September 10, 2001
ICANN Public Meetings
See also authoritative, final Board resolutions. Resolutions linked below reflect only tentative wording and may differ from final resolutions approved by the Board.
I. Welcome - Cerf
II. Independent Review Panel Nominations
A. Resolution presented – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/res/irp.html
B. All in favor.
III. Reconsideration Committee Recommendations
A. Resolution presented – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/res/reconsideration.html
1. Recommendations at http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-15-1.htm and http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc01-3.htm
B. Mueller-Maguhn, Abril i Abril, Blokzijl abstain. Others in favor of 15-1. Motion passes.
C. Abril i Abril abstains. Others in favor.
IV. Continued Recognition of gTLD Registries Constituency
A. Resolution presented – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/res/gtld-constituency.html
B. Pisanty: Had been concerned that rules could be asymmetric. The rules do give a reasonable weight to the largest registry, but it is possible to overturn the vote by the largest registry. This is appropriate and fair. And all present and presently-anticipated members of constituency approve the proposed procedure.
C. Cerf: Different procedures for different kinds of votes. Procedures seem to be thought to be fair, and are accepted by all registries that are a part of the process.
D. Passes unanimously.
V. Sponsored TLD Agreements
A. Resolution displayed – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/res/sponsored-tld.html
B. Touton: For .MUSEUM, entire agreement and attachments have been posted for comment. Resolution authorizes staff to finalize agreement after correcting any final errors. For .AERO and .COOP, Board to get seven days of notice.
C. Abril: Abstains from Board vote.
D. Touton: Re sponsored TLDs, discussion yesterday as to whether deviation from .MUSEUM proposal would be OK. If the Board would care to give guidance, that sort of change could be OK.
E. Cerf: Should there be an exclusion if the number of registrars were under 10,000? Should we amend resolutions in front of us to reflect that possible change? Any thoughts from the Board?
F. Fockler: Not supportive of that now. But can we use this period as a proof of concept and then revisit.
G. Cerf: Auerbach on the phone.
H. Lynn: Hears that this is something that Fockler would like for the Committee to take this issue into consideration.
I. Touton: Need a process for new agreements. What if one came along that’s clearly small? Could the Board make this process acceptable in future?
J. Kraaijenbrink: Resolution is before us. Only room for minor modifications here. ICANN understands that in future there may be a desire to depart from the model.
K. Lynn: The .MUSEUM resolution could be in the same category as others like .AERO.
L. Cerf: Single registrar situations may vary. Agrees with Kraaijenbrink.
M. Cerf: Several resolutions are bundled together. May vote on them all at once or individually.
N. Schink: No limitations attach?
O. Cerf: Correct.
P. Auerbach (written): Two questions:
1. In the last paragraph, DoC reference. What am I missing?
2. Is CEDRP thing for .MUSEUM only or is it intended for all limited TLDs?
Q. Touton: Auerbach refers to attachment 12 to the agreement. Generally common for sponsored TLDs to cause a variance via attachment. If there’s a reference in the CEDRP (a mechanism for parties to challenge any outside-the-Charter instance), we’ll check it out. Auerbach may be right that there’s a minor error. Transfer is not contemplated as a remedy.
R. Cerf: Vote: All in favor (Auerbach by phone).
S. Auerbach (via Cerf): Seven days is too short.
T. Touton: Re .PRO, no resolution needed by the Board at present. Seven day procedure is established. Would like guidance from Board about the matter raised yesterday: there have been difficulties solved with the registry operators, but there are some further delays.
U. Cohen: What’s a reasonable timeframe?
V. Touton: Optimistically, 4 weeks. 6 weeks is safe. Natural deadline: MdR for approval. Should be done by then. W. Cerf: Perhaps Board should reconsider then. No objection. We will seek resolution by MdR meeting conclusion.
VI. CcTLD Agreements with auDA:
A. Resolution posted – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/res/cctld-auda.html
B. Cerf (for Auerbach): Definition of “triangular” agreements?
C. McLaughlin: Review of history. IANA report concluded that a redelegation to auDA was appropriate, pending contractual agreement. Australians concluded that the proposed approach was best for them.
D. Abril i Abril: Need for redelgation and the process for redelegation are clearly documented. Procedure is sound. See ICP-1 section (e) (“Transfers and Disputes over Delegations”). May want to revise language in the future.
1. Cerf: At this time, there is sufficient evidence that the transfer should take place. But may need to revise ICP1.
E. Auerbach: DNSO recommendation?
1. McLaughlin: No. DNSO makes policy and we implement them. They could recommend a change in policy. But now we are just implementing existing policy. Best way to assure transparency is to issue IANA reports.
F. Auerbach: Confused about policy development versus application.
1. Cerf: Not confused. This is clear.
G. Auerbach: Is there any reason not to delay acting on this until the next public meeting?
1. Cerf: Board input?
H. Voting: Auerbach against. Mueller-Maguhn, Quaynor abstain. All others in favor.
VII. Resolution of thanks to Elz - Lynn
A. Auerbach abstains. All others in favor.
VIII. MoU with US Department of Commerce and Root-Server CRADA
A. Touton – resolution displayed. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/res/mou-doc.html
B. Auerbach: Remove Mike Roberts from CRADA.
1. Touton: Cannot adjust the initial proposal to USG.
C. Auerbach: Reports of work done under this agreement, and associated costs?
1. Touton: Two reports. This amendment sets the schedule. Final report in June 2002
D. Auerbach: Work of CRADA is not already completed. Why does this need to be continued into a third year?
1. Cerf: See Murai’s report (in the archive of this morning’s sessions). Much work still to be done – measurement, relocation of root servers, etc.
E. Schink: Describe work to be done and outstanding issues?
1. Lynn: Outstanding issues are in DoC report.
2. Touton: MoU originally listed ten tasks for ICANN to complete. Three status reports submitted since then. First report did not request extension because initial agreement was to last two years. Amendment two restated tasks and noted that four were complete. Six tasks remain. Amendment four does not eliminate any tasks, though each task is closer to completion than was previously the case.
3. Mueller-Maguhn: Would like to see a concrete timeline on the issues.
4. Cerf: Note that much of ICANN’s work is contingent on work of others. Not so easy to schedule this.
5. Abril i Abril: Hope that we will not need to pass such a motion too many more times. Not sure USG will ever pass complete responsibility to ICANN, but hope that will be their shortfall rather than ours.
6. Cerf: Hope you will not have to so vote in the coming years.
F. Vote on extending agreement with DOC: Mueller-Maguhn abstains. Rest in favor.
G. Vote on extending CRADA: All in favor.
IX. Geographic and Geopolitical Names in .INFO
A. Cerf: GAC recommends that Board limit registrations of certain terms.
B. Resolution presented – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/res/geographic-names.html
C. Blokzijl: Don’t understand. We’re supposed to freeze something. But what is being frozen? Don’t know what we’re discussing here.
1. Cerf: ISO 3166-1 is a well-defined list. http://www.din.de/gremien/nas/nabd/iso3166ma/codlstp1/en_listp1.html
2. Blokzijl: List in what language? And countries may feel strongly about what their names are. Consider also the problems of commas, spacing, and other complexities. And are surprised to see that it is OK to use two-letter country-codes in new gTLDs. We need more consistent policies than that.
D. Pisanty: Sensitive to the positions of governments that may not have represented in the most recent GAC meeting. Should leave flexibility for later.
E. Cohen: Read the motion and listened to discussion. Troubled by the time when this was brought to our attention. Some technical problems re implementation. Worry that it may be too late to fix the problem (by these means). And problem is difficult. Would oppose a motion to permanently exclude these strings from registration in new TLDs. But this motion is for a freeze only for a limited period of time. GAC should communicate with us and others to find other solutions to this problem.
F. Mueller-Maguhn: Could agree to blocking the ISO 3166-1 A2 characters (the two-letter abbreviations). But not the extended country names – too many variations.
1. Cerf: We’ll consider that as one possible way of proceeding.
G. Campos: Resolution only contemplates a limited freeze. Failure to pass this resolution is irreversible.
H. Katoh: Support the resolution. Question of what names are famous is controversial and difficult. Moving slowly here is a good idea. This is only a temporary measure, and the number of names to be blocked is very limited. We will not set a precedent in this way.
I. Kraaijenbrink: GAC asked us to take this measure on a limited scope – in one gTLD only. With this resolution, we are only preserving a possibility. It would be foolish to fail to pass this resolution.
J. Lynn: Must observe that it’s another instance of the problem of dealing with a medium that moves at Internet speed.
K. Abril: Agree, except nothing more permanent than a temporary decision. It comes at a moment of implementation. Advice to the Board on the gTLD process. Here, we have a request from the GAC. If we feel it is wrong, we shouldn’t hold back.
L. Schink: Could we make this available to the Board?
M. Cerf: Imagine that we could.
N. Blokzijl: Still not sure what we’re voting on.
O. Cerf: Understood.
P. Cohen: Reminded that Abril is right about temporary measures. Could motion be amended to add a time limit for the freeze, such as MdR meeting?
Q. Cerf: I think that’s possible.
R. Lynn: I know that everyone’s anxious to move forward. Concerned about letting things drag on. Cut off date should be Accra, Ghana meeting.
S. Touton: First, many of NC members met last night and decided that dealing with this matter is a high priority for NC. Second, re implementation issues, changing certain characters may not making everyone happy but would reflect action. Third, re French list.
T. Cerf: Problems of names in other languages.
U. Auerbach: Do we have authority to do this?
V. Cerf: Yes, under our contract, we do have such authority. W. Auerbach: Do we reserve the IDN forms as well?
X. Cerf: Absolutely must be one of the issues. Y. Touton: Currently, all IDN equivalents are in fact reserved until there’s a settlement. Z. Cerf: Suggests that there’s great debate re advisable of these measures. Time pressure of .INFO. Amend resolution to include time period of Accra. Also, if it passes, we should help GAC understand the difficulties. Third, because of historical practices, should also draw attention to possible inconsistencies that might be created. These second and third suggestions do not affect the language of the resolution.
AA. Fockler: Agrees. Would we assume that we will seek input from DNSO via NC?
BB. Cerf: Certainly will seek input.
CC. Murai: Special problems with non-English versions.
DD. Touton: Not a problem in the English version.
EE. Blokzijl: A lot of room with slight deviations.
FF. Auerbach: What happens at end of freeze:
GG. Voting on proposal as amended (to put a time limit on the freeze of Accra, Ghana meeting in March): Auerbach, Pisanty, Mueller-Maguhn, Abril y Abril, Blokzijl, Murai, Quaynor against. Others in favor.
X. IDN Committee
A. Resolution presented – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/res/idn.html
B. Cerf: Resolution would create an IDN Committee. To be chaired by Katoh, to be bottom-up.
C. Katoh: These are important issues. We will work to coordinate the process here.
D. Lynn: Resolution is precise and careful. But resolution understates our sense of importance and urgency of the problem here. ICANN Board should show its commitment and leadership in this area.
E. Abril i Abril: How long will it take to get a list of committee members?
1. Lynn: Before MdR.
F. Schink: Amendment: Report to be presented to ICANN Board for approval. (Revision to final Resolved clause.)
1. Cerf: Agreed.
G. Vote: All in favor.
XI. Appointment of President to Executive Committee
A. Resolution presented – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/res/pres-to-exec.html
B. Cerf: Had previously made Mike Roberts a member of Executive Committee by name. Meant to include the CEO generally (whoever that might be).
C. Kraaijenbrink: So Roberts is no longer on the Executive Committee?
1. Touton: It’s clear because Roberts is no longer a Board Member.
D. Voting: Lynn abstaining. Auerbach against. Others in favor.
XII. Arrangements for Future Meetings
A. Cohen: Report earlier today.
B. Lynn: Hope to hold a future meeting in South Africa. March meeting to be in Ghana.
XIII. Thanks to Ken Fockler
A. Resolution presented – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/res/thanks-fockler.html
B. Abril i Abril: Hope Fockler will remain involved.
C. All in favor.
XIV. Thanks to Local Hosts, Sponsors, and Staff
A. Resolution presented – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/res/thanks-locals.html
B. All in favor.
For additional technical information, please contact:
Ben Edelman and Rebecca Nesson