|
March 12, 2001 Melbourne, Australia ICANN Public Meetings ICANN Public Forum 3/12/01 – Melbourne, Australia I. Welcome – Vint Cerf, Chairman of Board A. Please be concise and clear. B. Welcome to Stuart Lynn, new CEO of ICANN. II. Introduction of Board Members A. Cerf B. Mueller Maguhn C. Pisanty D. Fockler E. Blokzijl F. Schink G. Kyong H. Auerbach I. Cohen J. Wilson K. Kraaijenbrink L. Campos M. Quaynor N. Davidson O. Abril i Abril P. Fitzsimmons Q. Katoh R. Roberts S. Murai III. Introduction of Staff A. Sims B. Touton C. McLaughlin IV. CEO Report A. General health of ICANN reflected by turnout at meetings. B. Meetings began early on Friday. Busy week, busy day. C. Are looking for appropriate and creative ways tot balance load of Board and Staff. D. ICANN is in good financial health. $2 million in the bank. Paying bills. Extreme financial difficulties are behind us. E. Financial health has come at the expense of diminished staff resources. Make ends meet by conducting affairs conservatively – not doing anything we don’t have money to do. Some complain that ICANN should be doing more, but we have two million dollars of past-due receivables by organizations with obligations to support ICANN. The absence of that money prevents certain activities. Audience members should consider whether organizations owing ICANN money should pay at this time. V. Committee Reports A. Root Server System – Jun Murai 1. Presentation delivered: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/presentations/murai-rssac.html 2. Cerf: Must have only thirteen servers? Creating more requires disabling some of the existing servers? • Murai: Are upgrading underlying DNS software to accommodate many more root servers. 3. Cerf: Status report re testing of IPv6, DNSSEC? By Stockholm? • Murai: Absolutely. Some tests already complete. But tests not on the necessary scale as yet. Happy to make a report at the next Board Meeting. 4. Cerf: It would be helpful to hear thoughts re how to move from testing to deployment? • Murai: Are discussing this currently. Happy to make a presentation on the subject. 5. Auerbach: Will have to address upgrades of domain name registration system so that registration system can accommodate DNS servers with IPv6 addresses. 6. Abril i Abril: Would be pleased to hear from DoC re policy control of root servers. • Roberts: Agreement with DoC says that DoC will cease to be involved with ccTLD policies once ICANN has agreement with ccTLDs. White Paper and MoU contemplate upgrading of security, quality, maintenance of system. Expect testing of upgraded architecture by Stockholm. B. Government Advisory Committee C. Reconsideration Committee – Kraaijenbrink 1. Received many requests for reconsideration after TLD selection process. 2. Something new must be presented in order to merit reconsideration – new facts, facts not previously presented, manifest showing of failure to consider facts presented to the Board. But must show that Board did not hear the facts presented, rather than that Board heard the facts but arguably did not give them appropriate weight. Used this standard to guide reconsideration process. 3. Reconsideration not suited to reconsideration on the merits, or to advocate different subjective judgements. Question is whether process was fair, result was rational given objective. 4. Reconsideration Committee presented recommendations 00-6, 00-7. See documents on http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration • 00-6: See no way for staff to alter application fee unilaterally for a single application. Staff could not have acted otherwise. Furthermore, request not filed on time. • 00-7: Asks ICANN to remove from its web site its evaluation of the IO Design application. Recommend taking no action – evaluations were made public as part of ICANN’s policy of openness and transparency. Contrary to ICANN process to delete staff evaluation from web site. 5. Fockler: This is public forum. Tomorrow we will further discuss the reconsideration process. D. Finance Committee - Wilson 1. Charter posted – http://www.icann.org/committees/finance 2. Consult with President on annual budget, make recommendations 3. Bylaws: Art. 11, Section 4: Setting of fees 4. Process: Includes consultative budget group: individuals familiar with registries and registrars, works with officers, etc. 5. Preliminary Budget: Core budget before addressing problems: posted as of Feb. 19. E-mail address: budget@icann.org -- for comments, suggestions, concerns. Open and transparent. Strong invitation for participation by all. Comments considered carefully. 6. Six-hour joint meeting: focused on needs: in the absence of incoming revenue: incomplete staffing, which results in reduced rapidity of carrying out tasks. Conscious of those limitations. 7. Series of concerns: there are many. Basic principle is restraint on the core budget. Meanwhile, must remain committed to providing financial support for those activities central to stability of the Internet. 8. Budget will be posted prior to Stockholm meeting. Time between the preliminary and formal budgets is the time when greatest influence may be had. 9. Budget must be flexible enough to meet new challenges. 10. Structure of revenue: how much will we need to be “lean and mean” (as small as possible to do the job)? 11. Auerbach: Personal concern re whether using SOs enough. Maybe should be delegating jobs to SOs rather than to paid staff. Interested in thoughts re balance between SO work and staff work. • Cerf: Voluntary organizations can require staff support. • Wilson: Are having this dialogue already. 12. Cohen: Budget committee wants to show restraint. But many communities tell us that they think we’re woefully underfinanced to carry out our mission. Some say we may be as much as several million dollars (per year) short of what would be necessary to do a thorough job. 13. Quaynor: Some clarification re proportionality would be helpful to those from developing countries. 14. Katoh: Share Jonathan’s concern that staff is too small in some cases. Are working on delegations, as Karl suggests, but delegation requires staff coordination. 15. Roberts: Proportionality of funding continues to receive much attention from staff, community. 30 largest domain name registries account for 90%+ of DNS, while the other 200 are the other 10%. Are sensitive to the variability in size here. E. Governmental Advisory Committee - Twomey 1. Communiqué presented – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/presentations/twomey-GAC.html 2. Eighth meeting held. 32 governments represented. Fruitful discussions. 3. Twomey elected Chair of GAC for two years. 4. Discussion with ccTLD constituency, ICANN Board, staff re issues with delegation of ccTLDs. Commitment to three-party communications between ICANN, ccTLD administrator, government. Bilateral agreement should contain provisions for early termination if a three-party agreement is put into place. 5. Conditions in which there should be no bilateral agreements: when redelegation requests pending, when government already taking such steps, when ccTLD not within government jurisdiction. 6. GAC has established working groups re multilingual domain names, use of geographic terms as domain names, applicability of conventions. 7. Confirm importance of international domain names. Must assure interoperability, consideration intellectual property and competition principles. • Should preserve existing ASCII policies in non-ASCII environments. • Consumers should be notified of status of testbeds. 8. Thanks to Government of Australia for hosting of meeting and of GAC web site. 9. Next meeting to be held in Stockholm. 10. Auerbach: Need to be precise re terms and rights not based on IP law as something to take into account when resolving disputes between claimants. 11. Cerf: Technical challenges with IDNS may prevent multilingual domain space. May be alternatives to embedding in domain names. GAC should not assume only one option for using new character sets. 12. Twomey: Cybersquatting used for breadth of phrase. Waiting for the WIPO report for private names and geopolitical terms, drugs, international organizations. Also covers testbeds and pre-reservation systems. GAC understands technological challenge of IDNS, doesn’t want to stop innovation. Important to maintain a unified Internet. 13. Cohen: Protection of IP subsumes protection of all people and both sides. Wrong to assume unfair protection for IP owners rather than individuals and users. Should be a reasonable balancing. 14. Auerbach: We should stop using the word cyberquatting. 15. Katoh: IDNS working group is a good idea. Timeframe? This is urgent. There is potential for consumer fraud on preregistration. 16. Twomey: the working group has started. When it finishes hasn’t been decided. GAC not trying to duplicate the expertise in other parts of ICANN process. Will focus on policy. 17. Pisanty: Can Karl expand on rights he refers to. 18. Auerbach: personal names, religion, church. Rules ignore existence of those with equitable rights in contrast to formal IP rights. Variation from country to country. 19. Cerf: New TLDs focused on personal names, which could help. 20. Abril I Abril: GAC asks ICANN to stay out of contract with ccTLD managers out of country jurisdiction. ICANN is not entering into trilateral agreement. ICANN is managing critical functions of Internet, not what a government is. If government has opinion about ccTLD management, that is rational but ICANN shouldn’t decide. Agreements are just status quo agreements, but they might help codify the process and help solve the disputes. 21. Twomey: GAC concern is hundreds of govts not represented at GAC who don’t yet understand the significance of the DNS and their ccTLD. As countries realize importance of Internet, countries want ccTLD as part of national strategy. If there is a bilateral agreement between ICANN and operator, particularly with operator outside of country, it makes it harder for country to negotiate for trilateral agreements. • Call this a “communications regime” because ICANN is sending and receiving letters, not signing contracts. 22. Mueller Maguhn: Intellectual Property constituency within DNSO is concerned with its namesake issues. What is the GAC’s point of view? Maybe concerned about freedom of speech (which might be in conflict with IP rights)? What concrete discussions? How to modify the UDRP to suit? • Twomey: Separate meeting (with many of the same participants) about these issues. In LA issued a statement noting that there would have to be retrofitting. • As to freedom of speech, it’s difficult insofar as there are different norms country to country. • Roberts: ICANN is not a statutory body. Neither creates nor extinguishes anyone’s IP rights. Established a non-judicial administrative procedure to solve these disputes. Anyone involved in UDRP may seek judicial relief: that’s a key feature. We’re attempting to make this process easier for everyone, but that’s all. 23. Auerbach: Our own UDRP is only open to those who have trademarks to begin with. Whether or not intended to be fair, its practical effect favors one party. And how do non-English languages fit into UDRP framework? Have to use English/ASCII versions of trademarks in other languages? 24. Cohen: UDRP is intended to make this process easier. And some UDRP claims result in plaintiff losing, i.e. the “Sting” case. Must take a look at generic names, personal names, geographic locations. Need to consider this, and correct any imbalances that have surfaced. And it’s not the case that a party must have a trademark to use the UDRP. • Auerbach: Famous names acquire a quality of intellectual property right. 25. Kyong: Questions re political aspects are urgent, should proceed in parallel with technical implementations of internationalized DNS. Should seek to avoid confusion, wasted effort. 26. Twomey: GAC hopes to help with long-term policy issues. Concerns about interoperability, competition, etc. are not going away. Trying to stay focused on these fundamental issues. VI. Break VII. Thanks - Cerf A. To ICANN staff, for work that makes it possible for us to convene. ICANN staff: Roberts, Lynn, Touton, Mc Laughlin, Schroeder, Halloran. Webcast staff: Edelman, Nesson, Palfrey, Armstrong. B. Thanks to Mike Roberts for service to ICANN for two and a half years. VIII. Public Comments A. How long will proof-of-concept stage continue? When to move to next level? 1. Cerf: No other proposals until we have completed agreements with existing proposals, so we gain some experience. Hope within the next few months, then at least six months of experience. 2. Let community know how long we will wait at each stage? 3. Cerf: Yes, will advise as soon as we can. B. Shen: Non-commercial resolutions: Need to investigate whether UDRP decisions are overreaching or misapply definitions of “bad faith.” ICANN should ask an independent consulting group to evaluate the UDRP. DNSO needs conflict-of-interest policy. Need to be mindful of personal privacy concerns. Registrars should be more forthcoming with registration via third-parties. http://www.ncdnhc.org 1. Cerf: Provide written materials to ICANN. Concurrence from remaining members? 2. Auerbach: Privacy should be province of national laws? • Complications result from variation between nations. 3. Pisanty: Online votes should be available shortly. C. Block: Currently-anticipated gTLDs plan to include additional information for additional features. Requires additional consideration of privacy issues – because also need additional security and authentication. 1. Auerbach: DNS is a “hinting system” to point towards destinations. But should not overload DNS with that kind of function. 2. Block: Agreed. But new TLDs are basing their proposals around the idea that DNS provides information – “.pro” means “if you have a .pro, we have gone through a process which can be guaranteed.” Raises privacy concerns. 3. Auerbach: Don’t make DNS do what it ought not to do. 4. Cerf: Concern about overload of DNS, overload of ICANN. D. Sheppard: Multilingual domain names present serious challenges. Concerned about likely impact on consumers – retrieval of Whois data in languages not understood by retriever, confusion about translation rules, inappropriate choices of character translation rules, desire to move forward quickly. Pressing need to move forward on multilingual domain names. Board should consider setting up an expert group and the NC will send nominees. 1. Cerf: Interesting suggestion. 2. Auerbach: Premises on which the recommendation made may be soft and unstable. • Sheppard: Just want to see these concerns discussed. 3. Katoh: Yesterday heard that NC will create an interim group to consider this issue. Other groups too. How to coordinate these efforts? 4. Auerbach: Many people don’t understand the technical issues here. Welcome assistance. • Cerf: Klensin will report on this later today. Also IETF is thinking about this. E. Black: Country-code managers have experience with large databases of registrants and of inadvertently losing a domain name. Need adequate processes to prevent loss of, say, an entire country. Need a good communication channel to solve these kinds of problems. May need insurance (“errors and omissions insurance”) to protect ICANN in case of such errors. 1. Auerbach: Should build systems so they cannot fail. My own fault for failing to implement monitoring systems previously suggested. 2. Cerf: Will want to take these suggestions seriously as we consider root server operational issues. 3. Roberts: Root server committee will consider this. IX. Additional Reports A. DNSO – Sheppard 1. Adopted draft business plan – http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001-02.NCbusinessplan.html 2. Objectives: • Policy: Evaluate UDRP & WIPO2; TLDs; Whois policy issues; ccTLD dispute resolution, harmonization, & policy; multilingual domain names. • NC Review (Consultation, GA Chair, New Constituency Creation Process & Individuals Constituency, cost-effective Language Diversity, practical definition of Consensus) • Operation: NC Secretariat, NC Funding 3. Cerf: What to do re language diversity? • Machine translation thought inadequate. Question of what we can do subject to budget constraints. 4. Auerbach: See great divergence between WG on Review and this Report. • Sheppard: WG Report listed problems. Very wide and general. We were interested also in additional public comments on the Review report. 5. Names Council resolution on Verisign agreement: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/scribe-icann-031101-nc.html • Postponed until discussion of this subject. 6. Consultation periods – will come to Board with a proposal shortly. Would appreciate longer periods of consultation. 7. Abril i Abril: Few policy recommendations come from DNSO. Hope that you’ll move forward here. 8. Cerf: Quality of translations is important. Poor quality translations can be worst than struggling to read English. And even good translations require a definitive version, requiring selecting one language to be authoritative. Translations are complex, quality is important, cost is high. So this is a hard problem. But voluntary work may not be high enough quality to achieve objectives. B. Thrush: ccTLD issues call for a communication. When? Our comments go beyond the scope of the ccTLD agreements. C. Address Supporting Organization - Woeber 1. Presentation delivered – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/presentations/aso-update-010312.html 2. More information at http://aso.icann.org 3. Auerbach: Will Board or staff have to allocate much time to ASO issues in the next six months? • Woeber: Aware of issues here. Are attempting to assess the situation and will have presentations available in San Francisco. • Auerbach: Concerned about address consumption, size of routing table? • Woeber: Routing table may not formally be on ASO’s agenda. But we’re thinking about it nonetheless. • Cerf: Beware of mandate creep. • Fockler: Make sure there’s plenty of time for comment. 4. Fockler: Transition plan to support LACNIC? When does Board get a formal request? • Woeber: Working on the formalities here. • McLaughlin: ICANN Board is to recognize new RIRs, on continent-level scope. Wouldn’t want to recognize a RIR before it is operational. But don’t want to wait too long either. Expect an operational transition plan with extended communication. • Auerbach: Appropriate clustering for the moment is continental because communities connect geographically. Later, clustering might not follow continental lines. • Woeber: Wording reflects this concern. D. At Large Study Committee – Wong 1. Presentation delivered – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/presentations/wong-atlargebudget.html 2. Auerbach: Study must include representatives of At Large. Need participation of those who are directly affected, even while considering committee size and efficiency. And outreach made to whom so far? • Wong: Some proposals contemplate including existing At Large directors, those who were nominated, etc. Some concerns about conflicts of interest. We favor membership by skills. Are we missing representatives with any necessary skills? This approach gives credibility. • Wong: Sent message to entire At Large email list. ICANN had privacy concerns. Some suggestion that a few people did not receive the message. • Wong: Study to operate via email. Translation via volunteers, to be linked to by study, but participants to make own decisions re what documents to read via which translators. 3. Wilson: Financial projections. May be using wrong fiscal years. Just want to make sure you’ll finish this in time. 01/02 should be 00/01, and 02/03 should be 01/02. 4. Auerbach: Continued existence of At Large remains on the table. Need to reduce concern of At Large that its existence is at state. • Cerf: The At Large community exists. The question is whether they have a role in ICANN. • Wong: “Clean sheet” seems to have magical powers – seems to make some people very upset very quickly. There is no question that is too sacred to ask, but we don’t want to use terms that make the process more difficult than necessary. E. Ad Hoc Group on Numbering and Addressing – Kraaijenbrink 1. Report by McFedden & Holmes presented last week. No opportunity for editorial group to review report yet. So intend to refer report to ASO and to include Ad Hoc activities. Thanks to those who were involved. X. Public Comments A. Lindon: A federal court in Australia heard my argument to restrain ICANN from exclusive promotion of root. Jurisdiction because ICANN is holding proceedings here. Judge said insufficient detail in the law. Such litigation seems unnecessary, so something needs to be done urgently. Need to recognize all existing noncolliding namespaces. 1. Cerf: Design of Internet used a single root system. That’s a fundamental principle. Doubt that the Board would change that tomorrow. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. B. Park: Review Working Group was supposed to come up with its report by January 15, but too little time available. WG is still working to make recommendations re improvement of DNSO functions. Is Board willing to give more time to WG on DNSO Review? 1. Cerf: DNSO and NC would appreciate any input, ad hoc or formal, re improvement of operations. Don’t need Board permission. If you should produce such a report, it would be handled appropriately. 2. Auerbach: Would like to have faith that DNSO can consider questions fairly. But DNSO is flawed, and we have to step in to repair it. C. Svensson (#1223) read in its entirety and displayed. When will election data be made available for independent analysis? 1. Wong: See web site. Some aggregate data already available – see http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats. 2. Cerf: Data will be made available on an aggregate basis that protects privacy. D. Kleinwaechter: Membership self-organizing via Interim Coordinating Committee. Little interaction so far between At Large directors and the membership. ICC will provide assistance there. Also, invite participation in Civil Society Internet Forum. XI. Welcome from Senator Richard Alston, Minister of Communications, Australia I. ccTLD Agreements – McLaughlin A. Presentation delivered – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/presentations/mclaughlin-cctld-update.html 1. Intensive discussions since November 2000. 2. Convergence on two options within a single structure – “legacy” and “triangular.” 3. Preserve original Postel / IANA ccTLD concept: ccTLD manager is trustee for local community, consensus efforts resolve disputes, respect government views. 4. Special concerns: appropriate application of local and global policies, redelegation. 5. Legacy situation: Agreement directly between ICANN and ccTLD manager. 6. Triangular situation: between ccTLD manager, ICANN, and national government. 7. Responsibilities for ICANN: Maintain root server system, ccTLD database, audit trail. 8. Responsibilities for ccTLD manager: Provide stable registry and nameserver operation, participate in and abide by ICANN consensus policies, contribute to ICANN’s costs of operation. B. Thrush, ccTLD AdCom 1. Communiqué presented – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/presentations/ccTLD-communique.html 2. Pleased that ICANN staff has recently spent more time on ccTLD issues. 3. One contract unlikely to suit all managers. At least two possible arrangements, including “legacy” contract and a new contract including involvement of local government. 4. Concern that IANA database is out of date. Request statistics re number of changes requested and made over time. 5. Possible to sign contracts while some issues remain unresolved. 6. ccTLDs see no need for ICANN to communicate first with governments before establishing contracts with ccTLDs. 7. Concern that ICANN staff is not following current policy but rather new policies recommended by the GAC. Negotiation still in progress. 8. More generally, need mechanism for breaking deadlock. RFC1591/ICP1 process doesn’t anticipate a solution when parties cannot solve a problem among themselves. C. McLaughlin: Welcome to Herbert Vitzthum, ICANN staff to work with ccTLDs. 1. Vitzthum: Good to see everyone working together. Invite comments. herbert@icann.org D. Questions 1. Ida Holtz: Need for translation. Communication should be a high priority. English is not widely spoken in some places. Request increased effort to translate documents and meetings. • Cerf: How to achieve the objective/ 2. Teare (#1231): Global issues that might override the local? • Dengate Thrush: Data protection, dispute resolution. 3. Importance of language diversity. Bylaws require us to provide translation in other major languages. When? How? • Cerf: Figure out how much it will cost, and if we can afford it? • Kraaijenbrink: It’s almost killing the ITU to three official languages and five others. Our plea to the Internet community is to assist us. Some local organizations are already doing so. 4. Luque (.es): Expect support from GAC. 5. Dawson (#1232): Why should ccTLDs contribute to ICANN? • Cerf: If agreements can be reached, there are significant checks and balances to protect ccTLD against arbitrary action of government, to protect Internet community against failure of a ccTLD, to attain interoperability. • Dengate Thrush: To participate in making policy is not free. 6. Kubo: When will ICANN comply with multilingual requirements of bylaws? 7. Gaetano: Before ICANN, there were IFWP conferences where related issues were discussed. Three conferences were in English only, while one was in English, Portugese, and Spanish, with good sponsorship, the only one that did not overspend its budget. Translation can be solved. ICANN’s staff is too US-centric. • Cerf: Board managed to translate those comments. 8. Really think costs of translation cannot be met by ICANN? • Kraaijenbrink: Have to keep ICANN small and costs low. • Cohen: Must recognize that if we are to reach people all over the world, they have to be able to understand, read, and communicate in their own languages. My comments about the budget reflect that we need more funding to do this. But community has to decide one way or the other. • Auerbach: Translation into the language of the host country? Might be less expensive. 9. De Blanc: Voluntary contributions could be helpful. Really, cost is not so large; question is commitment, not cost. Just need an administrative budget to coordinate the process. • Cerf: Send us specifics. 10. Raul Echeberria: Cultural diversity on ICANN staff would be helpful. 11. Porteneuve: Translation of rules is important to allow open worldwide competition of private sector Internet management. Must prevent digital divide or “recolonization.” 12. Christopher Wilkinson: Need interpretation & translation for the people who are not yet here. II. New TLD Registry Agreements A. Touton presentation – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/presentations/touton-newTLDs.html 1. See unsponsored TLD Appendices in TLD Agreements Topic page – http://www.icann.org/melbourne/new-tld-agreements-topic.htm 2. Proposed Unsponsored TLD Agreement – http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/unsponsored/registry-agmt-26feb01.htm B. Rodin: Explanation of tentative contracts. C. Armentrout: Neulevel ready to sign agreements and move forward. Have invested millions of dollars preparing to support the .biz system. Urge the Board to give approval as soon as possible. D. Jordan: Afilias is ready for rollout. Need to sign agreement with ICANN in order to move forward. Request Board to approve agreement as proposed by Rodin. E. Hognes: Presentation delivered – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/presentations/name-newTLDs.html 1. Excited about potential of .name. Received comments from public, registrars. Common registrar interface, Whois interface. Intellectual property protections. Technical systems under development. F. Broitman: Registry .pro has taken public comments, comments from key stakeholders, etc. Ready for authorization to move forward. Request approval of contracts as proposed. G. Henderson: .coop, .museum, .aero are sponsored TLDs, requiring different treatment and policies from unsponsored TLDs. ICANN staff has not had sufficient time to negotiate with sponsored TLDs. Understand limitations of negotiating resources. Look forward to completion as soon as possible. III. Public Comments on New TLDs A. Cade: Thanks to Board, staff, new entrants. See positive activities, but agreements posted very late, and are being reviewed by community at this late date. Should continue to work on outreach to the community especially. B. Metalitz: Appreciate progress here. Some significant parts of agreements still need to be posted or were just posted very recently. Some changes only recently disclosed. Need to consider restrictions on registrations, startup procedures, etc. Encourage staff and applicants to continue dialogue. C. Ross (.TV): Our TLD applications were unsuccessful. Surprised that there was no dedicated appeal process. Request for reconsideration has gone unanswered for some time. Until reconsideration process is complete, cannot move forward with these applicants. D. Yrastorza (.kids): What’s the status of the outstanding proposals? 1. Cerf: In limbo until we evaluate how to move forward after evaluating current batch of TLDs. Uncertain about to whom to send messages? 2. Yrastorza: Uncertain about our ability to interact with the Board. 3. Cerf: Welcome to send mail to Board. But need to work with staff. 4. Yrastorza: Preference for applicants who were not chosen previously? 5. Cerf: Don’t know as yet. Hesitant to provide preferential treatment, but really just don’t know yet. E. Abril i Abril: Presentation delivered: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/presentations/amadeu-newTLD.html 1. Concerned about competition aspects for these registries. But each registry is a monopoly in a certain sense. We are responsible for the institutional designs we approve. 2. Policy determinations should not be made by new TLD registries. Should have a standard contract used by all TLDs, then separate registration policies. Encourage public comments throughout. F. Froomkin (#1227): WG considering sunrise proposals reported that there was no consensus on this subject. How to understand sunrise policies in this context? 1. Cerf: A single court case may or may not set final precedent. His concern is worth taking into consideration, but may not endure. 2. Auerbach: Set of reserved words in registration agreements. But how to justify reserving example SLDs? Seems like a regulatory attitude rather than an experimental attitude? 3. Touton: TLD registry agreements to implement existing ICANN policies. Registration of SLD “example” is IANA policy at the request of IETF and RFC editor. IV. New Registry Agreements A. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/presentations/amadeu-vsgrs.html B. Sclavos: Verisign core business is authentication and trust. Goal is most trusted company on Internet. Plans to enhance scalability and security. Handle 2.5 billion resolutions per day. Past is in the past. Management has changed. Believe that Verisign can and will improve quality of services. New agreements reflect good-faith efforts to improve relations, represent compromises and concessions by both parties. Benefits to Verisign – solidifying strategy, improving employee morale, etc. Benefits to ICANN – commitments to investment in infrastructure, separation of registry agreements. Look forward to discussion. C. Mueller-Maguhn: Thought Board makes decision, then lawyer works it out. Here it seems like the reverse. Chance of making a change to the agreements? 1. Touton: Staff is presenting an option to the Board. Everything is possible, but it is my judgement that there is no other choice. If you say “I don’t like choice B,” Verisign can decide what it wants to do. My judgement is that they would then go with choice A. 2. Cerf: Verisign doesn’t have to go with choice B (even if we approve it). Both parties seem to believe they have gone as far as they can go with B. If a third choice is desired, it would require additional negotiation; it’s not clear that Verisign would be interested, or that the timing is realistic. 3. Auerbach: Verisign willing to an extension of the spinout date to a few months ago, so we can properly consider these complex agreements? • Sclavos: There is a set of agreements that were already in place. Have to make forward progress. Since 1999 agreements, employees have understood that we might sell off the division they work in. Negative effects on morale. And most bidders for registrar say they just want the customer list and will lay off all employees if successful in bidding. As executive officer of Verisign, I have to recognize the urgency here. Believe these agreements will do the right thing in restructuring these relationships. Many comments on this subject seem to relate to other policies and procedures the community is concerned with. • Cerf: Remember that there will be no decision tomorrow. Decision will come later. D. Quaynor: Process that resulted in choice B was initiated by whom? 1. Sims: Representatives of Verisign offered to discuss alternative arrangement to existing contract. Offer included a number of features. We responded that we were not interested in having discussions on that basis. We told them that we’d be prepared to have discussions if progress was made in certain directions. There’s only one provision of these agreements ($200 million spending commitment) that was in Verisign’s initial proposal. 2. Quaynor: Want to understand advantages and disadvantages to Verisign. 3. Sclavos: Verisign acquired Network Solutions. We think that keeping the company together is good for the company in the long term. Concern in US about ability of high-tech companies to build strong businesses. Having certainty and clarity about our business gives us comfort. Presumptive right to renew is valuable. Disadvantage to Verisign: Existing abilities extend our ability to extend .com, .net, and .org through 2007, and let us bid for all three in 2007 with demonstration of ability to do the work already. That, to us, is a significant advantage that we lose under the “plan B.” E. Abril i Abril: See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/presentations/amadeu-vsgrs.html 1. Sims: New proposed contract language is preferable. Reduces possibility of dispute. Of course, would prefer to improve the language further, were that feasible. F. Katoh: Difficult question for the Board. Advantages to each choice. But view the “Option B” as an attempt to normalize relationship with Verisign. Want to hear from audience whether this is an improvement. Want to hear facts – tell us if it’s obvious. To Verisign: Fully comply with technical standards resulting from ICANN process? Will Verisign comply with the same standards as other TLDs? G. Touton: New TLD agreements have certain improved language that would not be included in the .com agreements under “Choice B,” and even “worse” in A. H. Fockler: Concerned about ICANN’s procedures and bottom-up processes. This sends a signal re how we act. Would prefer not to just make own choice on this subject. And another date – April 2 – by which agreements must be made? I. Sims: To obtain extension, transfer of registrar must be in effect, and new registrar must have entered into an acceptable agreement with DoC, all by May 10. Thought was that “by around April 1” (30 days after these agreements were posted for public comments) would leave enough time for a DoC determination of whether or not they would approve this, and, if not, would allow Verisign to complete its obligations under the existing contract. J. Roberts: Share Fockler’s concern re demonstrating commitment to bottom-up process. Verisign negotiated a short-term extension on their cooperative agreement with the DoC (Amendment 11). Then government-NSI negotiation came to include ICANN also (leading to Amendment 19). Proposed resolution was posted in September 1999, agreed to by Board in November 1999. Clock has been ticking ever since then. Have had discussions with Verisign since last fall re how Verisign would satisfy obligations of contract. Staff never purported to reopen policy aspects of this matter, and do not purport to do so now. Short, high-intensity dialogue began in January, leading to this document, which was posted on March 1, as soon as respective legal teams gave the go-ahead. So this was not a policy process, and is not an abrogation of ICANN’s general bottom-up process. V. Public Comment A. Sheppard: Have been listening closely so far. Yesterday, NC passed a resolution re process here. See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/scribe-icann-031101-nc.html 1. Need public comment on proposed changes. Board should not make any decision until full consideration has been given to this issue in accordance with ICANN and DNSO consulting procedures. B. Fausett (#1252): Verisign said it might outsource all registrar and customer service functionality back to Verisign for a fee. Only change would be Verisign’s share of profits, while technical services, customer support, trademarks, etc. would remain the same. Would this be adequate (in ICANN’s view) under the November 1999 agreement? 1. Sims: If and when we have to deal with the question of what constitutes a legal separation under the agreement, we will make our views known to Verisign. But have not gotten to that point with Verisign yet. Are not in a position to say without knowing the details. 2. Cerf: Can Verisign sell the business to someone who retains Verisign to operate the business for them? 3. Sims: If a “sham” transaction, it wouldn’t be acceptable to us. Question is whether the assets come under separate ownership. 4. Cerf: If Verisign divested its assets, it wouldn’t be able to do the job any more. C. Nigel Roberts: .com, .net, .org are a global resource. US government is not everyone’s government. Both options seem contrary to public-private consumer interest. Urge the Board to find an alternative. D. Grant Forsyth: Business Constituency concerned that there’s uncertainty re the assumptions here. Look forward to Board following NC’s resolution to give constituencies more time to comment. E. Marilyn Cade: Sympathetic to the issues driven by business factors. Certainty matters. But also must think about what is best for Internet community. However, have seen no evidence that structural separation is the best way to proceed. Without time to evaluate the new agreement, cannot make a recommendation to the Board. F. Peake (#1262): Why doesn’t Verisign agree to a delay? G. Mike Heltzer: Question re Whois: Existing agreement calls for Verisign to participate in development of centralize Whois if it doesn’t develop otherwise. Is that language also in proposed “Option B” agreement? 1. Touton: Yes. H. Roberto Gaetano: Have to consider the NC’s resolution. These agreements reflect a significant change, and community should have been notified earlier. Sims claimed there was no current policy re separation between registrar and registry. Even if not in any document, this was an essential part of community’s understanding. It may be time to change our plan, but must have community’s input. If we agree that separation is necessary between registry and registrar, then what’s in the agreement to ensure that Verisign doesn’t just spin off a subsidiary not at arm’s length from the parent? 1. Cerf: If unable to extend the time, and unable to choose Option B, then Option A will happen. And Verisign will keep .com, .net, and .org. Keep in mind this default outcome. I. Barnes (#1256): “.org returned to … registry operated by and for non-profit organizations” says ICANN proposal. But RFC1591 says “miscellaneous … that didn’t fit anywhere else.” How to reconcile these? 1. Cerf: This reflects a loose characterization of .org. Original registrations didn’t have to be non-profit, just had to be registrations that didn’t fit anywhere else. J. Pilar Luque: Another European citizen. Need to reconsider the proposal. K. Michael Palage: Registrars concerned by premise of competition in registrar services. Verisign still retains 52%, and has huge financial resources from prior monopoly. Verisign might buy up failing or distressed registrars. Concern about predatory pricing by Verisign. 1. Cerf: Relevance to what we’re considering here? 2. Palage: Argue that the premise of staff report is a facade. Don’t want to find Verisign with 80% of market in 18 months as a result of these agreements. 3. Cerf: So you’d prefer A rather than B? 4. Palage: Would prefer an extension. But if that’s not available, prefer status quo over this unknown. 5. Palage: Verisign has impacted cashflow of certain registrars through “software modifications.” Other allegations of wrongdoing. 6. Cerf: Don’t know if these are facts. Not sure if Verisign should respond, given that this could be lengthy, and may not be relevant to Board’s decision. 7. Kraaijenbrink: This paper contains allegations that a company has broken the rules. Do not know of any formal complaint of the facts contained here. Until we know of that, must disregard these allegations. 8. Abril i Abril: There is at least one. 9. Kraaijenbrink: If there is such a complaint, someone should forward it to the Board. Haven’t received it yet. 10. Auerbach: Don’t know truth or falsity of these allegations. But need to take our time to make a decision. L. Clive Stanbrook: Complaint was filed in EU against Verisign, including allegations that have been mentioned today. But it’s surprising that Verisign did not tell the Board as much. Allegations are relevant, because it is the prospect of separation that gives rise to these discussions. 1. Katoh: If Verisign wishes to respond, they should and may. M. Oppenheimer (#1260): Increase in funding? 1. No specific increase. Just a removal of caps previously in place, which have not yet been reached but might be reached at some point in the future. N. Stahura (#1265): Should some provision be included to prevent NSI Registrar from requiring exclusive agreements? 1. Reflects Amendment 11 – discussion between DoC and NSI ending new exclusive reseller arrangements. 2. Sclavos: Believe claims are untrue. Believe managing executives have not engaged in anticompetitive behavior; that’s not how we run the company. Re opening of multilingual testbed: Know that three registrars were unable to use the multilingual system for the first hour and a half. But NSI Registrar was one of those three! Also, the registrar Verisign bought was nearly bankrupt and was only tenth-largest. Will deal with any anticompetitive behavior if facts are substantiated. O. Roberts: A number of ccTLDs have integrated registrars and registries. Board might approve an integrated arrangement if it were good for the community on balance. P. Erica Roberts: Big issue at stake here is the integrity of the ICANN process. If DNSO and NC are not involved, we make a mockery of the notion of bottom-up policy development. Q. Schneider: Understand comments and concerns and do not want to reiterate. This is the time to demonstrate whether the staff acts on the resolutions of the board, or whether the board acts on the resolutions of the SOs in the public interest. R. Richard Forman (Register.com): Errors were made in negotiation and finalization of 1999 agreements – oversights. Encourage Board not to create same situation here. Should take the time to understand what we’re signing here. S. Dave Crocker: Verisign has negotiated an alternative. We can accept it or reject it. If we reject it, we get the alternative. ICANN’s job is to oversee this process. We need to focus on the substance. T. Auerbach: “Corporation shall operate for benefit of Internet community as a whole.” That’s what we have to care about. U. Cohen: Shouldn’t make this into a power struggle. Certain positions are self-serving and disingenuous. Crocker was on target here – like it or not, we have an agreement, and we can change it or not. That should be the end of it. V. Cerf: Fast timeframe for DNSO input? VI. Internationalized Domain Names A. Cerf: Serious concern of breaking Internet uniformity and interoperability. B. Klensin: “Internationalized Access to Domain Names” 1. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/presentations/klensin-IDN.html 2. Difficult process. Disagreements within technical community. 3. Goals of using natural language in natural ways while preserving integrity of DNS (uniqueness and global accessibility of names). 4. Associated problem of multilingual Whois 5. Most proposals use encodings of Unicode. Concerns about feasible lengths of domain names given constraints of existing DNS. 6. Possibility of deducing coding from DNS hierarchy. Problematic for countries with multiple languages. May work for localization if you can prevent leakage. 7. Multiple case matching conditions. 8. May be impossible to deal with diacriticals. 9. Try not to use the word “language,” rather “scripts” or “glyphs.” 10. Propose a “nameprep” processing system, but hard to write a single set of rules, and rules are complicated. 11. Success criteria differ – registries and registrars versus end users. 12. Conclude that no solution based on DNS alone will be adequate. DNS is not good enough. Need a directory system. C. James Seng - Response 1. Working Group considered an alternative that would work outside the DNS. • Considered application-only solution. • Considered directory solution. • Hybrid. 2. Difficult to come up with a long term solution. Perhaps in the next five years, but not in the next year. 3. How much time does the WG have to come up with a solution? We assume that community wants a solution as soon as possible. • Cerf: If choice is between a short-term solution that breaks the network and a long-term solution that doesn’t, choose the latter. • Won’t break the ‘net. 4. Thinking hard about nameprep solution. Yes, it’s a long document, but a simple process. Length of document reflects tables, not methods. 5. Should use terminology “internationalization,” not “multilingual.” D. Klensin: Pleased that James and I are still friends. James’s job is to make it work, and my job (“architecture”) is to say why his solution isn’t good enough. E. Katoh: Sensitive that these are complicated issues. There’s concern that so many people are already involved in the testbed. Need public awareness of this as a consumer issue. 1. Cerf: Agree that there are policy questions lurking within these technical questions. F. Abril i Abril: Shouldn’t say “balkanization.” 1. Presentation: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/presentations/amadeu-MLingual.html VII. Public Comments A. Roberto Laorden (Interdomain): Verisign has permitted registration of domains in Spanish before February 2001. Deadlines missed by Verisign. Requirements changed during the test. Verisign said “forgot to open firewall” to Interdomain and apologize (but no more). Will ICANN investigate this discriminatory treatment? What changes when testbed moves to full implementation? Maintain existing registrations? Suggest: Do not pass multilingual testbed registrations to real environment. Include IP sunrise provisions. B. James Woods: Passionate believer in principle of testbed. But do not support Verisign testbed. Access during first hour and a half was not equal. Participation in testbed should be at no charge. Need sunrise provisions. All registrars need equal access to registry customer service. C. Izumi Aizu (ANR): Please remember that delaying the provision of multilingual translation of major ICANN document/information keeps natural advantage of English speaking native people. D. Alan Davidson (CDT / NAIS): http://www.naisproject.org Parallel study to ICANN At Large study. Expect a report in June. E. Dave Crocker (Brandenburg Consulting): “For every complex problem, there is a simple solution, and it is wrong.” Disagree with John’s conclusions. John described problems, but solution might be workable nonetheless. VIII. Need to conclude tonight. Will have to take additional public comments tomorrow. A. Many system administrators run alternative root servers pointing to all TLD nameservers. Need guidance with respect to newly approved TLDS and would appreciate ICANN-assisted coordination. B. ICANN needs to reconsider cultural differences in this context. C. Palage: Some comments were allegations, not facts. Zealous advocation may have negatively impacted some friendships. CONTACT INFORMATION For additional technical information, please contact: Ben Edelman and Rebecca Nesson |