I.   Report from Chair – Danny Younger
   A.   Participation on list is way up. Membership doubled.
   B.   People are interested in current issues.
   C.   Evaluating restructuring.
   D.   Some problems: Working groups replaced with task forces at the moment. Prefer the former as it allows more GA members to participate.
   E.   Speaking only for myself: Looking at a new structure for ICANN – new SOs which might make DNSO unnecessary. GA has not discussed the matter in depth, but this is a subject of concern. See the GA as an important part of ICANN, and think the GA should continue.
II.   Report from Secretariat – Elisabeth Porteneuve
   A.   Last meeting with current Secretariat. New Secretariat to begin at next meeting – Glen de Saint Géry.
       1.   Have been Secretariat for 27 months.
       2.   18 months of work to choose new Secretariat.
   B.   Major services: Web site and mailing list. DNSO web server has about half as many web pages as the ICANN web server, not including mailing list archives.
   C.   GA list: 12000+ messages total. 430 email addresses. 135 email addresses posted 10 or more messages. Secretariat posts on average one message per week.
III.   Issues
   A.   Verisign: Equitable Allocation of SRS Resources - Gomes
       1.   Increase in “rush” for deleted names since January 2001. In response, restrictions on registrar bandwidth (max of 256kbps per registrar) and simultaneous connections (max of 250). Effects on registrar performance, small registrars most affected.
       2.   “The problem”: A few registrars used many system resources to perform a few domain registrations. Some registrars execute the same command 1000 times per minute. Sometimes, 100000 check commands for each name successfully registered. Only a limited number of registrars did so.
       3.   Further response: Reduction in connection limit to 200. Plan for guaranteed connections for each registrar. Batch deletes suspended temporarily.
       4.   Current solution: Three “service pools” – guarantee pool (max of 15 connections per registrar), overflow pool (up to 200 per registrar), automated batch pool (with different policies). But not good over the long term – expensive. Discussions with registrars are ongoing.
   B.   VeriSign: Internationalized Domains – Gomes
       1.   Timetable: Registrations began in November 2000 for selected Asian languages. In February 2001 for European scripts. Resolution for third-level names.
       2.   RealNames technology used to enhance resolution.
       3.   Waiting for selection of ACE by IETF. Target dates within 2002.
       4.   Younger: Renewal?
           • Thinking about it. Announcement as soon as next week.
   C.   Registrars: Transfers and Expiring Domains – Palage
       1.   Discussion within Registrars constituency. Guidelines forthcoming.
       2.   Some losing registrars ask registrants to confirm transfer request. Creates confusion. Some allegations that requests were not sent or were sent too late. Based on experience with testbed, are following Auto-ACK principles, but include safeguards to prevent a “rogue” registrar from “slamming” domain names while improving consumer protection. Adding a process for losing registrars to investigate and challenge.
       3.   Younger: Why is this going to the DNSO so late?
           • All correspondence is posted, as are mailing list archives. What we are proposing is within current contracts. No material contractual or policy changes.
   D.   ccTLDs: Formation of ccSO: de Blanc http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/cctld-ga.html
       1.   Meetings over past few days. Working on charter, bylaws, membership, administrative details. Received ALSC report. Heard from candidates for DNSO’s Board seat.
       2.   Reviewing ccTLD documents posted by ICANN. Note that ICANN has not been using language we provide.
       3.   Remain willing to fund ICANN as anticipated by budget, with or without contracts with ICANN.
       4.   Interacted with GAC and with various DNSO constituencies.
       5.   Work continues as described by Stockholm communiqué. Revised communiqué will be presented in Public Forum tomorrow.
       6.   With or without ccSO, intend to remain involved in the ICANN process.
   E.   Neulevel: Status of .biz Roll-Out
       1.   Presentation delivered: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/dotbiz.html
       2.   Going live October 1.
   F.   Afilias: Report on .info Sunrise Registrations
       1.   Presentation delivered: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/dotinfo.html
       2.   Public launch begins September 12
       3.   Live real-time registrations in early October
   G.   At-Large Study Committee – Pindar Wong
       1.   Presentation delivered: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/alsc-ga.html
       2.   Comments due by October 26. Final report due November 14.
       3.   http://www.atlargestudy.org for more information
   H.   NAIS:
       1.   Presentation delivered: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/nais-ga.html
       2.   http://www.naisproject.org
   I.   Interim Coordinating Committee: Kleinwachter
       1.   Formed in Marina del Rey in November 2000.
       2.   Opportunity for interaction between At Large members and Directors. Fruitful. Directors report back from Board meetings, At Large participants can comment and ask questions.
       3.   Welcome the proposal to create ALSO. Particularly the regional council proposal.
       4.   Question regarding the number of directors. If we go from 9 to 6, there must be a guarantee that the Members will be a position of possibly not stopping a decision. Veto rights proposal. 6 to 6 to 6 proposal: needs more discussion. Balance the power of the developers, providers and users.
       5.   Membership system based on IDNHs: may establish barriers for membership, but is open for discussion.
       6.   Another discussion with Directors in Marina del Ray in November, 2001.
       7.   http://www.icannmembers.org/symposium/
       8.   Younger: many thanks; interaction with directors is great.
   J.   Public Forum
       1.   Younger: Asking Wong: what amount of input points to 6 At Large Directors?
           • Difficult to forge a consensus with relatively little input received. Many individuals are passionate about At-Large. Looked at theory and practice of ICANN, and see the developer/provider/user structure. Remain concerned about capture, and that problem is not yet solved. But more serious is how to get informed participation.
       2.   Mueller: NCDNHC concerned about developer/provider/user system because developers and providers are closely related. Vote endorsing only a two-way split.
       3.   Teernstra: Why has ALSC not asked for input from Teernstra, Auerbach, and others?
           • Have asked for outreach generally. Mechanisms are available for public input.
       4.   Cade: Thanks for the brevity and clarity of the reports (ALSC and NAIS). Many areas of agreement, but extensive clarifications needed. Can’t support the narrow definition of “provider”. Idea that ccTLD will form an organization of their own; but they may be a parallel organization. Concerned about a splitting. Maintaining regional structure of 5 directors. Outstanding questions about the regional issue. Questions about the interaction with the proposed members.
       5.   Ask whether ALSC and NAIS are going to prepare a joint report? Or act independently?
           • Wong: Seek to form a consensus. Other studies are helpful, and even more studies would be helpful. Lots of similarity – different labels, but similar concepts. Report still in draft form.
           • Dyson: ALSC is not an academic study. Our solution needs to work – in terms of its specific mechanisms and implementation. Looking for a consensus, but consensus needs to include the diverse private interests that actually run the Internet. Remember that work on the digital divide is beyond ICANN’s mission. Finally, there’s probably too little time for an additional study beginning now; need a workable solution within the next two months.
           • NAIS rep: NAIS is workable and practical. Report includes a timeline for how work could proceed. NAIS also addresses problem of legitimacy; 6-6-6 split does not do so.
       6.   Ress (Essential Information): To Wong and others: How will the number of Directors to be selected by At-Large affect the By-Laws? Still open for discussion?
           • Wong: Yes, still under consideration.
       7.   Calvin Browne (UniForum SA): Capture remains a serious problem.
       8.   Bildt (ALSC): ALSC’s mandate is to put out a draft on a particular schedule. We’re not “building paradise” but rather trying to be practical. Need a solution that is workable within the next few years. These are differences between NAIS and ALSC. Difficulties in sending out many paper PIN letters – huge expense. We do not necessarily think this is a final solution. We need to gain more experience and re-evaluate, as technology may provide new alternatives in due course. We need something that can work and work now. ICANN should be able to focus on its core tasks.
       9.   Davidson (CDT & NAIS): Copies of NAIS report are available in hard-copy. Though academic is in our title, this is a very practicable study. We can answer the financing question. There’s a different model for the membership structure. The ALSC needs to look closer; the devil is in the details. The domain name holders group may not represent the user community at large. Continue this debate over lunch. Free food! 12:30 – 2:00 today. Combine pragmatism and principle.
       10.   Bill Bezzant (InfoSiteServer) (#1319): Concerned about fraud in registration in the .info “Land Rush”. ICANN needs a plan to eradicate fraudulent Sunrise registrations.
           • Afilias: Solution in place which has been communicated to Mr. Bezzant. Fraudulently captured names will be re-released in early 2002. We will publish these names to the public. This is a fair and workable solution.
   K.   Simultaneous Translation Task Force - Luque
       1.   Task Force includes members who speak a number of languages.
       2.   Work has been slow to date due to summer.
       3.   So far, agree that respecting participants’ languages of choice will encourage and enhance participation. Also politically beneficial – suggests that ICANN is listening to all. Simultaneous translation might help attract more participants to ICANN meetings.
       4.   Recognize challenge of supporting so many languages.
       5.   Interpreters may be costly - require travel expenses, for example. Two interpreters required per language – one for the morning, one for the afternoon. Seven languages required. Cost approximately $16000 (per meeting?). Additional costs for headphones for approximately 600 attendees. Cost yet to be determined.
           • Funding not yet determined. Task Force may ask for help from various companies and other sponsors.
       6.   Propose the following languages: Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, French, German, Portuguese, Arabic.
           • Translations only from English to other languages and vice versa. Not from one non-English language to another.
           • Problem of participants who speak other languages (only). Not sure how to address this.
       7.   Interpreters to be trained in special jargon of ICANN. Need to receive documents in advance of the meeting. Should use the same interpreters for all meetings so they get used to the unique vocabulary of an ICANN meeting.
       8.   Schedule: Task Force meeting today. Possible Board approval in November. Possible installation in sub-Saharan Africa in March, 2002.
   L.   New TLD Evaluation Task Force – YJ Park
       1.   Lynn asked NC to send DNSO representatives to the New TLD Evaluation Task Force. Members from various constituencies as well as from PSO and GAC.
       2.   Work began on August 1.
       3.   Steps to be taken: Create categories of technical, business, and legal evaluation. Questions for each area. Management process. Realistic schedule.
       4.   Meeting on September 6 here in Montevideo.
       5.   Outstanding questions
           • Whether or not to include evaluation of multilingual names.
           • Didn’t get to legal and process evaluations.
       6.   Two-track evaluation for sponsored versus unsponsored TLDs. Question of who will conduct such evaluations.
       7.   Input requested.
       8.   Timeframe: Interim report to be ready by Marina del Rey, November 2001.
       9.   Still working on method and channel of communication.
       10.   Younger: Task Force includes no representative of registrars?
           • Registrar Constituency missed the deadline for sending a member. But they will have some input.
   M.   UDRP Review Task Force - Mueller
       1.   Sought a balanced task force to represent various perspectives on UDRP. In addition to constituency representatives, asked each dispute resolution provider to nominate a panelist, a administrator, a complainant, and a respondent. Also independent experts – an academic scholar and an ADR expert.
           • Task force did not select the members. Rather, constituencies and dispute resolution service providers selected the members.
           • Geographic diversity a problem – mostly North Americans, because constituencies and service providers mostly nominated North Americans.
       2.   To review the UDRP and make recommendations re how the UDRP should be modified, if at all.
   N.   Whois Committee – Paul Kane
       1.   Presentation delivered – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/whois.html
   O.   Review Task Force – Gaetano
       1.   Not much to report. Representatives from constituencies and the GA. Few comments received to date.
       2.   Wonder why so little participation. Perhaps because participation requires asking too many questions. But, GA had higher volume of discussion.
       3.   Lesson from this experience is that open WGs are more effective than closed task forces.
   P.   .ORG Task Force – Mueller
       1.   New Verisign agreements require Verisign to divest .ORG and later .NET. Non-commercial constituency interested in this. Want to keep .ORG open, rather than make it restricted.
       2.   Thoughts to date:
           • A non-profit authority should oversee .ORG and should be broadly representative.
           • .ORG should be sponsored but unrestricted. “Sponsored” because community is to be clear, and marketing is to be targeted. But, no policing, evictions, or restrictions in .ORG. To remain consistent with existing policies.
           • .ORG should be run in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
           • Task Force wants to remain involved as ICANN staff and management actually select the new .ORG registry.
       3.   Younger: Date for recommendations?
           • Mueller: Hope NC will be able to vote on proposed policy by MdR 2001. Public comment beginning in October.
   Q.   Individuals Constituency - Teernstra
       1.   http://www.idno.org/iccharter.htm
       2.   Reaction to reports more important that what he prepared initially.
       3.   Issue of minority board members.
       4.   Singapore: announcement of top-down DNSO approach. Way to make it work: establish a voluntary policy that people would follow. Has not gained enough traction. Incredible disillusionment. Membership groups not recognized. ICANN Board has not received substantial policy advice for over a year.
       5.   DNSO worth rebuilding and saving. All stakeholders can battle over policies and issues and send recommendations to the Board.
       6.   Board needs advice that involves all elements of the discussion, including compromises. DNSO conceived to be the consensus-building body.
       7.   Three seats could be reassigned to the Individuals’ Constituency. Proposal for such a Constituency set forth (Charter posted online at www.idno.org/ICCharter.htm).
       8.   Request for support and signatories.
       9.   Infighting wasting time of participants.
       10.   DNS stakeholder groups need to interact with one another. Policy advice of a lone SO is likely to be different from advice to the Board from other lone SOs.
       11.   Fee for At Large membership a bad idea. And serving as an At Large Director will be an exercise in frustration.
       12.   Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
   R.   Internet Policy Initiative – Alan Davidson
       1.   Presentation delivered - http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/gipi.html
IV.   Session with the DNSO Board Candidates
   A.   Patched in remotely: Joanna Lane, Jefsey Morfin
   B.   Abril i Abril: Would prefer not to run a reelection campaign, but rather to be judged on what i have and have not achieved this past year. Remember that my role was to make good decisions, not just to represent DNSO and its issues.
       1.   Challenges: Imperfect working situation within the board. Sometimes fail to give staff sufficient direction. SOs don’t give much guidance.
       2.   Prefer to leave other issues to audience questions.
   C.   Kane: Board supposed to listen to the community in a bottom-up fashion. I’d like to facilitate that. Directors need to have a mandate to represent broad Internet community, not just specific interest groups. Seek to encourage cross-constituency dialogue. Open door policy to participation. ICANN should be proud of what it has accomplished, but Board should be more of a trustee of the public interest.
       1.   Hope to assure no alleged conflicts of interest; reacto’s accreditation could be suspended to assure no conflict of interest. Will disclose any possible conflicts of interest in advance.
   D.   Morfin: ICANN’s work should be distributed and easy to understand, without any single point of failure. Concerned about mission creep. Constituencies and At-large must be building blocks of system, and must be accepted & developed as such. Focus on competition on quality and extended value rather than with lower price and poor service. ALSC must not “kill” ICANN yet. Announce: IALNA association to provide connections between all interested At-Large Members without exclusions.
   E.   Lane: See http://www.internetstakeholders.com .
       1.   Focus on big picture. Important that public be informed about ICANN’s decisions. Mainstream media should investigate the alleged corruption within ICANN. If true, this is more serious than Watergate. Allegation that ICANN answers to no one.
       2.   ICANN reflects a miserable failure at self-regulation and enforcement. “Technical policy coordination” is only a convenient excuse for ICANN’s massive social fraud. ICANN reflects big-business stability, not technical or Internet stability.
       3.   ICANN’s process results in the loss of human rights. No mechanisms in place to establish legitimacy or boundaries to authority.
       4.   ICANN will not release contact information of At-Large electorate, sabotaging any means of contacting members.
       5.   ICANN is a top-down oligopoly of only nineteen individuals. The elected directors are too few to have an effective voice.
       6.   Call for an explicit recognition of human rights and for the establishment of an independent international judiciary.
       7.   By-laws should not be changed without deliberation by Internet community.
       8.   Allege excessive expenditures on travel and consultants.
       9.   I stand for change.
V.   Questions for DNSO Candidates
   A.   Christopher Chiu (IDP/ACLU): To date, ICANN has approved only 7 new TLDs. Question for all the candidates: what is your view of a wider-scale roll-out of new TLDs?
       1.   Abril i Abril: The sooner the better. The ICANN community needs to do some sort of evaluation of our process for the addition of new TLDs. Questions remain.
       2.   Kane: Have been working on increasing TLDs since “newdom” list in 1996. Have previously suggested community selection which is truly bottom-up. Of course, subsequent evaluation still required. New TLD Evaluation Task Force is ongoing. Hope task force will consider a process for selecting new TLDs.
       3.   Morfin: Much personal experience with this, since 1978. Favor application of RFC920. TLD should be owned by registrants, not by commercial companies. Should have as many new TLDs as possible.
       4.   Lane: Agree that we should have more new TLDs. Implementation of new TLDs should continue until public demand abates.
   B.   Gallegos (#1323): ALSC/NAIS reports call for a reduction in number of At-Large Board seats. But prior documents specify fully nine At-Large seats. And what about seats for CCSO-selected directors?
       1.   Abril i Abril: Disagree with some aspects of some reports. But there was no such guarantee in the past, nor even any consensus. Most serious question is what purpose the At-Large (and its directors) serve.
       2.   Kane: Reports have just been published. Some concern expressed already. Community should be considering the number of seats – not just a Board Member saying what to do, one way or the other. Anyone interested in forming a SO should gather the appropriate documentation and seek community support; it’s not right for an individual Board Member to go against the wishes of the community.
       3.   Morfin: Comments will reflect how public feels about the proposals. Should be more interfaces between ICANN and the external world. The constituencies should be able to participate in as many SOs as they like. Each SO should have a council and a GA, so that people could participate in it. Registries, Registrars, ccTLDs must be present.
       4.   Lane: Studies aren’t final, so it’s inappropriate for me to comment in a final way. Don’t see the rationale for reducing number to 6 from 9, which was guaranteed in the MOU. Actually, all Directors should be elected. DNSO reform: even if there were 9 Directors elected, that would not negate the need for an IDNH participation process. The At Large should not be limited to IDNHs. If there’s consensus, I’ll go along with that. It has to be 9 seats or it’s a sham. Must be agreed to by the community.
   C.   Sheppard: Constituencies have had telephone conferences to decide which candidates to support. Joanna, is the electorate (to which you are appealing for support in your candidacy for Board) legitimate?
       1.   Lane: No, the NC is not legitimate. I am “biting the hand that feeds me.”
   D.   Park: See http://www.internetstakeholders.com . How are you (Lane) going to realize the goals presented in your statement? Are other Board Members going to support your positions?
       1.   Lane: Care about doing what’s right, about people. Removal of constituency voting rights for non-payment is something I am against. There should not be charges for voting.
   E.   Carey: Position of candidates on Membership Accreditation? (That At-Large Members would be people who have domain names.)
       1.   Abril i Abril: The approach of the study is not ideal. But, have to assure representativeness.
       2.   Kane: There are about 50 million domains registered, but hundreds of millions of users of the Internet. It might be preferable to also allow users to opt-in via some web site, even for those who do not hold domain names. Want as large a Membership as possible.
       3.   Morfin: Against the principle of requiring people to pay in order to get involved. At-Large members want to help; they should not have to pay to do so. And people may want to participate precisely because they lack domain names. Need to allow everyone to participate in order to make the process fair.
       4.   Lane: Sympathize with Carey. It should not be necessary to register a domain name before participating in At-Large. This is a problem that should have been addressed before the report was problem. Have to move forward with this in order to achieve the scheduled timetable.