November 15, 2001
Marina del Rey, California
ICANN Public Meetings
I. Comments from Organizers of Accra Meeting
A. Preparations began immediately after Montevideo
B. Have been in touch with organizers of prior meetings.
C. Meeting from March 10-14, 2002. Temperate and dry.
D. Possibilities for holiday/vacation before or after meeting.
E. Visa assistance to be provided at airport as needed.
F. Planning on schedule.
II. Public Comments on Other Subjects
A. Danny Younger (General Assembly): Please that ICANN is interested in DNSO review and that this process is coming to an end. But reforms so far are too limited. Votes among GA request that ICANN give weight to reform of the DNSO.
B. Jon Zittrain (Berkman Center, #1386 remote): Concerned to receive “Payment past due” notices from Verisign even when domain transferred away from Verisign. Perhaps a mistake or perhaps intentional? A matter for ICANN accreditation agreement follow-up?
1. Lynn: Send the details via email.
C. Kilnam Chon (.kr): Concerned that Verisign IDNs are moving forward to two levels of multilingual hierarchy (“IDN dot IDN” – second- and top-level domain names in other character sets). Causes a requirement (or perception of requirement) for duplicate registrations, which is bad for consumers. ICANN should take action to prevent this problem from worsening.
1. Katoh: Speak only for myself, not for IDN Committee. Many misunderstandings of facts. Have to make sure decisions are based on correct understanding of facts.
D. Esther Dyson (ALSC/EDventure Holdings): Speaking for self and partially for ALSC. Hope Board will bless final ALSC report. ( http://www.atlargestudy.org/final_report.shtml ) We find consensus on the general principles of At Large involvement, on At Large councils. Now need involvement of rest of ICANN community – links from registrars to At Large, how to verify and authenticate, etc. Domain name holders alone will not foster consensus; other requirements might include physical presence at meeting.
E. Matt Hooker (individual, lowestprices.com): Asks ICANN to represent interests of people who buy domain names. Should be made clear that ‘buying’ domain names is really only ‘leasing’ them. Those who hold domain names are concerned that registration and renewal prices may increase, and price caps should be put in place for this reason. Also, .COM is being diluted by new TLDs, reducing the value of the domain names of existing registrants. Creation of new TLDs dilutes value of existing registrations. ICANN should prevent this from taking place.
F. Harold Feld (MAP): Have faced problems similar to Zittrain’s. Even sophisticated consumers can get confused here. Have drafted a white paper about At Large issues. Suggesting the possibility of restructuring will delay ICANN’s progress and will cause an endless flow of groups seeking increases in their own representation. Avoid making changes precisely to avoid this problem. Appearances are also negative – looks like ICANN now reduces power of At Large now, despite big promises in the past. Board should be concerned about appearance of staff comments, even informal comments. Worries of mission creep. Hard for public interest to know how best to participate in ICANN.
1. Pisanty: One main concern about mission creep?
• TLD contracts. Contract negotiations seem to add a number of new regulations beyond what was previously anticipated.
• Cerf: Note that much language is from the proposals themselves.
2. Auerbach: What to fix first?
• Depends. Easiest would be mission creep – deny the ALSC the ability to restructure all of ICANN, but rather limit it to At Large. Most urgent: Diversity of Board views.
G. Joan Dzenowagis (World Health Organization): Proposed .HEALTH a year ago. Hoping for an update on status. Needs are still urgent, even as evaluation of existing TLDs remains pending and behind schedule. Should form a plan for moving forward, perhaps via a small committee dedicated to this task. Should call for an expression of interests from proposals that are still pending, should met with those with outstanding concerns, should choose names for the next round by June or July.
1. Lynn: New TLD Evaluation Committee report is behind schedule due to recent events. Interim report will recommend parallel tracks.
2. Auerbach: Rumors of the interim report suggest limitations in numbers.
H. Daniel Inusa ( University of Jos Nigeria): Representatives from developing countries ask for fee waivers or reductions, fully nine At Large seats, inclusion of interested individuals other than domain name holders.
I. Philip Shepard (Names Council): NC passed a motion yesterday that endorses ALSC’s broad principles and favors extending the ALSC until March 2002.
J. Rick Wesson (Registrars Constituency): Send registrar concerns to contact info as posted at http://www.icann-registrars.org . Registrars are concerned with implementation of prototype systems described in an Internet Draft because changes, confusion may result. Specifically, concerned about nameprep and IDN.
1. Kraaijenbrink: Forward this to PSO and IETF?
• IETF does not take a position on IDNs and working groups, in general.
2. Cerf: Don’t have enough data. But deployment in a testbed might be viewed differently than in an operational environment?
• Hard to know what a testbed is. Testbed data is sometimes deployed into an operational environment.
3. Cerf: If testbed meant “not in operational system”
• Then we’d agree.
K. Marilyn Cade (Business Constituency): ALSC recommendations should be supported by Board. Approve of extending life of ALSC. Registration of a domain name should be the basis for participation in AL.
1. Auerbach: Definitions of “users,” “providers,” and “developers”?
• Favor broad definitions, if these definitions must be used at all. See paper on http://www.bizconst.org/bcmain.htm .
L. Karrenberg (#1387) (shown on screen): Concerned about placement of root servers. Failure to take action is an action of its own. Board should move forward here.
M. Milton Mueller (Syracuse): Voted for the resolution Sheppard presented. Endorse the principles of the ALSC report but not the implementation. Non-Commercial Constituency favors the original 9-9 structure. Cade’s concern about definitions is serious – creates doubt about where the rest of the Board comes from. In new structure, it is unclear where serious consensus compromises take place.
N. Joop Teernstra (#1388 – shown and read): Unhappy with task force for DNSO reform. Fails to address creation of new constituencies.
1. Sheppard: Report was asked to set criteria for applications for recognition of new constituencies. But report was not asked to address the individuals constituency specifically.
O. Slobodan Markovic (Internodium): Propose a straightforward and inexpensive means of outreach – a newsletter (monthly or bimonthly) with information on what is happening with ICANN’s work, readily translated by interested people worldwide.
1. Lynn: Thinking about that. Hope volunteers could do translation.
P. Peter de Blanc (ccTLD SO): Communique presented – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001/archive/pres/cctld-communique.html
1. Progress being made in defining the ccTLD SO. Members to be ccTLD registries. Three representatives from each of five regions. 2/3 of members from each region to be required to form a consensus policy.
2. Discussion with other parts of ICANN.
3. Security improvements to include geographic distribution of servers.
4. Following IDN issues.
5. Concern about IANA performance.
6. Discussions with ALSC are pending.
7. Blokzijl: Negotiations use service level and change approval to get contracts signed? Or IANA provides the best service possible to all?
• Lynn: Differences in how things get expressed and what words mean. ICANN is not signing service agreements because such agreements do not reflect what we think the agreements need. Board has previously indicated that staff is not to make new delegations without agreements. Redelegations are different from simple changes.
• Auerbach: Board should be clear to staff that contact information should be updated with priority.
• Pisanty: Board would like to help in smoothing communications.
Q. Peter Dengate Thrush ( ccTLD SO): Speaking for self. Last year, warned ICANN that ccTLDs and ICANN relations are not improving. Root server operators want only a MoU because they fear a contract is “too brittle.” We too are uncertain. ccTLDs are different from gTLDs, and ICANN should deal with them differently as a result. Not clear that ICANN should choose the successor registry for a ccTLD, for example.
R. Michael Steinbaum (Internet Driver, Inc.): Concern that IDNs might fracture the Internet along language lines – unable to view web sites in other languages, send emails, etc. Ask that ICANN take a look at these issues. Standard needs to address this problem.
S. Dave Crocker (Brandenburg InternetWorking): ALSC report reflects a reasonable set of compromises on a difficult issue. Diversity on Board will benefit from the third-third-third split, rather than half-half.
1. Auerbach: Board has nineteen members. Nine is less than half.
T. Roberto Laorden (Interdomain): Involved in Verisign IDN testbed. Customers are confused. Cost and inconvenience to registrars and to customers is significant. IDN should not have been rushed, and IDN should not be added to zone file until additional concerns resolved.
U. Elliot Noss (Tucows): Tucows hopes to make special-purpose (random character) domain names available to those who want to participate in AL.
V. Judith Oppenheimer (#1389 – displayed and read): Surprised to hear that a decision to be taken today on “basics” of ALSC report. Thought 7 days of notice needed.
1. Cerf: Will discuss the subject. No decision to be made. W. Christopher Chiu (IDP/ACLU): Want to see progress on new TLDS, At Large.
X. Bob Connelly (PSI-Japan, Inc.): Was disappointed with Afilias sunrise period. Offered to sell PSI’s shares in Afilias.
III. Governmental Advisory Committee - Twomey
A. Communique Presented – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001/archive/pres/gac-communique.html
B. Thanks to local sponsors.
C. Auerbach: WHOIS and registry protocols are capable of handling IPv6 registrations?
1. Blokzijl: Yes.
2. Issue of applications, not protocols.
3. RIPE and APNIC databases support IPv6 addresses. Unsure about ARIN and registry systems.
4. Wesson: WHOIS can support any text string.
D. “GAC welcomed the presentations it received on the At Large issue and will consider it further at its next meeting.” That is the only agreed GAC wording on this subject.
IV. Board Meeting - Resolutions
V. President’s Report
A. Agreements completed since Montevideo
1. .MUSEUM is done
2. .COOP is complete
3. .AERO is close
4. .PRO is pending, conclusion expected quickly
5. These four will complete the first seven new TLD additions.
B. Address registry agreements pending, to be completed this month.
C. Root server agreements are pending. Each root server operator works for a separate organization, which causes some delays.
D. ccTLD agreement with Australia signed - http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-25oct01.htm
1. Progress depends on willingness and interest of each country in entering into agreements.
E. Working with auditors.
F. Staffing remains below what budget contemplates. Do not actually have the cash on hand. Questions remain re rate of income inflow.
G. IANA services. Many hallway discussions about performance; facts: on average, 12 days of turnaround for name server change are attributable to ICANN, while other 18 are DoC and ccTLD-caused. 12 is good, but could be better. Note that these facts do not include those change requests that are suspected of being stealth redelegations.
H. Simultaneous language translation moving less quickly than hoped. Committee less responsive than hoped. Perhaps we should move forward with the proposal as it stands.
I. New TLD Evaluation Task Force: Interim report expected within next several weeks. Sensitive to need for parallel tracks (for other new TLDs).
J. Auerbach: Lengthen the period for comment on new TLD report?
1. Tried to be sensitive to this. January 10.
K. Auerbach: Ballpark figure for cost of IANA services?
1. Working on new way of presenting expense information. Don’t want to guess.
A. Pisanty nominates Cerf for Chairman.
1. No objections.
B. Cohen: Favor a more formal process for elections. Will abstain.
C. Kraaijenbrink nominates Pisanty for Vice-Chairman.
1. No objections.
D. Election of Officers – Lynn as President and CEO, Touton as Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, McLaughlin as Chief Financial Officer
1. Lynn, Cohen, __ abstain. Auerbach objects. All others in favor.
2. Resolutions pass.
VII. Renewal of Committees
A. Executive Committee of the Board
1. Proposed: Pisanty, Quaynor, Kyong, Kraaijenbrink, Lynn
2. Abril i Abril: Unsure about the need for the Executive Committee.
3. Auerbach: Recognize the need for Executive Committee – but only in truly exceptional circumstances when it is impossible to convene the rest of the Board.
4. Cohen: Executive Committee should exist. But Executive Committee should rotate annually.
5. Auerbach opposed. Cohen, Mueller-Maguhn abstain. Rest in favor.
B. Conflicts Committee
1. Blokzijl to chair, Auerbach and Davidson to be other members.
2. Blokzijl, Auerbach, Davidson abstains.
C. Audit Committee
1. Davidson to chair, Fitzsimmons, and Murai to be other members.
2. Davidson and Murai abstain. Others in favor.
D. Finance Committee
1. Wilson to chair, Cohen, Schink, and Moura Campos to be members.
2. Three abstentions. Others in favor.
E. Meetings Committee
1. Cohen to chair, Kyong, Mueller-Maguhn, and Quaynor to be members.
2. Mueller-Maguhn: Conflict on meetings committee re charging a fee for meetings (which Cohen favors and others oppose). Jonathan may disagree with the choice of the rest of us.
• Cerf: Disagreements within the Committee could be passed on to the rest of the Board.
3. Cohen, Mueller-Maguhn, Quaynor abstain. Others in favor.
F. Executive Search Committee
1. Motion not placed on the table.
G. Reconsideration Committee
1. Kraaijenbrink to be chair. Members Abril i Abril, Chapin, Katoh, Pisanty to be members.
2. Auerbach: Want committee to be more active.
3. Auerbach against. Pisanty, Chapin, Katoh abstain.
VIII. Standing Security Committee
A. Lynn: Intend the President to appoint a Committee. Committee to write charter for approval by Board, which then approves both charter and membership.
1. Blokzijl: Charter and composition both to be approved by Board?
• Lynn: Board’s approval required to convert the Committee to be an Advisory Committee.
B. Auerbach: Concerned about lack of public review and feedback of this. Need to revisit possibility of an ICANN CTO?
1. Lynn: President can appoint a standing committee at any time. But Board approval helpful in sending a message to community that Board takes this seriously.
C. Kraaijenbrink: Propose amendment to add “with at least a focus on risk analysis and auditing thereof.”
D. Abril i Abril: Concrete issues about registrar escrow, nameserver backup, etc.
E. Cerf: Anticipate that work will be done by others (not on committee) partially as a result of encouragement from committee.
F. Murai: Timetable?
1. Lynn: Hope to get back to the Board within a few weeks.
G. Kyong: Clarification re speed. Don’t plan to wait until next meeting in March?
1. Lynn: Want to move forward quickly. Develop and post charter promptly.
2. Cerf: Roughly 30 days.
H. Vote on resolution as amended
1. Auerbach against. All others in favor.
IX. IDN Committee
A. History of committee
B. Proposal for IDN committee of Kyong, Falstrom, Weng-Sung Chen, Hu, Sharil Tarmizi, Gurry, Lynn. Up to $100,000 for staff, travel, and other expenses.
C. Mueller-Maguhn: Oppose inclusion of a WIPO representative. Intellectual property does not have anything to do with IDNs. ICANN should not spend money for the benefit of the intellectual property community. Or should add someone from the “free speech” community.
1. Abril i Abril: Not solely a technical question. Social questions also. Adding a “free speech” representative is helpful. Also, concerned that too many committees are being formed, but not enough discussion of real issues.
2. Auerbach: What about the “good spelling” community? List should include those with technical interest and knowledge, not just anyone who is interested.
3. Katoh: Want to move quickly because issues are urgent. Intellectual property issues are serious because there will be new complications. For example, UDRP panelists will now need non-ASCII expertise. IP groups need to be involved here.
4. Cohen: Domain name system relates closely to intellectual property. Concerns are real and need to be addressed.
5. Auerbach: It’s not fair to equate being on the committee with participating via submissions.
6. Lynn: This committee will solely coordinate. Not going to solve all problems on its own. But a representative of WIPO can help inform coordination of UDRP-related and other IP work of the Committee.
7. Mueller-Maguhn: ICANN should not unduly favor intellectual property in the namespace. Other issues are affected by decisions here.
8. Cerf: Specific amendment? See if other Board Members are convinced. How to phrase such an amendment?
• Auerbach: Strike the seat granted to WIPO and its representative.
• Motion to amend seconded. 6 in favor (Auerbach, Chapin, Wilson, Mueller-Maguhn, Murai, Pisanty); 5 against; 6 abstaining. Amendment passed.
• Wilson: those with interests before the committee should be invited to participate through comment.
9. Cerf: Amended motion is on the table. 16 in favor of amended resolution. Cohen opposes. Amended motion passes.
10. Wilson: Is $100,000 enough for the committee to do its work in time? Is the committee’s work likely to extend past the current fiscal year? Does this go beyond current authorized expenditure level?
• Lynn: There is currently no work plan for the committee; the proposed amount is subject to revision. Uncertain whether committee’s work beyond current year. This is an increase in expenditure beyond current authorized level.
• Wilson: Is there really any reserve to dip into? - Lynn: there is a reserve budget of several hundred thousand dollars, but cash is not available yet.
X. Geographic and Geopolitical Domains in .info
A. Lynn: proposed action plan at http://www.icann.org/montevideo/action-plan-country-names-09oct01.htm
1. resolution on table re proposed action plan.
• Mueller-Maguhn: doesn’t appear that countries are ‘organizations responsible for maintenance of Internet infrastructure’.
• Cerf: understands that under contract, ICANN is to reserve certain terms from being registered.
• Touton: in Montevideo, Board instructed Touton to register certain names in ICANN’s name to hold until it can determine what should be done with them.
• Mueller-Maguhn: Can these names be transferred to countries? - Touton: Nothing in action plan calls for transfer.
• Abril i Abril: NC should be involved in this discussion. Resolution of NC should be added to documents on the table.
• Touton: Could insert needed language. Should GAC response resolution also be put on the table. Insert following language: - “Whereas on 2_ October 2001 the NC adopted a resolution commenting on this issue and on 28 October 2001 the GAC submitted additional commentary, both of which have been posted.”
• 13 in favor of adopting resolution. 4 abstentions. Motion passes.
XI. ALSC Report
A. Cerf: acknowledges members of committee, meetings held, expresses gratitude for those involved. Recommends acceptance of the report as basis for discussion. Invites further commentary and asks that it be submitted within 45 days of passage (today). Asks that Board concur that individuals have a significant stake in the Internet. Asks that ALSC continue their service during implementation. Term of ALSC would be extended through meeting in Accra. Board would be committed to carrying out elections if necessary. Board will discuss and consider recommendations contained in report and intends to reach decision at Accra meeting.
1. Motion on table.
B. Blokzijl: Just planning at this point, not implementing any of it?
1. Cerf: Correct. Planning.
C. Mueller-Maguhn: Changes: “… in particular from those not represented by the DNSO”
1. Lynn: “… and broadly from across the community”
2. Wilson: What’s the difference between the ICANN community and the Internet community?
• Mueller-Maguhn: ICANN community may not include those who just use DNS but do not hold a domain name.
3. Kraaijenbrink: Either President consults with ALSC and (entire) Board, or only with ALSC. But President shouldn’t consult with only a part of the Board.
• Cerf: “Members of the Board”?
• Kraaijenbrink: “The Board” or not at all.
• Mueller-Maguhn: Fine.
• Lynn: Hard to work if I must consult with entire Board at every decision. Not consistent with prior practice or with Bylaws.
• Cerf: Question is whether to eliminate “the members” in “the members of the Board.”
• Mueller-Maguhn: “Members of the Board” is most practical. Refers to only those who are interested.
• Wilson: How soon will Board be consulted?
• Lynn: This is intended to develop options for the Board. I intend to come back to the Board with regular reports for guidance.
• Abril i Abril: When first joined the Board, investigated method of operation of the Board. Mueller-Maguhn’s amendment should not suggest that the existing At Large directors are more closely involved in AL planning (and perhaps their own reelection). This is not how the Board should work.
• Campos: Hard to capture so many concepts in the resolution. Should be clear that we are working on the basis of the ALSC report, but this does not mean we are committing to do this one way or another.
• Cerf: Can we accept Stuart’s recommendation?
• Auerbach: concerned about creeping fait accompli. Doesn’t want to prejudice our flexibility in modifying ALSC report.
• Campos: Safest way to proceed is to listen to him (Campos) first. Removing problematic language will simplify process.
• Cerf: “Mindful of recommendations contained in ALSC report” might solve the problem – the report would then be non-binding.
• Lynn: Board would have monthly telephonic meetings at which Lynn would ask for guidance.
• Auerbach: concerned about language about language that Board “accepts” ALSC report as basis for discussion. Wants to change it to “acknowledge receipt of.” Motion to amend, seconded, on the table. - Auerbach, Mueller-Maguhn affirm. One abstention. Rest of Board opposes. Amendment fails.
• Abril i Abril: concerned that progress is too slow. Would like Board to take initiative.
• Auerbach: Concerned that resolution conveys notion of adoption of ALSC report.
4. Vote on Resolution. 15 affirm. Auerbach opposes.
XII. Formation of Restructuring Committee.
A. Cerf: Would put in place a procedure for considering future reports and recommendations other than that of the ALSC.
B. Motion on the table.
C. Vote: 14 affirm. Auerbach opposes. Kraaijenbrink abstains. Motion passes.
XIII. Other Business: Alignment of Termination of Director’s Terms.
A. Cerf: Would instruct General Counsel to formulate language to align termination of directors’ terms as a by-law modification.
B. Touton: Accepts instruction.
C. Motion on table.
D. Vote:15 affirm. No abstentions. Motion passes.
XIV. Internationalized Domain Names
A. Kyong: Responding to Chon's concerns given at open mic about Verisign's plan to offer registration and resolution services of IDN equivalent of .com in Korea ("multilingual-dot-multilingual"). In consideration of the urgency of Chon's concerns, the President and Staff should be instructed to start fact-finding and discussions with Verisign such that Chon's worries do not materialize. The President should report to the Board his findings and actions as soon as possible.
B. Moura Campos: Share this concern. President should be instructed as Kyong proposes due to the possible serious consequences of Verisign's plan and the rapid timetable here.
C. Cerf - Understand the sense of the Board.
XV. Resolution to thank program committee, speakers, panelists, and sponsors. Resolution unanimously passed.
XVI. Meeting adjourned.
For additional technical information, please contact:
Ben Edelman and Rebecca Nesson