Assembly -- Scribe's Notes
ICANN Public Meetings
Report from Chair – Danny Younger
A. Participation on list is way
up. Membership doubled.
B. People are interested in current
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
2. Reviewing ccTLD
documents posted by ICANN. Note that ICANN has not been using language
3. Remain willing
to fund ICANN as anticipated by budget, with or without contracts with
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.
Status of .biz Roll-Out
2. Going live October
Report on .info Sunrise Registrations
2. Public launch
begins September 12
3. Live real-time
registrations in early October
Study Committee – Pindar Wong
2. Comments due
by October 26. Final report due November 14.
for more information
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
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
6. Another discussion
with Directors in Marina del Ray in November, 2001.
8. Younger: many
thanks; interaction with directors is great.
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
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
10. Bill Bezzant
(InfoSiteServer) (#1319): Concerned about fraud in registration in the
.info “Land Rush”. ICANN needs a plan to eradicate fraudulent Sunrise
• 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
N. Whois Committee
– Paul Kane
delivered – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/whois.html
Task Force – Gaetano
1. Not much to report.
Representatives from constituencies and the GA. Few comments received
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
• Mueller: Hope
NC will be able to vote on proposed policy by MdR 2001. Public comment
beginning in October.
Constituency - Teernstra
2. Reaction to reports
more important that what he prepared initially.
3. Issue of minority
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
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.
Policy Initiative – Alan Davidson
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
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
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
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
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
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.
For additional technical information, please contact:
Ben Edelman and Rebecca
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School