, or domination by a nation as a superpower, and both
of these alternatives are nightmares.
3. Telage: Task
Force achieved good success in short time on tough issue. NSI is pleased
to be in a position to provide much support through role in gTLD.
* NSI's only opposition:
Formula is elegant and a good one. A subtlety in definition in terms
should be highlighted. Little n and big N would be better if they didn't
penalize incumbency every quarter. Little n should be number of registrations
that a registrar has added in a given quarter, and big N should the
total number added by all registrars in that quarter. This market share
would be better reflected, and market share is better reflection of
accrued costs that need to be allocated. The current system doesn't
hurt NSI in next few quarters but will not reflect change in competitive
environment as quarters go on. - Wong: How would the first quarter be
treated? (a) Depends on when effect is active. We expect that to happen
on November 5 we would be liable for fees based on the caps we've agreed
upon. First quarter would be partial one, meaning that we would be prefunding
on date of signing. Next quarter we close off and registry would take
a snapshot of all entries made between Nov. 5 and Dec. 31 for all registrars
competing in that period, and do the N/n calculation and pass it along
to ICANN for billing purposes. Jan. 1 to March 31 would follow same
process. As publicly traded company, we are required by SEC to do public
accounting for quarterly numbers and we would make data available to
Roberts under nondisclosure agreement for ICANN to use for the billing
within 30 days of the close of each quarter on standard business calendar.
A. Suppose representing a registrar.
What to tell customers re additional costs to be paid to ICANN? Some
way of summarizing costs so registrars can understand what's expected
1. McLaughlin: Constantly
changing. Some share of the registrar's fixed fee (share depends on
how many names the registrar registers) plus some per-registration fee.
Could predict it based on previous quarters. ("If my total number
of registrations is the same as last quarter, and if other registrars
register the same number as last quarter, then my fee will be the same
as last quarter.")
2. Roberts: Things
are going to change. (If not, why go to all this trouble?) Members of
TFF were clear that they wanted fees tied to business volume.
B. O'Brien (.nz): Not angry. Will
have to tell own Board about the current issue. One third of funding
($1.5 million) slated to come from country codes. What if that money
doesn't come? But paying the $1.5 million without a contract? With no
term specified? Need to formalize the relationship. Also, concern that
one third of funding doesn't get one third representation on the Board.
1. McLaughlin: Staff
committed to determining a sensible, fair, and equal relationship with
ccTLDs. Want to have contracts as appropriate.
C. Curran (ARIN): Not angry. Recommendations
on general principles, budget, allocation, implementation are all very
sound and commendable for the time elapsed. But realize that ongoing
funding of ICANN will be subject to approval of member organizations.
D. Staub: Re Telage's concern
about payment based on total market share ("stock") versus
current ("flow"). An astonishing suggestion when the organization
that makes the most money off of domain registrations already has caps
on its funding of ICANN. Understand that this is because of the budget
veto power given to NSI in the contracts. But I'm surprised to hear
Telage want to go even further in exercising this kind of control over
1. Abril i Abril:
Kudos to TFF. Still uncertain re proportions-- perhaps ccTLDs being
asked to pay too much? Or perhaps some relevance to funding that certain
ccTLDs have separate registrars and registries, perhaps both of which
should help fund ICANN? Re representation, ccTLDs are represented through
2. Blokzijl: Do
not represent any ccTLD or gTLD. Constituency is the IP registries.
E. Goodwin (#656): What checks
and balances on the board not to increase spending?
1. McLaughlin: Budget
process is open and transparent. People paying money get a role in scrutinizing
the budget and commenting on it. Proposed contracts with NSI and DoC
provide a cap on the largest registrar's budget, indirectly capping
the budget for everyone.
F. Porter: Customer of IP registry.
Think they're already paying ICANN as much as is appropriate. Could
do without domain names if necessary, but not without IPs. IP registries
are non-profit and are therefore limited in their ability to fund ICANN.
1. Roberts: Community
had a free ride on the US taxpayer for a long time. No longer. TFF is
representative and feels strongly about the integrity of the process
they used. Notice that no entity asked to pay "a percentage times
an unlimited amount."
G. Iriarte (#657): Read in full.
Thinks ICANN on its way to being a plutocracy.
H. Narra (#658): Read in full.
How to assure Markle grants used as intended?
1. ICANN is organized
as a not-for-profit. So under US tax laws, it's obliged to use the grants
it receives according to the purposes specified in the grant requests.
I. Telage: Understand that
charges to be based on both renewals and additions. Question is whether
charges to be based on transaction volume for each quarter or based
on all registrants from that registrar.
J. RIRs have been doing IP allocation
since long before ICANN Board assembled. So it's hard to say the RIRs
are obliged to pay for part of ICANN. ARIN supports paying its share
to keep ICANN going, but not sure if there ICANN will have all that
much substantive involvement in IP allocation policy. If RIRs thought
to have a debt to ICANN, why no such debt by PSO?
K. Why not charge dispute resolution
providers? After all, they're making money as a result of the ICANN
1. Dyson: ICANN
has no contract with them.
2. McLaughlin: TFF
didn't think about that at all.
L. Schaefer (#659): Read in full.
1. McLaughlin: Premature.
M. Amato: Want to clarify that
Nader organizations have not received funding from Markle.
VIII. Lunch-- reconvene at 1:30
AND Recommendations on Proposed ICANN/NSI/DoC Agreements
A. Touton: ICANN has been involved
with DoC, NSI in .com, .net, .org competition testbed on registrar level.
Testbed for both technical and legal issues. Comments received and changes
B. Sims: Intend to be factual
and not an advocate's view. ICANN came into existence in November 1998
expecting to reach agreements with key constituents. Didn't happen that
way. NSI felt it entitled to protect certain interests, making it difficult
for ICANN to move forward in the way it would have liked to. Given that
position, NSI had the opportunity and the means to delay the transition
to private sector management of DNS. Parties intended and needed to
reach an agreement. Negotiations were professional.
from Board: Don't compromise on basic principles of ICANN. Do not agree
to anything unworkable. Create maximum room possible for competitive
2. Now have to decide
whether these agreements meet those criteria and whether agreements
advance ICANN's mission. I think they do. Reasons:
* Time to move
on. Only way to resolve the situation in a timely and predictable manner
is with an agreement.
* Advances ICANN's
policy goals. Definition of consensus policies is a significant improvement
over status quo. NSI's commitment to participate in and abide by the
ICANN process; given their importance in DNS, this is a substantial
get too sweet a deal?" These agreements compare reasonably well
to any agreement you could practicably hope to achieve. Consider: Suppose
DoC and ICANN wanted to rebid the .com, .org, .net registries, and suppose
that NSI didn't take steps to slow that process down. Then the new registry
operator would likely get a term of at least five years. Price uncertain,
but it wouldn't be less than zero and might not be much less than the
$6 of the agreements. The new registry wouldn't be allowed to be a registrar
(although that's also accomplished by the proposed agreements).
* So, relative
to that outcome, this agreement seems reasonable. Likelihood of significantly
better deal unlikely. NSI might have tried to exert rights it believed
* This is an agreement
that I am heartened to see despite my initial concerns. Thirty days
of comments from lots of people has not turned up anything that I believe
goes to the core of these agreements or that makes me think we missed
something big. Points have been raised by comment period that have merit.
Some are relatively small and easily handled. Others are bigger and
are still in discussion with NSI. Some of the comments were really either
not persuasive to me and the Board members or are subjects on which
there was hard negotiation that led to the best outcome we believe we
* We as a board
have read all of the comments that have been filed carefully and have
taken account of them and have responded in appropriate and possible
ways prior to presenting proposed agreement to the board.
* We are at a key
stage for ICANN. New gTLDs, relationships with ccTLDs, role of national
governments in relation to ICANN, are all issues before us. We cannot
move forward on these issues if we continue to be distracted by the
subjects of the agreements. My personal view is that the better option
for ICANN and the Internet is to end this stage of development and move
C. Burr: Department of Commerce
endorsed this package of agreements in late September. We have read
all of the comments and remain convinced that this is the right way
to proceed. We had a specific set of objectives set by Congress and
House Commerce Committee. We believe these documents accomplish all
of the goals we set out in our July letter.
1. Meta principle
here. Do these agreements, taken together, enable us to privatize the
management of the domain name system in the manner that the US government
committed to in the White Paper? Stability, bottom-up decision making,
increased global participation were all goals, and we feel these documents
D. Johnson: As the NSI participant
in the negotiations around these contracts, I am here to answer questions
about our role. There are provisions that aren't what we would have
chosen alone, either.
1. Framework for
ICANN. Need to create and define a community consensus based process
that allows ICANN to develop policies and enforce them as well by means
of binding contracts.
2. Key beginning
step. Richer collaboration and constructive discussion to follow.
Public comment and Board questions.
1. Dyson: We'd like
to explore these agreements and the remaining few points requiring agreement.
We'll get a sense of where we are from the questions asked. I think
most agree that the overall shape is good and it's time to move on.
Each side feels that it has compromised.
2. Abril i Abril:
I don't like all of the details but we're being asked to look at the
whole picture and discuss details later. Does this establish a sufficiently
competitive model and allow ICANN to move forward?
* I have serious
doubts that the competitive model is adequate. WHOIS, contribution caps,
pricing, remain troubling. But these can be dealt with later because
antitrust laws and other regulations will continue to control NSI in
its registrar/registry capacity.
* Meta question
is indeed the key one. Is this a step forward for ICANN in assessing
its role in the Internet? Yes, but . . . For ICANN to further its goals,
it must bring NSI into the game and convince it to surrender some of
its litigation arsenal, which has been done through the agreement. But
also, ICANN must go further. Milestones, assurances, guarantees are
needed to be sure that ICANN fulfills the role intended for it. Transfer
of management of root server is important. Burr should be more explicit
about how she sees the sharing and progressive sharing of policy oversight,
because this is what ICANN is about.
* Burr: US remains
firmly committed to the transition to private management. However, stability
of the Internet is a paramount value and so transition must be careful
and sure. Agreements move us closer to goal of ultimate transfer because
they provide enormous aid for stability. As to specific question about
management of root, we have an expectation that we will in near future
receive technical proposal from ICANN regarding management of the root.
We have said in the White Paper and every other communication about
this that management of the root should go to the corporation that is
doing this work: ICANN. Since stability is key, we will look at the
security and other technical aspects of the proposal carefully, but
we will are looking forward to receiving a robust proposal.
* Sims: ICANN has
made conscious decision not to seek transfer of root service to date
because we did not believe that we could responsibly, to date, handle
it. We could not yet guarantee and warranty to the Internet community
that we could successfully manage the root server. I think the successful
adoption of these agreements could change that significantly. These
and the funding proposals will eliminate our highly visible financial
instability and, with the SO's creation, eliminate or significantly
reduce potential for organizational instability. We are close to making
the representations about our readiness to the US government.
3. Wong: I hear
that there has been compromise on all sides in intense negotiations.
Are we compromising any long-term viability of ICANN in service to short-term
* Dyson: USG will
receive some money as a reward for its previous financial investments.
The travails that would have resulted were too great to risk ICANN's
now having real powers to foster competition and to create financial
incentive to NSI to separate registry/registrar. We can look at other
ways to handle market regulation now. We have escaped mire of litigation.
On the other hand, NSI made financial compromises and got the definition
of consensus that we all liked. I don't think any fatal compromises
* Sims: I don't
think we compromised in any way on any basic principle of ICANN's existence
or future operation. There is no policy compromise of any kind with
respect to those basic principles. There are some process compromises
and procedural things that we think are more burdensome to ICANN than
necessary but these are on the margins rather than in the heart of ICANN's
mission. An agreement was never the objective; an objective that furthered
ICANN's ability to pursue its mission was. The same issues will be before
us when we talk to the ccTLDs that we will have to accommodate in a
way consistent with the missions and principles of ICANN. Process is
not fast, but not compromising the principles is worth the wait.
* Burr: These agreements
do not only not compromise the future of ICANN, but they also contribute
to ensuring the future of ICANN in the sense of articulating a clear
mission and a vision of consensus articulated by the documents.
4. Cohen: Difficult
process. My legal experience is that negotiation is always a difficult
task, but especially when among three sides and on key issues. Going
back to negotiating parties and asking for reconsideration is extremely
problematic. With that as a preface, I will say nonetheless that many
of the comments of other registrars have merit. NSI operated in good
faith and as a responsible corporate citizen in coming to agreement.
However, I urge them to consider carefully these concerns and do the
best they can to address them as they become a most important member
of the ICANN community.
* Wong: But I just
heard there was no compromise on core principles
* Cohen: I am not
talking about core principles; merely about some of the comments we've
heard over the last few days.
5. Triana: Opening
market to competition and eliminating exclusive rights of NSI and integrating
NSI into normal ICANN procedures are great accomplishments. But we are
conscious that we are going from an exclusive regime to a regime of
special rights, with special market power still in NSI hands. It is
still advantaged over other competitors, and this means we must be very
vigilant in implementation process to prevent abuse. Also, nuances regarding
price. Competition must be the instrument to bring the price down, rather
than price cap. We can't allow barrier to entry to arise for other registrars
through pricing. Additional costs that will appear in the process. Finally,
very contentious matters remain in the intellectual property area. Thus
capacity to introduce changes by NSI without competition is an important
concern to be addressed in the future. ICANN's role is not to look for
institutional solutions. But we hope and assume that Department of Commerce
will continue to consult and discuss widely with other governments.
* Burr: I assure
all that DoC made a commitment to continued international consultation
on these issues in the White Paper and we are still committed. We are
in extensive discussions with other governments and they help me remember
that. We have benefited from suggestions and issues raised by other
governments, as well as other concerns and approaches. This will continue.
- We will be monitoring compliance and I am sure that the Antitrust
division of the Justice Department will continue to monitor the process.
The application of global laws will continue.
6. Dyson: procedural
rules for Q&A session
7. Sims: Difficult
to list all the things we're still in negotiations with NSI about. However,
to be sure that expectations do not get out of proportion, I will say
that most of remaining discussion is about semantics and preventing
ambiguity in the drafting. There are some substantive issues remaining.
* One significant
point is the concern of the registrars that the agreement provides NSI
with an unfair and inappropriate competitive advantage in the fact that
general rule for all registrars is that they can't register names without
taking payment for them. NSI will be bound by this like all others,
but the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Appendix applying specifically
to NSI waives this requirement for four months. Rationale was to allow
them to make necessary changes in software and selling partner agreements.
After reviewing registrar comments, I was persuaded that this left NSI
with an inappropriate competitive advantage. We've made suggestions
to them about how to handle this but they've not been accepted thusfar.
* Burr: NSI has
also made suggestions on how to handle this and we haven't been comfortable
with them so discussions are ongoing.
8. Pelage: Secretary
of registrar group: We have concerns. To wit: 17 of 18 at a vote said
they could not support these agreements without clarification or modification.
NSI was the only one to support in its current form
* Sims: If your
only two choices were this agreement or no agreement, you would vote
against this one?
* Pelage: Yes.
We support the ICANN bottom-up process and we are participating in it
by making **constructive** comments and we do not seek to work against
ICANN. We ask only that the ICANN board to listen to the constituency
that is being asked to provide 50% of its funding going forward.
9. Auerbach: Wong,
you are a director, you have the ability to direct.
* Also, DNSO was
not consulted for these agreements. These will shackle the as-yet unborn
at-large membership group. This gives money to ICANN and competitive
advantage to NSI and this is classic smoke-filled room agreement.
10. Oler: DNSO is
being told it is not needed because you have accepted agreements without
asking us. US government should let ICANN board and SO's decide without
11. Lang: What will
happen to RS.internic.net as soon as contract is signed?
* Burr: Content
of internic web page will begin to list all of the competing registrars
with hotlinks to their sites. Names will be transferred to the DoC.
NSI has already begun unraveling the sites from the rest of its apparatus.
We'd be happy to get proposal from ICANN to run the site but it won't
be licensed to anyone else.
* Lang: But what
* Burr: Accreditation
agreement and registry agreement reaffirm our goal that there be a single
way to get access to all of the WHOIS data and that if there is not
a single solution NSI will cooperate in a collective solution
* Touton: The web
page will be run for the DoC by NSI for a number of months but then
there will be a transfer.
* Lang: Big problem
because American companies which register names with other registrars
complain to me and other registrars because their names do not appear
in WHOIS. This is a huge marketing problem as well as a technical problem.
Negotiators do not seem to be aware of the problem.
* Burr: This issue,
of a simple way to get into a comprehensive collection of WHOIS data
was a critical priority for the DoC. Distributed or collective basis,
it is a priority.
* Lang: You make
sure you have oversight of website, but what about rs.internic.com?
* Anthony: You
can go to a website or use a whois client in UNIX and get NSI's results
but not anyone else's. To get to central repository takes much longer
* Burr: Whois.internic.net
is being transferred to DoC
* ?: WHOIS is broken;
we have a partial solution today and we are working toward a better
ones. Most of the new registrars address this with two-tier solution.
* Burr: I don't
see a problem with using internic web page to help with this solution
* ?: Protocol is
not a web page issue. Huge portion are done this way already. Can we
get commitments to get this worked on quickly so that competitive disadvantage
* Dyson: Board?
* Burr: You have
a commitment to ensuring that there is a solution, whether web page
* [Time will be
spent after meeting to address]
* Touton: Single
answer or full whois?
* Crew: Whose agreement
or cooperation is needed to implement?
* Burr: All of
* Lang: No
* ?: Engineer can
write some software to solve problem. It's about how WHOIS was structured
a long time ago. All separate pieces need to be brought together in
one place. Rs.internic.net can be place where all info is brought together
as one tree if we make technical changes.
* Rose (DoC): Pointer
is currently pointing to what currently is registrar data when what
should happen is that registry data is accessed.
* Wesson: I have
code that fixes it and I will send it
* Touton: Burr
is talking about another aspect of the agreement that other aspects
of the community care deeply about.
* Necessary guarantees
are in contract
12. Lang: Logic
behind step back of US government not giving power over root server
to ICANN? Will DoC inhibit the insertion of new gTLDs if ICANN recommends
* Burr: DoC said
in White Paper that new gTLDs were good idea but ICANN and community
had to make the decision
13. Goodwin (remote):
will there be a firm determination of whom owns the .com, .net, .org
* Burr/Sims: We
concluded that if anyone needing the data would have unbounded access
and use to full data without a problem then there was no reason to worry
* Dyson: Public
interests in its good use but also in its public use. Protections in
how it may be used.
14. Heltzer: Thanks
to DoC to sticking with commitment to universal WHOIS, which is very
important to trademark holders. But what is the timeline?
* Burr: We know
it's critical but no date set.
Let's address WHOIS with action item after this meeting to address registrar
15. Wesson: WHOIS
issues have been around since testbed. Question: if the contracts can't
be renegotiated now, why should I believe that points of contention
can be resolved in future?
* Dyson: We're
16. Bramson: Registrars
are trying to address issues in order to try to get agreements signed
before we all leave LA. We ask DoC and Board to take a look at our proposals,
specifically one about service level requirements to ensure viability
of long-term system. Other issues are about short-term competitiveness
and lowering barriers to entry. These are available to board and public.
* Key points: -
Credit; NSI can extend credit terms in a manner not consistent with
others. We think NSI's ability to change pricing - Exclusivity arrangements
with partners; drafting omission - Service level requirements. - Ability
of NSI to exercise veto power over changes in registrar accreditation
fees in short-term. - Rs.internic.net domain pointing issues - SRS protocols
should be widely available so new registries are introduced there is
consistency - Ability of customers to identify that there are multiple
options for renewal of registrations
* Dyson: If all
of these were resolved, would all of the registrars then be able to
approve the agreements? - Bramson: Not in a position to say. Group that
voted not to approve may not be identical to group that produced this
list. I can get you a list of those who signed this. - NSI: We just
got this and haven't formed a position on all of the points. - Bramson:
These are the issues we got consensus from broad base of registrars
17. Hanson: Three
* ICANN as an organization
has a technical function under its charter and I hoped new board members
aren't railroaded into making uninformed decision
* Principles of
White Paper; Postel and Internet evolved approach to bring competition
and Fall 1997 USG convened interagency task force that favored it as
way of bringing competition to marketplace. Consistency has been that
new gTLDs will be best for competition and now we have new backroom
deal for different means.
* Stability and
internic issues: Public is even less clear than this group and this
confusion is destabilizing.
* Burr: Interagency
group never voted on anything and I was in it. Also, we think new gTLDs
will increase competition but it is role of ICANN to say how or under
18. Lindsay (registrar):
We signed the document of 7 proposals. Maybe not all are achievable
before agreements signed, but we look forward to having them addressed.
Registrar group feels that it would be more bottom-up to have majority
decide on fees
* Sims: A valid
concern of NSI was that if NSI's competitors could decide how to allocate
fees might result in disproportionate burden on NSI. Seemed logical
to us. We tried to deal with this in a way that would not adversely
affect either our ability to fund necessary ICANN expenses or give NSI
power over its competitors. Fees here can't be unilaterally raised by
NSI but must be adopted as part of an ICANN consensus policy and only
then will come before registrars for ratification. If you and the other
registrars are successful in gaining market share, NSI will not have
effective veto for long
* Lindsay: Written
ambiguously. NSI can veto any change in fees, not just any change in
* Sims: I didn't
think so but I'll check
* Burr: We tried
to make sure NSI couldn't veto fees and needed to strengthen ICANN,
so we made sure that NSI had to pay before doing anything else.
* Johnson: Goal
was to produce general principle that those called upon to pay the fees
agree, in general, to the level of the fees. Some comfort that those
bearing burden would be comfortable but couldn't hold process hostage.
NSI is clearly obligated to say yes to any fee structure that fell within
a given range.
* Sims: I have
looked at the language and it does say that NSI is obligated to pay
if allocation is fair and registrars approve. Transition agreement requires
NSI to approve any fee lower than $2000000. They will only have veto
if they continue to represent more than ¾ and ICANN fees rise to point
that NSI's share is more than $2000000.
* Latham &
Watkins coffee and cookies - Thanks!
19. Gen: Focus on
essential issue of privatization. Will agreements create a competitive
market for domain name registrations? Many think not. ICANN is not and
cannot be the representative of registrars. Registrars should have been
parties at the negotiating table. A serious process fault.
* Sims: Are the
seven points sufficient to change the agreement from one in which registrars
couldn't survive to one in which they could? For example, uniform credit
policies-- four month waiver for NSI makes all the difference? Do you
think the competitive market couldn't come into effect under the proposed
* Can't speak for
everyone. Don't argue that any single factor makes all the difference.
Don't want to make a binary choice between approval and disapproval.
Want a process of change to make agreements better.
* Conrades: Lack
of Service Level Agreement a top priority? Yes, by general agreement
among at least a few. Say this needed for benefit of customers. If NSI
Registry had problems, would affect NSI Registrar also, so perhaps NSI
Registrar wants a SLA also. Hard to be in a service business without
SLAs with key suppliers.
* Sims: The agreement
does include a SLA.
* Johnson: Believe
NSI is willing to have a SLA appropriate for the system.
* Wilson: 45-day
delay seems too long.
* Sims: The document
before us calls for a 45-day period to work out the details.
* Sims: Agreement
is clear that NSI cannot seek an increase in its fee for "adequate
* Johnson: Be careful
to use metrics appropriate for a new registration system that's just
been developed. NSI as registrar also wants the system to work and scale
and so forth.
20. There is a service
level specified in the current agreements: None! No guarantee that the
SRS will work properly. Hard to believe that we'll get a SLA in the
future given this text in the agreements. Consumers deserve better,
so many registrars believe that the agreements must not be solved until
this is fixed.
* Johnson: First
task was to build a spec for the system.
21. If NSI Registry
and Registrar owned separately, then it's not certain that Registry
will do what's best for Registrar. So still need the SLA.
22. Wilson: Concerned
that agreement might limit what NSI can be required to do.
* Johnson: A SLA
assuring that the system operates at a given level of availability would
not be precluded by this text.
* Sims: But notice
that other parts of agreement require adequate performance of system.
Certainly intended for system to have performance standards.
F. Pisanty: Baseline service level
for a baseline price. Perhaps there should be a system for some registrars
to get premium reliability service for a premium price?
G. Forman: Register.com supports
all seven points. In particular, that a prohibition on exclusive contracts
between NSI Registry and third parties, and that the prohibition be
extended for four months to reflect the delay in these agreements.
1. Sims: I don't
read the document that way, so I don't see the ambiguity. It's not an
issue now and it's not a problem for us to see that it's fixed.
H. Seltzer (#666): Non-transparency
of access to registry a problem? Still governed by a confidentiality
agreement that limits public oversight of name registration. Any move
towards opening SRS?
1. Johnson: Will
I. Congrats to NSI lawyers
for serving well the interests of your clients. But ICANN Board has
a monumental task. To USG, "Shame on you." Agreements are
fundamentally flawed and illegal under US Federal Law. Should delay
signing these agreements until there's a political solution. If no delay,
a legal solution nearly certain.
J. Stubbs: Wide range of perspectives
within the Registrar constituency. Support the seven proposals suggested.
Concerned about prepayment ("discriminatory credit"). Registrars
cannot register a domain until they've received a "reasonable assurance
of payment" (appropriate credit guarantee). NSI will be bound by
these terms but says that it will be unable to meet this requirement
for at least four months. DoC and ICANN should require that NSI impose
a work-around of some sort to assure a level playing field.
1. Burr: Not just
a competition issue. Didn't only hear that from registrars.
2. Dyson: Still
talking about this issue.
3. Sims: This point
has quite a bit of merit. NSI has not accepted the proposal ICANN previously
suggested that was quite similar.
4. Johnson: This
legacy issue comes from the existence of systems and customer relationships
that need to be brought into compliance as quickly as possible. Overall,
considered as a package, we think this agreement introduces competition
as quickly as possible.
5. Stubbs: But the
program still being offered! This isn't just legacy.
6. Crew: Would it
be equitable if the requirement on the accredited registrars were deferred
until NSI in a position to apply same constraint to themselves?
7. Stubbs: Not appropriate
because such policies encourage speculation. We're out here to solve
problems, to be responsible.
8. Burr: USG would
not support such an approach. Prepayment is necessary.
9. Cohen: A good
point. IP community would be unhappy with any such encouragement of
cybersquatting or similar behavior.
10. Waylis: email@example.com
still accepts registrations. Perhaps should replace this address with
an autoresponder letting registrants know about the new competitive
K. Porteneuve: Will ICANN go bankrupt
if it doesn't sign the proposed agreements tomorrow?
1. Roberts: Thanks
to working capital, significant progress made.
2. Dyson: I don't
think about this agreement in terms of bankruptcy. Whatever we do, if
we do it for the right reasons, companies will support what we're doing
by extending credit. That's not how ICANN should operate long-term,
but neither should it sign an agreement on the basis of short-term financial
3. Sims: Placed
no weight on money in initial stages of agreement. Money is relevant
and important for obvious reasons, but money is no reason for the Board
to decide whether or not to accept the agreements.
4. Field: These
agreements fail to level the playing field for registrars. NSI not just
registrar and registry; also does registration services -- WorldNic,
now Networksolutions.com -- operated outside the cooperative agreement.
Registrars will be worse off after the agreements than they are today.
* Burr: Saying
that you don't have the right (or the necessary information) to get
in touch with your customers re their renewal options going forward?
* Field: Shouldn't
have to market again to the same customers to get them back into our
database. Had to let NSI bill customers directly due to slow billing
processes years ago, but it's not fair that NSI now thinks of those
customers as "theirs" now even though we referred them.
* Burr: Understand
the problem now. Thank you.
L. Chon: Have talked to many ccTLD
administrators. Generally support the agreements. Are concerned about
1. Burr: USG needs
to continue oversight over NSI in case something unforeseen were to
happen to ICANN. But so long as ICANN around to negotiate with NSI,
USG to more or less stay out of the process.
M. Steele: Are these the best
the USG could do to protect Internet users? Registry is a ministerial
function and should always have been handled by a non-profit. Specifics:
1) Notification by registry to registrars of how they'll be using personal
data is not sufficient -- need to let individual consumers know how
their data will be used. 2) Can registry limit registrations of certain
domain names? 3) Re "cannot single out NSI," may not make
sense since NSI, for now, is the only registry.
1. Burr: Escrow
for disaster recovery. No other use allowed or anticipate for the data.
Have spent a lot of time working on privacy issues. But note that registry
gets only domain name, IPs of DNS servers, and name of registrar.
2. Sims: The "disparate
treatment" language is already in the ICANN bylaws and applies
to everyone. It made NSI feel better and didn't cost anything.
3. Johnson: The
language is in the bylaws. These agreements include essential protections
from bylaws to clarify that these terms are part of the ICANN-registrar
relationship. Superfluous so long as the bylaws remain the same, but
helpful just in case.
4. Burr: Certain
strings illegal under US Law ("NASA," "FBI"), and
these restrictions to be passed on to registries.
N. Stanbach: Concerned at duration
of agreements -- four years a long time. Year-long registrations very
important. Why is the timeline for one-year registrations so long?
1. Burr: Agreements
say "best commercial practices" which is meaningful as a term
of art -- sets a high standard, and we expect this feature to be available
by the new year. Re duration of agreement, the parties agreed on these
terms as a fair deal.
2. Are these issues
higher than the seven points?
O. Chizmarik (#673): With adamant
opposition of some registrars, the board should resolve these seven
points or, failing that, reject the agreement.
P. Not sure that "continuing
on to perfect the agreements" is really an option. This is just
a base point, but if we don't make a decision now, the number of people
wanting to be in the next round of negotiations may be too high to make
Q. Support policy and goals of
ICANN. Might have liked to see the registry function rebid.
1. Burr: $6 was
not a negotiated fee. It comes from Amendment 11 -- costs plus a reasonable
R. Thrush: Impact on ccTLDs. Role
of DoC in future negotiations with ccTLDs?
1. Burr: Come to
negotiating table with no special power. Will similarly participate
in future discussions.
2. Sims: One of
NSI's concerns was that some ccTLDs operate like gTLDs -- with few,
if any, restrictions on who can participate. NSI concerned about what
they saw as significant constraints on how they can operate, while ccTLDs
not so constrained. The language in the agreements reflects compromise
on the subject.
3. Thrush: Let's
defer this to a WG of DNSO, or even a hand-picked team, and get this
S. Cade: Congrats at reaching
any agreements at all. Support statement made earlier that this a significant
milestone for ICANN & the Internet. AT&T supports the seven
points from registrars. If it's essential to move forward in accepting
the agreements, ask that the DoC and ICANN continue to focus on competition.
1. Burr: Absolutely
committed to monitor things as they develop.
T. Van Couvering: Interesting
to note the focus on process. Understand that the Board more focused
on substance than process. But ccTLDs concerned about GAC, continuing
role of governments in the process. An unpublished GAC document reduces
ICANN's role? Openness and transparency clauses in bylaws have been
modified or removed?
1. Sims: No significant
changes made to bylaws.
2. Roberts: Have
gone to great lengths to document what IANA does with RFC1591. Have
attempted to be extremely clear that there will be no change in RFC1591
without full and open public comment in accordance with Article III.
Take this very seriously.
3. Sims: ICANN like
a great debating society. My reaction to the document you are distributing
is not that it's "nonsensical." That single document doesn't
undermine the process generally.
U. Flory: If all seven points
addressed in some manner, Melbourne IT will be comfortable with the
agreements. In particular, the prepayment model, the WHOIS data being
used for spamming,
V. Froomkin (#675): Do current agreements prevent
ICANN from creating a "privacy enhanced gTLD" -- a ".private"
in which the registrant's contact details are not published?
1. Sims: No. W.
Cochetti: Successfully addressing the issues of these agreements is
necessary for ICANN to move forward. Negotiating a complicated deal
is hard-- many issues to be balanced. Unwise to look at any single provision
in isolation. Have to look at the deal as a whole. Of course there are
particular parts the Board would like to change, but that's not the
question. Rather, whether the agreements as a whole move the process
X. Cohen: Thanks to the Board and negotiators
for working in good faith. Y. Amato: Want to commend registrars for
raising questions of procedure, due process, etc. No one on the board
has said "less talk about process" which is an improvement.
Why not more concern from non-US interests about DoC involvement?
1. Sims: It speaks
for itself. There are theoretical situations in which DoC's intervention
might be helpful and appropriate. If NSI terminated its recognition
of ICANN, or if DoC did same. It would have been imprudent for DoC to
"pass on all the keys to the kingdom" without retaining a
way to come back in if necessary. This isn't a provision to be concerned
about. It's in everybody's interest that, if ICANN self-destructs, there's
some entity out there that can get involved. Z. O'Brien: Sims just mentioned
competing registries. How will we know the list of competing registries?
1. Sims: We're confused.
Said "there are out there in the world some ccTLD registries that
have essential no restrictions on registrants in their ccTLDs. To the
extent that they're out there, they could reasonably be thought to compete
2. Dyson: No decision
yet re which new gTLDs to add.
AA. Lindsay: Seven issues from
registrars are not the most contentious. Pleased to hear that five of
seven have already be addressed.
X. Dyson: Drawing to a close. Are trying hard
to be neither inscrutable nor hasty. Comments from Board?
A. Cohen: Can't speak for everyone
else, but would like to complement the US and Americans as hosts. Process
is aggravating, but US-style democracy has worked well and is particularly
effective here. Debate was intelligent, informed, and civilized. Hope
some of the remaining problems in agreements can be patched tonight.
B. Abril i Abril: Have heard the
concerns of many registrars. But agreements feel like too much of a
compromise, so they're troubling. In same situation as before agreements.
Want to ask Burr for a way to measure objectively how far along we are
towards having ICANN be the policy body. It's not an issue of not trusting
or liking the US, it's just a matter of good practice. Presidential
elections could cause delay. Let's accelerate as much as we can while
C. Pisanty: With proper procedures,
we should be able to handle the seven proposals. I am troubled that
these are said not to be the most contentious issues; we need a measure
of how many people are concerned and to what degree. If they are very
important, how was something else more important? Non-US citizens on
board would like to see more on policy power transfer but it is an ongoing
process. Collaboration with US government for the time being plus transition
to private and international regime. Enormous confidence after last
few days that this process is going on in a very positive manner. Menge's
request for obedience to Administrative Procedures Act: international
community has other alternatives that we will work with as well although
we will be consistent with US law as necessary
D. Wong: Seven points discussion
productive. Dispute resolution provider perhaps being a funding source
is a good point and shows process' worth. Autoresponder for host/master
at internic.net. The .com issue is key for some parties but not for
all. ICANN is three-legged stool.
E. Dyson: We will have further
negotiations this evening. I hope all here will mingle now. Thank you
to classic and new board, thank you to Johnson, Burr and Sims, and thank
you audience. Our first anniversary shows how much we've grown; it's
been a very productive, albeit long, discussion. Thanks again to Latham
& Watkins for the coffee.
For additional technical information, please contact:
and John Wilbanks
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School