DNSO Names Council -- Scribe's Notes
September 8, 2001
Montevideo, Uruguay
ICANN Public Meetings

I.   Introduction – Sheppard
   A.   Meeting is open for public observation.
II.   ICANN Board Elections
   A.   Voting procedures
       1.   Proxy: Carey has proxy for Chicoine.
       2.   Grant is with us via telephone.
       3.   Explanation – Porteneuve – presentation delivered: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/electionrules.html
   B.   Sheppard: Question: Did you have the possibility of a computer in this building for voting?
       1.   Porteneuve: tomorrow morning in the ICANN Staff Office may be possible. Deadline: 9:00 a.m., so 8:00 a.m. Absolutely necessary to discuss by e-mail.
   C.   Sheppard: In the first round of voting, two candidates may be eliminated. In future rounds, only one will be eliminated.
   D.   Porteneuve: Proxies.
III.   Update on GA session with candidates: Sheppard
   A.   Stubbs: Audio and video archives to be available?
       1.   Edelman: Yes, this afternoon.
IV.   Restructuring and Review Process
   A.   At Large Report & Reactions Received: Bildt
       1.   http://www.atlargestudy.org/draft_final.shtml
       2.   Decisions needed shortly. November is soon.
       3.   See a general agreement that At-Large involvement is important due to public policy implications of ICANN decisions.
       4.   Don’t see an obvious rationale for 50-50 split between public and private interests. Public and private interests are mixed throughout ICANN’s structure. Developer/provider/user seems a more logical classification system.
       5.   Regarding who can be an At-Large Member: Lots of people without domain names have an interest in ICANN’s work. (Those with email addresses only, or those without email.) But we have to draw the line somewhere, and have to keep costs manageable, which both make it preferable to restrict membership to those with domain names.
       6.   Concern with a 12-6 split means that the 12 (non-At-Large) directors could abolish the 6 (At-Large) directors. Don’t have an answer to this as yet.
       7.   Sheppard: The At-Large is somewhat different from a SO in certain respects – not an advisory body to the Board in the same way.
           • Bildt: Yes, there’s a difference. Though some people favor using the same name for the two structures – symbolism of equality.
       8.   Carey: Restricting membership to domain name holders is a cost-cutting measure primarily. But what about people who are unable to register domain names because their ccTLDs cannot or do not allow/encourage individual registrations?
           • Bildt: There are other ways of getting domain names (other than ccTLDs). We need to deliver a proposal that is practical and affordable, and allowing non-domain holders to be members will increase costs.
       9.   Stubbs: Notice dependence on Internet cafes and web-based applications. How to reach out to someone who primarily uses such services? How to avoid capture by the providers of such services (which may have huge membership lists)?
           • Bildt: Capture is a hard problem. But even if someone really tries to capture the system, it seems unlikely that they could capture more than a single seat, and even then it would be obvious and the community reaction would be strong.
       10.   Stubbs: If a person operates a domain name and creates a subdomain (lower in the hierarchically), then delegates it, is the person to whom it was delegated eligible for membership in At-Large?
           • Bildt: Not yet determined.
       11.   de Blanc: Collect voter registration information from registrars? Remember that there are no registrars in most CCs.
           • Bildt: Yes.
       12.   de Blanc: It might be difficult for many people to actually implement getting a domain name. Need a credit card, which is hard for many people and in many places.
           • Bildt: The difficulties in transferring funds in some places are beyond ICANN’s abilities to solve.
       13.   Park: Still favor a nine-member structure and think more discussion is in order here. Also, note that both studies concluded that ICANN decisions affect the public interest, meaning it might be in order to increase representation of end users.
           • Bildt: Chose a 6-6-6 structure, but the composition of each of the blocks is still undecided.
       14.   Cochetti: Observations to last year’s elections? And if Members are people who have registered domain names, why not multiple votes for people who have registered multiple domain names?
           • Bildt: Read the report re last year’s elections. Would seek to reduce capture problems, and seek to reduce dependence on mail problems.
       15.   Cade: Grateful for all the ALSC outreach. Sounds like you want to draw a distinction between who you propose should be able to vote versus who can participate.
           • Bildt: Yes. ALSO provides an area for participation. ALSO might facilitate mailing lists, possible physical meetings, etc. Financial and structural independence in each region.
       16.   Bildt: Note that it’s a draft report. Many details still to be derived from the principles set forth.
   B.   Future of .ORG – Mueller
       1.   Representatives of GA plus all constituencies except ISPs.
       2.   .ORG to be sponsored (defining the community it seeks to serve, with focused marketing) but unrestricted. Efficient and reliable operation. Service to be available in all feasible timezones and languages.
       3.   No evictions to be made from .ORG because of this change. Had considered restrictions, but they’re too hard and present few benefits.
       4.   Administration to be consistent with policies of ICANN process, including UDRP and Whois.
       5.   Want DNSO Task Force to help ICANN staff solicit and select bids for .ORG registry.
       6.   Report to be published by October, with decision in November.
       7.   Stubbs: Registration systems to remain the same? Still a thin registry?
           • Mueller: Technical system hasn’t been worked out yet.
       8.   Cochetti: Look forward to written report. And are these technical decisions or policy decisions?
           • Mueller: Goal is to get .ORG to a new registry (other than Verisign). Policy questions are about restrictions and about sponsored/unsponsored status. Note that documents are posted on dnso.org web site.
   C.   UDRP Review: Mueller
       1.   Review process included representatives of each dispute resolution provider (panelists and administrators) as well as respondents, complainants, and independent experts.
           • Task force had discretion only over respondent, complainant, and independent experts. Result was 14 North Americans and four people from other regions.
           • Questions: How much to worry about geographic representation on task forces in the future? How much to worry about geographic representation on this task force?
       2.   Propose to add two non-North Americans to the Task Force.
           • Sheppard: Follow-up via email.
           • Cade: They are qualified for the job?
           • Mueller: Breaking principle that every constituency should be represented equally. But these additions are qualified and were previously nominated.
           • Porteneuve: A good idea.
           • Stubbs: Believe in geographic diversity. But keep in mind the problem of having too little diversity in other respects. Too many lawyers, perhaps, for example.
           • Mueller: The new additions are people with many skills, among them technical and likely legal also.
           • Park: User perspective is also important.
           • Carey: Note the importance of geographic diversity on the ICANN process. The volunteers to form the UDRP Task Force and its final composition is a perfect example that the efforts of outreach are not enough and will have a consequence to extend the existing digital divide with developing countries.
       3.   Mueller: Schedule – unlikely to be complete by MdR 2001. Questions to be posted in October.
           • Sheppard: How long a delay?
           • Mueller: A month and a half.
V.   Equitable Allocation of SRS Resources – Stubbs
   A.   Registrar constituency has been working to identify problems.
   B.   Gomes: Gave a talk during the GA. Repeating it here.
       1.   See scribe’s notes http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/scribe-ga-090801.html#verisign-srs
       2.   Stubbs: Want to make sure that Verisign and registrars agree on what the problem is. Progress seems good so far. Other registries should get involved, as should small registrars. ICANN should be involved too.
           • Gomes: Halloran is participating.
       3.   Tindal: How many names have been purchased this way?
           • Gomes: 128,000 had been accumulated that needed to be deleted.
       4.   Stubbs: This is not just about speculative registrations. Also about legitimate business activity. Sincere desire on both sides to get these issues resolved. Trying to avoid creation of a problem in the future. Asking Gomes to work with him to get a report back to the Names Council prior to the next teleconference, even if it’s just a check-in.
       5.   Gomes: hopes to have a good report by then.
VI.   Restructuring and Review Process
   A.   ccSO and Implications for DNSO – de Blanc
       1.   Presentation delivered – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/cctld-nc.html
       2.   Cochetti: Appreciate the effort and the outreach. gTLD constituency feels it has too little information to have a view of the proposal. Still have questions that we (and, we suspect, others) need in order to form an opinion. Specific list of questions provided. Look forward to answers.
           • de Blanc: We have not proposed anything yet. Are moving in the direction of establishing an appropriate organization which could be in position by November to function as an SO and to sign a contract with ICANN. But we have not yet put forward a specific proposal. We’ll keep the DNSO informed.
       3.   Cade: Held a meeting yesterday. Tracking what ccTLDs has done, but do not support creation of other new SOs.
       4.   Stubbs: Registrars are interested in the situation and look forward to your final proposal. Those who are concerned about balance of power should keep in mind that many current ICANN Board Members have close ties to ccTLDs. So ccTLD perspective already cannot be ignored by the Board.
           • de Blanc: True at the moment. But this is by accident, essentially, and may not remain the case in the future.
           • Stubbs: If you look at the composition of the ICANN Board, you see that Board Members were chosen for their reputations and demonstrated abilities. These are characteristics related to their roles in ccTLDs.
           • de Blanc: In the future, Board Members may have different characteristics. We need a structure that anticipates this.
       5.   Tindal: Different ccTLDs have different characteristics. Belize is a case study.
           • de Blanc: Can’t do anything about the interest of countries in using their ccTLDs to make money with their ccTLDs. For some countries, with certain ccTLD strings, the prospect of selling ccTLD usage is very appealing.
       6.   Park: In Stockholm, non-commercial constituency could not reach consensus. Now, support a ccSO, but are concerned about amount of representation for ccSO. Possible conflict between ccTLDs and ccSO.
       7.   Cade: Governments should be able to make decisions that relate to their country codes. More complex when system is hybrid. Need to consider approach for voluntary compliance. ccTLDs need to carefully watch those domains where there may be cybersquatting, consumer confusion, or fraud.
           • de Blanc: Want users to have consistent and comfortable experience across TLDs. A trade association, perhaps. Market forces also will assure quality.
       8.   Roberts: Concerned that there is no proposal yet. But ccTLDs have already indicated that they will not continue financial support for ICANN past the end of this year. Could reduce or make more difficult consensus for your proposal.
           • de Blanc: Will keep paying ICANN. It’s the DNSO that we won’t pay past the end of this year. Perhaps some kind of a peer-to-peer structure with DNSO for purpose of payments. Ongoing dialogue is valuable.
VII.   DNSO Review
   A.   Sheppard: Looking at DNSO operations, web site, translations, etc. Interim report forthcoming.
       1.   Also looking at impact of At-Large and ccSO on DNSO. Need to add these topics to Terms of Reference.
   B.   Cade: Should bring the group to a close since it had a specific purpose to accomplish and it has done so. Should begin a process for reviewing proposals across constituencies.
   C.   Park: Confused to see the Terms of Reference change at this time. Should move forward with Individual Domain Name Holders promptly, for example.
       1.   Sheppard: We previously made a list of criteria to apply to any new constituency. But we now have new information not anticipated at that time – a new ccSO, a new “ALSO” (or something similar) – we need to address those ideas as well.
       2.   Park: Process is moving too slowly. Implementation process is confusing.
       3.   Stubbs: Becoming impatient. Process has taken too long. Do not like the idea that NC is protecting existing constituencies by creating an impasse.
       4.   Sheppard: Distributing the criteria was intended to make the task easier, not harder, for applicants.
       5.   Cochetti: Implications of new constituencies and SOs are significant. Need more time to consider response.
       6.   Cade: Frustrated that progress has been so slow. Criteria are clear, so people should move forward. Refer details here to Task Force. But given the timeline here, we cannot delay the review process.
       7.   Roberts: Concerned about timeframe. We need to speed up. Task Force could break up & prioritize its work. New constituencies should be a high priority.
       8.   Sheppard: Need a new group to consider these issues?
           • Cade: Cochetti suggested a distinct task force to consider the ccSO. But we don’t have that proposal yet. Do have an At-Large proposal and could work on that at this time. But need a new group to do so.
       9.   Sheppard: Need a new group to address structural issues?
           • Carey: Two separate issues.
           • Sheppard: Will try to move forward rapidly.
VIII.   Whois – Kane
   A.   Presentation at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/whois.html
       1.   See timeline slide. Interim report by April 2002. Updated report in MdR.
       2.   Meeting at 4:00 tomorrow on the 4th floor.
       3.   Tindal: Process has been well-executed and successful. Very inclusive.
IX.   Budget Committee – Cochetti
   A.   Have been both underspending and undercollecting. So we’re OK, but that’s because we lack the staff. Several constituencies have not paid dues for 2000 and/or 2001.
       1.   Voluntary fundraising remains slow. Have received no funds as yet, but have pledges of $8000 (before Verisign matching).
       2.   Park: Non-commercial constituency has not paid yet. When is exact due date? When would voting rights be lost?
           • Cochetti: At last meeting, NC agreed that failure to pay 2000 dues does not fall under sanctions. Failure to pay this year’s dues would have to send out a sequence of notices before voting rights are forfeited.
X.   Other business
   A.   Park: Need greater public transparency in selection of secretariat. Selection documents should be reviewed by the public.
       1.   Sheppard: Do not propose to publish personal details or individual evaluations.
       2.   Roberts: Understand YJ to focus on the contract (rather than on selection process documents). Contract to be completed and signed before end of October.
XI.   Public comments
   A.   Jeff Neuman (NeuLevel): For de Blanc: gTLDs have contracts with ICANN – escrow, service level, ICANN consensus policies, registrars, price regulations, etc. If gTLDs are subject to these restrictions, and ccTLDs are not, you can understand our concerns here, especially when some ccTLDs market themselves as gTLDs. Consistency in contracts required to assure consistency in end user experience?
       1.   Many ccTLDs have similar contracts – but between ccTLDs and their governments, via consumer protection and related guidelines in various countries.
       2.   Cade: Most ccTLDs have few registrations – only about 30 have more than a few thousand registrations. In that context, it would not be desirable to add too many requirements.
       3   Cochetti: 35% of registrations are in ccTLDs. Faster growth in ccTLDs. At current trends, ccTLDs will overtake gTLDs. In a few years, gTLDs may not be the largest. So focus shouldn’t be on the smallest of ccTLDs but on the largest, which can be as large as the gTLDs.
       4.   de Blanc: Most ccTLDs fit into the small tiers as defined in ICANN’s budget. Germany and the United Kingdom have large numbers of registrations, but they’re not using their ccTLDs as gTLDs. And if there’s an anticompetitive problem here, the WTO might be able to help.
       5.   Neuman: New sponsored and unsponsored TLDs have significant regulations. Bottom line is that we should have a level playing field, where ccTLDs follow comparable rules.


For additional technical information, please contact:  

Ben Edelman and Rebecca Nesson
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School 

Other ICANN-Related Content from The Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Translate with Altavista Babelfish: Deutsch, Espanol, Francais, Italiano, Portugues