Scribe's Notes
ICANN Public Forum - November 15, 2000 - Los Angeles, California

ICANN Public Forum Los Angeles, California - November 15, 2000
I.   Welcome - Dyson
   A.   Importance of taking this step towards competition in the registry business.
II.   Report from Mike Roberts, CEO
   A.   [Word document presented]
III.   Welcome of new Board Members
   A.   Schink
   B.   Kyong
IV.   Root Server System Advisory Committee – Jun Murai
   A.   [Presentation by Jun Murai]
V.   Protocol Supporting Organization
   A.   [Presentation delivered]
VI.   Domain Name Supporting Organization – Ken Stubbs, Chair of Names Council
   A.   Have established a grant program to fund NC’s activities. Working on accepting contributions to the program. Intend to fund a full-time secretariat to support future activities.
   B.   Discussed the budget. Report forthcoming, prior to next Board teleconference.
   C.   Received report from Gaetano re activities of the GA.
   D.   Conducting comprehensive review of the DNSO. Not moving as quickly as was hoped. Contributions from some constituencies. But other activities in the last 60 days have made it hard to focus on this. Anticipate output within the next 3-5 weeks.
   E.   Questions?
       1.   Dyson: Terms of funding from Verisign? How to assure that this doesn’t unduly influence the NC?
           • Stubbs: Verisign has provided a matching grant of up to $100,000 for operational support of NC. Strictly to support budgeted activities. Don’t see a compromise here.
           • Dyson: Grant is unconditional, except for the matching clause?
           • Stubbs: To the best of my knowledge. And note that it’s only for operational activities, not for policy or advocacy.
       2.   Cerf: Do funds come to an account managed by the NC, or ICANN, or what?
           • Stubbs: Some issues there. Need to comply with ICANN By-laws. ICANN staff knows best what needs to happen here.
           • Roberts: Some legitimate concern that the Board shouldn’t be in a position to control the flow of money to the SOs. Have formed a relationship whereby a designated representative of NC controls the account, but accountants say this isn’t proper.
       3.   Stubbs: Haven’t yet gotten input from enough constituencies to provide a comprehensive review document.
       4.   Cochetti: Chair of budget committee of NC. Noted the serious need for support. Wanted to put restrictions on the funds (“no cruises or dinners”). Fund perhaps to be administered by a group of trustees acting on behalf of DNSO and NC.
VII.   Address Council
   A.   [Presentation delivered]
   B.   Q&A
       1.   Cerf: Anticipate guidelines for creation of new RIRs. Will existing RIRs comply with those guidelines?
           • It’s likely the belief of the existing RIRs that they comply as is. It would currently be hard to get an independent review, but the RIRs at least think this is already in order.
       2.   Wilson (APNIC): RIRs do intend to comply and to be seen to comply.
       3.   Cerf: Wonder whether the bottom-up policy development takes into account technical questions. A bad allocation policy could lead to serious technical problems (big routing tables, etc.). How to assure that technical requirements are taken into account, given that these policy developments are relatively independent?
           • The people making decisions at the RIRs participate in the IETF.
       4.   Fockler: By-laws call for proposed ICANN policy to go to other SOs for comment, and we’ve done that when appropriate.
VIII.   At Large: McLaughlin
   A.   150,000 sign-ups. Password sent by email, PIN sent by postal mail. 76,000 activated their membership, and a little less than half of that actually cast ballots.
   B.   Overwhelmed by response, especially relative to what MAC anticipated (“low turnout”). Causes for hope and concern.
   C.   Therefore, At-Large Study. . Seems that a lack of consensus in the community remains as to structure of At-Large; study needs to be open and inclusive in order to facilitate such consensus.
       1.   Steering group to encourage multiple sets of input over the next six months.
       2.   See paper (link above) for details.
       3.   Key principles
           • Separate from ICANN Board.
           • Dedicated staff person.
           • Report and document consensus points.
       4.   How to pay for this?
       5.   First report to be presented in March at Melbourne meeting.
       6.   Need to determine who sits on committee, timeframe, funding.
   D.   Q&A:
       1.   Cerf: How to combine 5-9 person committee with the need for consensus? These people relate to the larger community?
           • McLaughlin: Should be interactive.
       2.   Dyson: It seems optimistic to hope for a “serious” report (other than what attempts made to date) by March. And we’re asking the committee to do what ICANN Board hasn’t been able to do. Some reasons to think it may be impossible, though perhaps it’ll be easier for the committee because the committee is independent and formally powerless.
           • McLaughlin: Still, we don’t want to let time pass.
       3.   Cerf: If ICANN’s role and responsibilities sufficiently narrowly defined, we could find some consensus. If we let ICANN’s task appear far larger, then we invite complexity. Should emphasize ICANN’s specific technical responsibilities. At-Large to help us achieve those responsibilities, but we can’t let At-Large’s role expand without bound.
           • Dyson: True.
IX.   Public Comments
   A.   Aizu: Hope for dialogue to be international and productive. Produce a study template, and an interim report. Will set up mailing list.
   B.   Hotta (ISPCP): Statement from DNSO’s ISPCP, before hearing Andrew’s presentation. Need to consider funding the election process. Need to consider what methods of recruiting voters were successful and which not.
   C.   Greg Burton: Initial resource allocation to get the At-Large Study off the ground?
       1.   McLaughlin: Initial resource allocation (before we have an Executive Director) is my time. Board has to decide whether to allocate some ICANN funds. Money a consideration.
   D.   Auerbach: A budget should be based on work performed. The budget is getting too big. Should tear up the clean-sheet study before it’s even written. The last two years of delay, the shortening of terms, cut in number of At-Large seats, are all too much. Need rights for At-Large now; don’t need another study.
   E.   Online comment (#1068) from Thomas Roessler read in its entirety.
   F.   Don Simon: Hope to participate in the study, and hope that other studies will move forward as well.
   G.   Gaetano: Need geographic diversity in ICANN’s staff.
       1.   Roberts: Have instructed staff to investigate opportunities for international hiring. Ability of non-US citizen to work in the US is a hurdle. We’ve been working on this problem for some months, and we still have constrained resources.
       2.   Dyson: Getting Visas is a real issue.
       3.   Alvestrand: The Visa problem is made easier by locating some ICANN staff outside the US.
       4.   Dyson: Yes, but then there are other challenges and inefficiencies.
   H.   Gaetano: As GA Chair, submit the motion that the replacement of the four residual initial Board Directors be done as soon as possible, and before the next annual meeting.
   I.   David Johnson: Staff’s report is appropriate. It’s unfortunate that people misinterpreted the words “clean sheet.”
   J.   Sakiyama (Remote #1067): Read in its entirety. Concern that many Japanese employees were ordered to vote for Katoh.
       1.   Dyson: The overall issue of how people were encouraged to vote is definitely on our minds.
   K.   Cade: Have talked to many people, and everyone agrees that it’s important to discuss these questions. Need to get this process right for next time.
   L.   Simons: Was a North American candidate. Concerned about potential outcome of study. Want to see all nine At-Large seats retained. Why study only At-Large and not the other elections (within SOs)?
       1.   Dyson: Some people don’t like the phrase “clean sheet.” We are going to have a short ½ hour break. Return promptly at 10:35.
X.   Staff Presentation on TLD Applications
   A.   [Presentation delivered:]
   B.   Questions:
       1.   Cerf: Is cheaper registration really more desirable? A question of judgment.
           • Dyson: Let’s hold such questions until later.
           • Dyson: What about quality differences among noncommercial TLDs?
           • Touton: Of the applicants passing threshold review, the business model is generally the same as .COM – will sell a name to anyone, strings are broadly applicable, hit large markets. It’s not helpful to charge more money for these same services. But note that some thick registries really do offer valuable services – making it easier for small businesses to offer registrar services.
           • Note differences in sunrise policies among TLD applicants. Some alternate methods (“14-day blackout period” from Image Online Design, for example), fee-based notification services. (Slide 18)
           • Touton: Some differences in proposals will surely be called to Board’s attention in the public comment time this afternoon.
       2.   Cerf: This is only the beginning. Some discomfort with this process; this feels like a venture capital firm (i.e. “have to choose”). Don’t argue that this process should be stopped in its tracks. Note that when registering a SLD, don’t have to provide explanation of plans to anyone. Re financials, applicants can promise any level of capital. Did we do due diligence to determine that funds are available? Or take claims at face value?
           • Touton: If someone commits to have available a certain amount of capital, we expect them to actually do so. We expect applicant to proceed according to the proposal.
           • Cerf: Further discussion with applicants even after the Board tentatively picks this afternoon?
           • Touton: Right, the Board selects applicants for negotiations. If the applicants don’t promise to do what they purport in their applications to do, ICANN won’t establish a contract with them.
           • JD: Applicants had to provide evidence of proof of capital – commitment letters, for example.
           • Cerf: Think of (which used $200 million of capital).
           • Touton: Do want to use market mechanisms. But for this selection, for proof of concept, we should choose the domains most likely to succeed.
       3.   Kraaijenbrink: Isn’t ratio between projected size and capital the important number (rather than absolute amount of capital)? Relation between technical feasibility of restrictions on registrations versus a simple promise to do so?
           • Touton: There were differences in what applicants projected they could do with each market. Have to have enough capital to meet demand.
           • Charlie: Applicants have different approaches to assuring that content restrictions are satisfied. Something like a “CPA for content,” which applicants might pay for themselves, costs perhaps to depend on size of site. How to assure that ratings remain in order even when site content changes? Restricting what children can see is a noble objective, but there may not be an effective way to do so. Technical team didn’t see a technical means to do what would be necessary here.
           • Dyson: Love to see new services offered. But they don’t need to be tied to a TLD. The .DIR service could be implemented without a TLD.
       4.   Pisanty: Intention of building up the businesses with negative cash-flow with the sole intent of selling them? Multilingual and multilingual issues?
           • Touton: Application team didn’t focus on some of this because community can brief the Board on these subjects better than staff.
           • JD: Saw no language suggesting selling off a business. Those applicants that anticipate large negative cash-flows may have made unduly conservative projections for registration counts.
       5.   Fockler: Share Cerf’s concern re the process. Look forward to the day when we can grant more TLDs.
       6.   Schink: Some proposals using thin protocol between registrar and registry, some using thick. What standard for the thick protocol? Interoperability problems? Are performance figures based on thorough technical analysis?
           • Touton: Thin standard designed by NSI in 1999. NSI’s RRP is the baseline for others. Recommend that acceptance of an applicant proposing a thick protocol be contingent on the applicant making its protocol available to others. Want to avoid having a different protocol for every registry.
           • Tried to evaluate the statements received based on the structure of the platforms proposed. Applicants seemed to be aware of what is necessary to achieve promised levels of reliability.
           • Touton: Note that Verisign, which has experience, quoted a lower reliability number than the others.
           • But perhaps Verisign was prepared to sign a contract based on that number, while others’ numbers were tentative.
       7.   Roberts: Need to assure that restrictions are enforced. Later on, we may regret any laxness now.
       8.   Abril i Abril: The number of new TLDs need not be the most important criterion. Need to figure out what relevant community means. Public forum comments may not be fully representative. Questions of representativeness. We know that the entities selected by this procedure will be empowered over time. Need to think through carefully which policies will bring about competition. Should follow the RIPE-NCC open-membership / cost-recovery model; other models may lead to disaster. Have to take all this into account when making a decision tomorrow. Don’t be afraid to ask applicants to make changes.
XI.   Procedures - Dyson
   A.   Time limits strictly enforced.
   B.   One comment per individual.
XII.   Reports from DNSO Constituencies
   A.   Business Constituency
       1.   Represents thousands of interests, large and small.
       2.   Favor criteria to create environment of consumer trust.
           • Expansion of UDRP to every application.
           • Robust cross-registry WHOIS.
           • Clear and enforceable application requirements.
           • Efficient enforcement of charter.
           • Sunrise period for trademarks of at least one year.
       3.   Scalability of TLDs is important for trust in new TLDs.
       4.   Advise short-term study to review the experience of ccTLDs in personal domains.
       5.   Concerned about operability of international domain names. Increases the possibility of confusion and deception.
   B.   gTLD Registries: Cochetti
       1.   Must preserve integrity of Internet.
       2.   Promote growth, for everyone’s benefit.
       3.   Dyson: Thanks for being brief!
   C.   ISP Constituency
       1.   New registries should be not-for-profits, with competition in registrar function.
       2.   Public benefit must be considered. Perhaps topical groupings.
       3.   No organization should be considered for the delegation of more than one TLD.
       4.   Full scope of assignment should be clearly articulated, to avoid subsequent infringement.
       5.   Need clear guidelines for registration of SLDs.
       6.   No TLDs with pre-registrations
       7.   All should follow existing .com, .net, and .org policies
   D.   ccTLD Constituency
       1.   African ICANN participants: Urge vigilance when delegating regional TLDs, especially regions without a developed Internet community.
   E.   Registrars Constituency
       1.   [document presented]
       2.   Several registrars involved in TLD bids.
       3.   Commends registrar competition effort and new TLD process.
       4.   Principles adopted
           • Multiple new TLDs
           • One gTLD at least
           • Multiple chartered TLDs
           • All accredited registrars should be allowed to register their currently clients.
           • RRP – fair and equal.
           • Criteria for evaluating registries.
       5.   Q&A:
           • Cerf: Should have a limited number of registry protocols. Need to assure interoperability in case of registry failure. So should emphasize standardization.
           • Registrar Constituency seeks
   F.   Non-Com Constituency: Simons
       1.   Person filing complaint should not get to choose provider.
       2.   DNSO should form working group to make use of names.
       3.   Having a SLD in one TLD does not mean registrant should get that SLD in all other TLDs.
       4.   UDRP may not apply to all TLDs, and may apply to some TLDs differently than others.
       5.   In restricted TLDs, only entities eligible to register within the TLDs should be able to bring complaints against each other. UDRP should not become a weapon against civil society.
       6.   Urge ICANN to accept all technically and operationally-sound applications for unique TLDs.
       7.   Urge avoidance of granting new TLDs to those with 40% or larger market share in registration services in existing TLDs.
       8.   Oppose sunrise arrangements or other policies privileging trademark holders over others.
       9.   Should reopen TLD application process as soon as possible.
       10.   Q&A:
           • Cerf: Are those resolutions available?
           • On website:
   G.   Trademark and Intellectual Property Constituency: Metalitz
       1.   Have met with majority of applicants to discuss their applications. Appreciate their time and input. Believe these discussions resulted in changes that alter analysis in parts of staff report.
       2.   Feel the Board should choose among nineteen applications.
       3.   Applications should be contingent on fulfillment of statements in applications.
       4.   Staff report screens out some applications that we think are acceptable. That makes sense since staff report looks at broader issues. But some that staff recommends seem to us to have serious shortcomings, especially some personal domains, which would let anyone register any site for any use, violating principles of UDRP.
       5.   Remain skeptical of new unrestricted TLDs. If there are to be such new TLDs, they should at least have to follow the same protections of .com, .org, and .net.
       6.   Believe an open WHOIS is compatible with other values including privacy.
       7.   List of 19 proposals is available.
XIII.   Comments from TLD Applicants
   A.   Abacus (.biz, etc.) [link]
       1.   Cerf: Alternative TLD strings?
           • Absolutely yes. Have provided financial models for other TLDs also.
   B.   Affinity Internet (.biz, etc.) [link]
       1.   Dyson: Are you screening whether it’s a good the business?
       2.   Yes.
   C.   Afilias (.info, etc.) [link]
   D.   Commercial Connect (.mall, etc.)
   E.   Diebold (.cash, etc.) [link]
       1.   Dyson: Why does doing transactions require a TLD?
           • Anticipate an area where cash and related transactions can grow. “.secure” will be a place for firms to go for a guarantee of security.
       2.   Cerf: “” not just as good?
           • We have intentionally avoided any single organization’s view of how this should be done.
           • Cerf: “” just tells how to get to a particular place on the Internet. Same as “.secure.” Confused by your reasoning.
           • is one approach to this problem. We propose a different marketplace.
           • ICANN would be taking a position saying “Need security in this area. By creating the .secure domain, ICANN could help alleviate worldwide concerns about security.”
           • Could do that “” approach just as well with “” Prefer the open market approach we propose.
       3.   Dyson: This seems to use a TLD as a marketing seal. Not sure that’s appropriate.
   F.   Dubai Technology, Electronic Commerce and Media Free Zone Authority (.dubai, etc.)
       1.   Note application for .go also.
       2.   Dyson: Owned by Dubai?
           • Dubai government has inaugurated the Dubai Technology, Electronic Commerce and Media Free Zone. Intend to offer the cyber-community a new home.
       3.   Schink: How to assure quality?
           • Explicit content quality check. Checked continuously, with ratings and indexing to help consumers.
   G.   Eastern Communications Company Ltd (.firm, etc.)
       1.   No representative present.
   H.   iDomains (.biz, etc.) [link]
       1.   Propose country-code second-level-domains. Would reserve ISO 3166 country codes in second level of .biz. Automatically give a registrant the corresponding third-level domain (i.e. if an American joe registers, he also get No significant impact on business plan if this were prohibited. But we believe this feature is desirable for some applications in some regions.
       2.   Dyson: What about “.eu”?
           • Look to appropriate bodies for guidance.
   I.   Image Online Design (dba Web Registry)
       1.   Cerf: If someone registers in .web today, how does anyone find them?
           • Point to our zone servers. Our technology is stable and our registry is running.
   J.   JVTeam (.biz)
       1.   Joint effort of Neustar and Melbourne IT.
       2.   Dyson: Venture capitalists tend to change their minds about funding things these days.
           • Letter from VCs said they “stood ready.” Have $1.5 billion of assets ready. Investment would be long-term.
   K.   KDD Internet Solutions (.biz, etc.)
   L.   Name.Space (.ads, etc.)
       1.   Fitzsimmons: Have planned a limited introduction in this first phase. Staff says you requested 118. What are top three?
           • Willing to phase in. Can’t pick three off the top of my head.
           • Free-speech: “.sucks,” “.now,” can’t remember others.
           • Have a famous names policy, so the general public couldn’t register But someone who wants to register could do so if intending to criticize CNN.
           • Use “.news” to subsidize “.sucks.”
   M.   Neustar (.dot, etc.)
       1.   Preferred TLD is .web.
       2.   Cerf: What is your expectation for the opening moments of .web? Would registrants of .com names seek to register corresponding .web names also?
           • .web would provide a new opportunity for some who missed out on .com names.
   N.   Rathbawn Computers Limited (.africa)
       1.   No representative present
   O.   CORE (.nom)
       1.   Cerf: How to deal with “the McDonalds problem”?
           • Exclusion list, perhaps, to take care of these isolated problems.
           • Or registrant promises to pay cost in case they’re challenged.
   P.   JVTeam / Sarnoff (.iii) [link]
       1.   Fockler: What TLD?
           • Prefer .iii. But flexible.
       2.   Cerf: Non-transferability. What about when someone dies and family wants the name? Really not transferable at all?
           • A handful of reasons – divorce, marriage, death. But they’ll be discrete and well-defined. Want to assure that these domain names are not commodities.
       3.   Dyson: What is being merged here?
           • Take the best of Sarnoff and JVTeam.
   Q.   The dotNom Consortium (.nom) [link]
       1.   Dyson: But what about your proposal?
           • 3 minutes not enough time given the importance of this process. Must facilitate due process.
       2.   Pisanty: Have you responded to the staff report in the public comment forum?
           • Yes.
       3.   Pisanty: Anything you care to spend 45 or 90 seconds on about the proposal itself? I heard your complaint, but you seem to have thought the process good enough to be worth entering and continuing, including to this stage.
           • Hoped for more than three minutes. Appreciate the additional 45 seconds, but would rather just lodge this complaint.
       4.   Pisanty: After spending many hours studying the applications, I’d be interested in knowing whether I should read yours once more.
       5.   Dyson: We can’t give you another three minutes. Some of us might listen to your comments during the break.
       6.   Cerf: This process is not the last time we’ll add new TLDs. Must remind everyone that we will subsequently allocate additional TLDs. Hope that no one takes this the wrong way.
           • But there’s a big advantage to being first. So loss in this round yields a significant disadvantage.
       7.   Pisanty: Specific ideas re bulk registering of others’ names?
           • Have worked with .TV. Will use UDRP. Will work closely with IPC and others to come up with best solutions.
       8.   Pisanty: Corrective rather than preventive?
           • Would love to hear about preventive measures that are actually scalable.
   R.   The Global name Registry (.name, etc.) [link]
       1.   Pisanty: Owner of the family name shares third-level domain with the family?
           • Right, consistent with existing practices.
       2.   Pisanty: Massive registrations of others’ names?
           • Have to balance preventive action with corrective action. Looking into combinations of famous trademark lists, name lists, and dictionaries for a preventive solution.
       3.   Cerf: Remember the large number of people with identical names (in the context of MCI Mail). “The John Smith Problem.”
           • Unfortunately DNS only allows one entry. We could use the second-level domain for whatever we choose. But we could introduce numbers, though we don’t want to impose a structure (rather let people choose what they like).
       4.   Fockler: Envision a “.name” as well as “.nom” run by someone else with slightly different rules.
           • Important to accommodate various cultures and languages. Different strings desirable in different parts of the world.
   S.   Dyson: Break for 15 minutes.
   T.   Blueberry Hill Communications (.kids)
   U.   DotKids, Inc (.kids)
       1.   Schink: Filtering controlled by parents? Can you compare your method with local filtering software?
           • Uses a META tag. Rating is embedded in the HTML address of the site.
       2.   Cerf: Browsers need META tag readers in order for the tags to be effective.
   V.   ICM Registry (.kids, etc.) [link]
       1.   Dyson: Staff said that adult content industry was not interested in .xxx. You say the contrary.
           • We’ve been meeting with members of the adult content industry, and many say that they’d use it. Use it to show that they are responsible and want to protect children. And for business reasons – perhaps search engines will start categorizing material based on TLD.
       2.   Fitzsimmons: ICANN’s mission to protect kids on the Internet?
           • ICANN’s primary mission is technical oversight. But ICANN’s role shapes policy. If it will continue to do that, it should be responsible for, among other things, protecting children.
           • Fitzsimmons: Think we should be about as far from that as we can be. We focus on technical management and on transition to market-based mechanism.
           • Cohen: Agree. W. .KIDS Domain (.kids) [link]
       1.   Cerf: Wondering how this TLD would protect children? The 250 other TLDs would still remain, right? So children could still get to questionable content, via the other TLDs. How does .kids help this problem?
           • Content restriction is a part of what we’re trying to do.
           • Cerf: Client-side software to enforce constraints on what sites users can get to?
           • We don’t intend to monopolize such software.
           • Dyson: Issue is serving kids rather than protecting them.
X.   Association Monesgasque des Banques (.fin) [link]
       1.   Dyson: Withdrawing application? Suspend it?
           • No. Just want you to extend the period. Difficult to get a consensus in so little time.
       2.   Dyson: Board has said that this is not intended to be the last time we accept applications for new TLDs. And while we’re accepting some applications now, we are not necessarily rejecting the others; we don’t know yet what that means. Y. dotLaw (.law)
       1.   Pisanty: A legitimacy problem in the community you intend to serve?
           • They’ll appreciate that we’re an alternative to .com. Legal space is currently fragmented – law schools in .edu’s, law firms in .com’s. So the incentives will be to migrate to our space.
           • Pisanty: But no dearth (shortage) of business for lawyers.
       2.   Cerf: Business model is exclusivity? Only parties meeting some criteria can register?
           • Yes – lawyers, law students, law firms, etc. Z. International Air Transport Association ([link])
       1.   Pisanty: Should we discount the messages sent to the forum?
           • Less than 0.1% of travel agents weighed in on this question.
           • Dyson: Concern is that many feel unrepresented.
       2.   Cerf: Received substantial negative email about this proposal, and no positive email. Understand about discounting this email. But is there documentation in your submissions of what was going on here?
           • We didn’t ask our members to send you direct emails. We didn’t think that was the proper procedure. We submitted closing comments to the public comment forum, reviewing the various parties that supported us.
       3.   Schink: Could travel agents belonging to the “wrong” association register a name under .travel nonetheless?
           • Absolutely. Many who opposed IATA’s application are actually affiliated with IATA.
           • Dyson: But if they’re actually your members and they don’t want you to receive this TLD. Maybe only management supports this, but members don’t?
           • There’s been some turbulence in the airline industry, due to advances of Internet, reducing distribution costs and letting consumers by tickets direct. As a result, agents see anything that airlines propose as a negative.
   AA.   RegistryPro (.pro) [link]
       1.   Schink: How to verify that registrants are actually professionals?
           • Challenges through a process modeled on the UDRP. Use Baltimore, a security firm, which also hosts technical operations.
       2.   Pisanty: How to scale the verification process?
           • Work with international organizations. Think this would scale acceptably. Individual registrars will handle verification, and they’ll set charges according to their expertise.
       3.   Cerf: Use encryption systems?
           • Baltimore could do this at some point in the future.
   BB.   dotPRO Consortium (.pro) [link]
       1.   Dyson: What is the legal structure of the consortium? What authentication services?
           • Have commitments (upon award) to participate. Anticipate general commercial registrations, rather than restrictions. Intend a third-level domain system to naturally self-regulate.
   CC.   Cooperative League of the USA (.co-op)
   DD.   International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (.union)
   EE.   Internet Events International (.event)
       1.   Cerf: Events happen and then are done. Do you expect a high-rate of turnover of registrations as sites turn over?
           • Expect a 20% turnover. But many events repeat.
   FF.   Museum Domain Management Association (.museum)
       1.   Intend to help provide the .museum space to the community. No risk of funding evaporating.
       2.   Cerf: Suppose we could describe what a registry needs to do well enough that the database could be moved to another operating registry while registrars continue to function. One business could be to outsource the registry function for a variety of TLDs.
           • Hope to be pioneers among .library, .site, etc.
       3.   Fitzsimmons: Founding members?
           • Hope to resolve any minor concerns that there may be on this subject.
   GG.   SITA (.air) [link]
   HH.   Universal Postal Union (.post) [link]
       1.   Cerf: Would your business model work if each post office had a domain name within the corresponding ccTLD?
           • No. But community will benefit from the use of a single unified TLD with a single set of standards.
       2.   Dyson: Issues – government owned versus privatization, etc. Concerned about inserting ICANN into the middle of this.
           • United Nations has the UPU to assure that mail travels between countries. Each country has to be a member of the UPU.
       3.   Kraaijenbrink: DHL doesn’t fit in, though. How to deal with problems like this?
       4.   Pisanty: From my post office, I hope for a 50% success rate and a 3-week delivery timetable. But what about the addresses? Outside developed countries, addresses are poorly-defined (“150 meters after the bump”). Have you thought about how this works with your system?
           • No unified address system developed as yet. But maybe this will present an opportunity for moving forward.
II.   World Health Organization (.health) [link]
       1.   Cerf: Who’s allowed to register in .health? Health care organizations?
           • Anyone involved in the health care industry.
       2.   Guarantee?
           • .health would help people know what they’re getting. Would have to do different kinds of review for different kinds of content – health care providers versus pharmaceutical companies versus doctors. Goal is to improve quality of health information on the Internet. Bogus sites won’t be able to register in .health.
   JJ.   Group One Registry (.one) [link]
       1.   Cerf: Arbitrary numeric strings assigned to a registrant? But all-numeric registrations could be confused with IP addresses.
           • But the trailing “.one” eliminates confusion.
       2.   Schink: Why is it beneficial to use a numerical string?
           • Cerf: On a touch pad, it’s easier to enter numbers than strings. And fewer trademark problems. So numbers might be preferable for some reason.
           • Sequential, for more efficient use of name space.
   KK. (.tel)
       1.   Cerf: How to prevent telephone number hijacking?
           • Certification. Audits on a sample of the namespace via confirmation with owner or telephone company.
           • Cerf: Not comfortable with that.
       2.   Schink: Link phone number with an arbitrary IP address. Which IP? The IP of what? A web server or an IP-enabled phone or something else?
           • Cerf: Perhaps don’t register unless you want a web site to be associated with your phone number.
   LL.   Pulver/Peek/Marschel (.tel) [link]
       1.   Cerf: Why bind at all to the PSTN numbers? Why not just use different numbers of your own? Seems like there’s flexibility here.
           • Application reflects our plans for verification, including callbacks. Think people are used to using telephone numbers.
   MM.   Telnic Limited (.tel) [link]
       1.   Kraaijenbrink: If we delete the country-code reference from the SLDs, would that harm your business plan? Change from “” to “”
           • Not at all? Structure of sub-addressing is comprehensive.
       2.   Schink: User-friendly addressing in telephony is not new. Standards bodies are working on this too. How does your proposal relate to work at ETSI and elsewhere?
           • Related to ITU work. Aware of those references, and followed their proposals.
   NN.   DADA, SpA (.pid)
       1.   Fockler: Didn’t base any decisions on the category of the TLD.
           • But the point of view of the evaluation process was skewed as a result of the misclassification.
   OO.   Nokia (.mas, etc.)
       1.   Schink: How would .mobile be better for a mobile Internet user than .net?
           • Develop technology first, and put the systems in place, to make the system smooth.
   PP.   Monsoon Assets Limited (.find, etc.) [link]
       1.   Cerf: What’s the magic here? Why does this make it easier to find people?
           • “Do you have a Kamasi telephone book in your home?” Requests are passed to our servers, with results based on what you typed, where you are, similar searches.
       2.   Cerf: Domain name server has been modified?
           • Yes
   QQ.   Novell (.dir) [link]
       1.   Murai: This adds a new set of semantics to the DNS? Sounds like “hijacking”?
           • Hope to solve whatever interoperability problems may arise.
       2.   Dyson: This proposal is what it is. Discuss it tomorrow.
   RR.   SRI International (.geo)
       1.   Murai: Scaling? How does this work?
           • Divide the world into smaller and smaller units, hierarchically, via DNS. Exact location of the object is what’s stored in the DNS.
       2.   Cerf: Other alternatives for achieving same result? Build inverse mapping?
           • That would work for things that have IP addresses. But what about things that don’t have IPs?
XIV.   Status Update - Dyson
   A.   GAC still meeting, trying to make decisions.
   B.   Now we take public comments. Line up!
       1.   One minute per person. Introduce yourself via the computer terminal. (Please capitalize it correctly, according to the on-screen instructions.)
XV.   Public Comments
   A.   Peter Gerrand: Members of Board seem to have been influenced by a concerted email campaign against .travel. Remember that ICANN itself was the target of a similar email campaign a year ago. So keep things in perspective.
   B.   Jon Weinberg: Serious process concerns here. Staff report came very late; no opportunity for public comment on it. Don’t need to select between applicants; can take them all.
   C.   Pilar Luque (.es): Need more emphasis on multilingualism. Could fund the secretariat of the ccTLD Constituency which has best international outreach.
   D.   Theo Ivanov: ICANN’s web forum hasn’t been successful. Most forum participants have direct interests in particular applications. MSNBC forum is more valid.
   E.   Laurie Williams (Attorney): Submitted name for ICANN election. But there were roadblocks. Voters should have been able to opt in or out of email campaign. ICANN should facilitate communication among domain owners.
   F.   Keith Teare (RealNames Corp): Internet was never intended to handle generic TLDs. Generic TLDs undermine ccTLDs. Businesses should be businesses within a country’s scope. DNS was never intended to define a special-purpose names. See
   G.   Coombs (Online comment #1093): Read in its entirety. Should adopt Business Constituency proposal to study ccTLD implementation of personal TLDs.
   H.   Rhodes (#1084): Restricted commercial TLDs address the important need for clarity to commercial users.
   I.   YJ Park: Need to review whether NC decision was right in failing to review the details of the TLD application process.
   J.   Michael Froomkin (U.Miami Law): Decisions will be most legitimate (and most legal under US law) if they cannot be characterized by making social policy. Advise accepting all applications that are technically competent. Also, no case for sunrise provisions. Don’t accept .geo because it attempts to create a standard through the DNS.
   K.   David Corish (Functional Metal): SBA says “sunrise provision is not grounded in law.” Will impact entities not infringing on the mark. Creates presumption that commercial use is superior to non-commercial.
   L.   Kent Crispin (Songbird): Doubt that it’s practical to have uniform policies for ccTLDs.
   M.   Dave Crocker (Brandenburg): It’s easy to criticize the work of ICANN. But have to balance complex and competing constraints. Must continue to do that even in the face of distraction and attempted intimidation. Many proposals want to extend DNS beyond original goal. “Finding something” suggests directory space, which is not DNS.
   N.   Ellen Rony (Domain Handbook): Board should provide proof of concept of this process. Has there been enough time for public comment? Why were applicants not told that restricted content would not be considered? Where’s the “real” evaluation report (rumor: 500 page report underlying the staff summary)? What about multiple applications? Why are elected representatives not seated?
       1.   McLaughlin: No 500 page report!
       2.   Dyson: I haven’t seen one.
   O.   Sloan Gaon ( Applaud efforts, thoroughness, transparency. Success of opening registrar space is a model for this process. Look at each application’s ability to promote stability.
   P.   Goldberg (#1080): “Please freeze new TLD evaluation process.”
   Q.   Oppenheimer (#1100): Position re challenge from existing TLDs if colliders adopted?
   R.   David Holtzman: Left a letter with staff promoting fun and healthy dialogue on the Internet - .par, .sat, and .not (for parody, ,satire, and counterpoint). Would need to assure that registrants here are different than those of corresponding SLDs in other TLDs.
   S.   Mamedov: Developing countries cannot focus on this process. Need a deliberate and careful procedure.
   T.   Mark Drake: Need diversification of name space, and end to monopolistic practices. Competition is important to the public, so decisions should favor competition.
   U.   Ramon Morales: Most important issue is to recognize that these applications are pioneers. Congratulate Board for patience and diligence. Work must continue.
   V.   Chun Eung Hwi (PeaceNet Korea): gTLDs are monopolized by the US. Need to emphasize gTLDs with a variety of geographic locations for registry operations. .Africa may not be most popular with African people. W. Siegfried Langenbach: Disappointed with the Board’s approach. Errors in reports. Time pressure may be responsible for these flaws. Don’t want to delay the process.
   X.   Matt Hooker (General Assembly): Board must focus on the average human user with a limited memory. Each new TLD approved means another 20 or 30 approved in ccTLDs. Current domain holders have expended great resources in making public aware of the existing TLDs. Y. Eric Schaetzlein (Schlund): Convinced that ICANN process will work. Z. Phil Berent (Affinity): Consider the difficulty of using an extended UDRP as the sole method of enforcing charters. And most applicants haven’t even specified what their restrictions will be.
   AA.   Kiyoshi Tsuru (AMPPI): Protection of IP rights is important to maintaining the good faith of all interested parties. Urge the Board to adopt preventive mechanisms and dispute resolution mechanisms. Favor new TLDs promoting diversity.
   BB.   Palage (ICM Registry): .xxx and .kids are not seeking to segregate content, rather to categorize content. This may be controversial. NSI has established a body of law in which courts have rejected first amendment concerns with first or second-level domains.
   CC.   Eric Menge (SBA): Comments of the SBA, not the DoC or Administration. SBA doesn’t support sunrise provisions, and applications should be amended as necessary to remove them.
   DD.   Rick Lane (US Chamber of Commerce): Small businesses have no idea what ICANN is or what TLDs are. Can’t comment on their thoughts or views there. But they do care about stability. Rollout should be slow, and businesses should get to adapt to new TLDs.
   EE.   Lora Mohr (Internet Events International): Appreciate the opportunity to be here. Would like to see our proposal considered on its merits individually.
       1.   Dyson: We are paying attention to them all.
   FF.   Karl Auerbach: Ideas should succeed or fail on their own merits, not based on arbitrary criteria. First demonstrated use on the Internet should prevail. And limit of one application per entity.
   GG.   Iliya Nickelt (VOV): ICANN staff is overworked. Documents are published late. DNSO secretariat is under question, with NSI to be the sponsor. ICANN staff should provide that service. And lawsuits will only make this harder. WHOIS may be in violation of national and/or international law.
   HH.   Peter de Blanc (ccTLD adcom Committee): Over 40 ccTLD managers wish to object to use of regional geographic names.
   II.   Chuck Tennin (Big Fish Music): UDRP is one-sided. Violates American principles of fairness.
       1.   Dyson: We are evaluating the UDRP and its implementation. Have many concerns.
   JJ.   Sexton (#1075): “… that registrar community doesn’t want .xxx is irrelevant. It’s the marketplace that makes these calls … seems the most successful candidate for a new TLD …”
   KK.   Mike Palage (Former WG-B Chair): UDRP is not perfect. But it’s workable. Sunrise provisions may not work for future rollouts, but it’s ideal for this application. JPNIC used something similar with great success.
XVI.   Status
   A.   Comments from ASO
   B.   Reception in 45 minutes
   C.   GAC report tomorrow
   D.   Board Meeting at 8AM


For additional technical information, please contact:  

Ben Edelman and Rebecca Nesson
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School 

Other ICANN-Related Content from The Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Translate with Altavista Babelfish: Deutsch, Espanol, Francais, Italiano, Portugues