September 9, 2001
ICANN Public Meetings
ICANN Public Forum Montevideo, Uruguay – September 9, 2001
I. Cerf: Welcome to Montevideo.
A. This is a public forum, and the Board is hoping to hear from the public on pressing issues. Not for debate or speeches by the Board. Allow the maximum time to speakers.
B. Anyone making a presentation to the Board should bring their presentations to the ICANN staff at least 20 minutes ahead of time (to the tech table).
C. The Vice President of Uruguay will join us at about 8:45 a.m., speaking at 9:00 a.m. When he arrives, Public Forum session will be suspended and resumed after his remarks.
II. Internationalized Domain Names - Katoh
A. Presentation delivered – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/idn.html
III. Welcome from Professor Luis Hierro Lopez, Vice President of Uruguay
IV. Continuation of IDN Presentation – Katoh
A. Cerf: Essential to introduce all necessary character sets to the Internet. Appreciate the Working Group’s report.
B. Public comments
1. Keith Teare (RealNames): Note that RealNames operates above DNS. Does not modify the DNS itself. RealNames is entirely happy to provide this service to any gTLD or ccTLD. No barriers to entry. Internationalized test beds underway. Not a proprietary system.
V. At Large Study Committee Report - Wong
A. Presentation delivered – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/alsc-pf.html
VI. Dr. Jorge Batlle, President of Uruguay - Welcome
VII. ALSC Report, Continued
A. Cerf: Thanks to ALSC for hard work. Solicit practical comments to help us solve the problem.
B. Schink: Alternatives for direct participation of end user – were organizations such as ISOC considered.
1. Wong: ICANN is global. So individuals need to be able to express concerns directly, and to aggregate their voices in a reasonable way. ISOC is a good way to assist with this, but we do not want to over-specify the details here. Further geographic divisions may be helpful, and organization within each region should be bottom-up.
C. Christopher Chiu (IDP/ACLU): Concerns with ALSC report: Linkage between domain name ownership and voting rights. This repeats mistakes of prior times. Also concerned about membership fees – a “poll tax.” Should not have to pay to vote.
1. Wong: We are drawing a distinction between representation on the Board and participation in ICANN’s activities. Importantly, a person need not have a domain name to participate in ALSO activities. Furthermore, ALSO may lower the barriers to participation. Public interest in the stability of the DNS is ensured by each domain name system operator doing his part in properly configuring his portion of the system.
2. Wong: Fees intended 1) to test level of interest in At-Large, 2) to ensure that ALSO has resources (independent from ICANN). We observe that ISOC and other groups exist and collect similar fees.
D. Marilyn Cade (Business Constituency): BC posted questions (macro and micro) on its web site. (http://www.bizconst.org) Agree with concepts of representation and participation as well as regional councils. Concerned about roll of registrars and are unsure how they would help here. Membership fees should be sufficient to fund the At-Large. Find the three categories (users, providers, and suppliers) quite subtle – much overlap. Consider providers to include business users, ISPs, non-commercial users, registrars, and registries to be providers, as well as intellectual property groups; we would not support a narrow provider category.
E. Izumi Aizu (ANR GLOCOM NAIS): Thanks for good work. There are large areas of overlap between NAIS and ALSC reports, but I want to focus on differences. Concern about fraud; need more study here, and more explanation. Believe NAIS report could be more readily implemented. Timeline for coordinating further work?
1. Wong: These are draft recommendations. “Micro” issues remain, including technical specifics.
2. Aizu: More outreach meetings?
3. Wong: Outreach is important – both to find answers and to forge consensus.
4. Aizu: Remaining differences: Six-six-six split of Board Members is undesirable. Nine-nine reflects a better balance of public and private interests. Membership fee may not work well here.
5. Wong: We’re considering the barriers to getting a domain name. These barriers are low and should get lower if ICANN itself is successful. The timing of new TLD activities matches our own activities.
F. Gallegos (#1331): MoU and ICANN By-Laws specify nine At-Large seats. How to understand a change here?
1. Wong: Spent a lot of time on this. Only after much discussion did we come to favor a change. Have to think about what we’re actually trying to balance here – public and private turn out to be mixed together. Need a structure that will be balanced in the long run, and it’s not obvious which axes are most important to balance (gender? geography?). We think that six-six-six makes sense, but we recognize the need for consensus here.
G. Roberto Gaetano: The important question is not how many directors are elected, but rather how they relate to the membership. Need continuity in the At-Large process. Need connections between ICANN Board and local communities. Propose sending a message to those who participated in last year’s At-Large elections, and surveying them re their level of continued interest.
H. Joop Teernstra: Pleased with majority of the ALSC report. Agree with practicality of starting with domain name holders. Do not agree re “democracy” comments from Chiu; have to start somewhere, and evolution will help make things better in time. Concerned about requirement of domain ownership for voting. Focus on meaningful participation (rather than Board seats) is consistent with my own past work. Individual domain name holders can help improve balance in policy. This fits in with improvements to the DNSO and NC. Merit of arguments should determine the outcome, not the number of Board Members selected in a particular way. Finally, paying a membership fee is not necessarily appealing.
I. Elliot Noss (Tucows): Discussion assumes that individual users will be represented only through an At-Large group or an Individual Domain Name Holders group. But individuals have benefited dramatically from work to date – lower prices for registrations, higher quality of service, and a variety of business models – even without a significant At-Large contribution.
1. The businesses which have been most successful are those that have served the interests of end users, and that have fought for interests of end users. So business goals (enlightened self-interest) can and should be consistent with goals of end user.
2. Thanks to ALSC for hard work.
J. Vittorio Bertola (@Large Member): Need an implementable approach. Need high quality participation as well as large quantity of participation. If intent of using domain name registrants is to verify identities, we can also allow those who verified their identities in some other way (including by PIN in the 2000 At-Large process). A six-six-six split of Board would allow two groups to eliminate the third; need some way to prevent this. Need startup financing, and need registration fees to be as low as possible.
K. Alan Davidson (CDT/NAIS): Agreement on importance of public participation. But details are important, and serious questions remain.
1. How to include those interested people who are not domain name holders?
2. Fee raises equity issues? The expenses here should be covered by ICANN’s ordinary budget.
3. To some, the suggested reduction in seats reflects a change in the basic bargain of ICANN’s legitimacy. Need to deal with problem of changes to bylaws.
L. Clement Dzidonu (INIIT, NAIS): Departure between NAIS and ALSC. Charging fees to test existence of an At-Large is puzzling. Do not equate lack of knowledge with lack of interest. There is and will be interest. Consider the problem of people who share domain names – companies, universities, families.
1. Wong: Even with access to media, it can be hard to establish an international brand. ALSO will help. Suggest that initial contact with domain name holder be through administrative contact. But most important is to facilitate participation, not just voting.
M. Alan Levin (Future Perfect): There have been direct elections. And many who have been impacted lack domain names. These inform future decisions, while we may be unable to answer bigger questions in the time available. Need to consider structure from perspective of stakeholders.
1. Wong: Have to draw a line somewhere. We want some minimal coupling that makes sense – what we propose is imperfect, but we have to value substance over form. Committee has limited resources, as does ICANN, and solution needs to take this into account.
N. Abril i Abril: Other ways to structure elections than geographic? Geographic elections seem to favor candidates from most wealthy nations within each region.
1. Wong: We did consider other ways to organize At-Large. There are significant challenges, but it might be helpful to review the structure here. Would be interested to hear feedback on whether or not regions are optimal.
O. Edmund Katiti (Makerere University): Recent deployment of Internet cafes in some regions. Users of such services do not have (nor need) individual domain names. It would be undesirable to force them to obtain such domain names in order to be represented.
1. Wong: Recommendation of requirement of domain name registration deals with representation. No such requirement for participation generally. And domain names are free in some instances. We expect progress here over time.
P. Sotiris Sotiropoulos (#1333): Does proposed ALSO negate the need for an individuals constituency in DNSO?
1. Wong: Not sure. Depends on what DNSO is and how an individuals constituency would operate. But people who wish to participate in SOs will do so no matter what.
Q. Wilfried Woeber (@large): Would membership fee be the same globally? Suggest that fee should vary across countries based on GDP. Suggest use of existing organizations to coordinate local organizing and collect fees – more efficient, and better encourages local participation. Should consider feedback loops that might result from At-Large work.
R. Raul Echeberria (ENRED, LACNIC): Don’t want there to be a significant barrier to participation. Which is the best system to authenticate identity? We can do better than by using the domain name holder barrier.
S. Wong: Thanks for the opportunity to share work so far.
VIII. GAC Report - Twomey
A. Report presented – http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/communique-09sep01.htm
B. Pisanty: Describe GAC’s comments on ALSC report? GAC to advise countries on ccTLDs? Board and community might benefit from more specific guidance from GAC – on WIPO Report in particular. Does the GAC expect to send (more) advice to the Board on .INFO?
1. Twomey: No formal response to ALSC. GAC is better able to respond once the Board has a tentative position.
2. Twomey: Re ccTLDs: The GAC provides more input to some countries than to others. Most countries are happy with the situation, which is relative to individual country’s circumstances.
3. Twomey: Have to be careful re what comments are made where (since many GAC members are also involved with WIPO). Recommendations still unclear on geopolitical names and personal names. No specific policy but there’s concern on the part of certain members.
4. Twomey: Don’t want to set a precedent here; decisions here are particular to .INFO. Conscious of the fact that certain countries have special problems here. We think the .INFO registry’s present rules will cause many domains of this sort (country names) to fail as it is.
C. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter: Number of governments participating in GAC is stable – less than one sixth of world governments. Why so few?
1. Twomey: Conscious of this. But more than fifty governments have participated in at least one meeting. Travel time and expense have an impact, as does contents of GAC meeting agenda. Poor countries find this a hardship.
D. Izumi Aizu (ANR, GLOCOM, DOT Force): DOT Force would like to respond to communiqué. Seek to facilitate universal participation. http://www.dotforce.org/reports
E. Peter Dengate Thrush (Co Chair, ccTLD Meeting; .nz): Would like to be able to review communiqué in advance.
1. ccTLD community would likely support GAC’s work. Concerned about small number of countries attending. Hard to call this a true consensus when the turnout is so low.
2. Much of what GAC discussed is actually eCommerce.
3. Note that Board has never adopted GAC principles. Note that ccTLDs have developed bottom-up principles.
4. Where would you prefer to see the ITU sit?
5. Twomey: Nature of GAC work makes it hard to produce the communiqué faster, but would like to publish it earlier if possible. GAC principles reflect 18 months of discussion and reflect a unanimous consensus of GAC members. Process is valid, and ICANN can respond as it finds appropriately. Can’t respond to ITU question.
F. Bill Semich (#1338): Does GAC suggest that governments own or claim names, letters, or codes that describe their areas?
1. Twomey: GAC has no opinion on the ownership or claim. Certainly state governments have opinions. Member states of WIPO may discuss this there.
G. Patricio Poblete (NIC Chile): ccTLD sessions were closed only very briefly. Worry that some government officials lack the necessary personal knowledge to make good decisions re domain names. Note that domains like usa.com, australia.net, etc. have had no negative effect. GAC could seek to educate members about the absence of dire consequences of such domain names?
1. Twomey: Members of GAC put great effort into education. Note what communiqué says – limited to .INFO. Registry has shown willingness to cooperate with the GAC’s idea for .INFO reservations.
H. Cerf: Participation in GAC will increase as Internet penetrates more countries.
IX. gTLD Registries Constituency – Continued Recognition
A. Touton: New members of gTLD Registries Constituency require adjustments to Constituency’s charter.
B. Rodin: Constituency now has four members, likely eight soon. By unanimous approval, voting will proceed as follows. Two kinds of votes for the gTLD Registries Constituency: For NC representatives, and for other business.
1. NC representatives: For unsponsored NC representative, simple majority, one vote per gTLD. For sponsored NC representative, simple majority with one vote per gTLD. For third NC representative, …
2. Other business: Require majority of sponsored TLD, majority of unsponsored TLDs, majority of weighted votes.
3. See presentation – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/gtld-registry.html
C. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter: Invite .GOV, .MIL, .EDU, and .INT to participate?
1. Rodin: Just the registries that are signing contracts with ICANN.
X. ASO Report
A. Presentation delivered – Woeber - http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/aso.html
B. Cerf: Timetable for new IP registries?
1. Woeber: Don’t know. Most of the work is the responsibility of the new registry – to set up a site, establish proper legal framework, etc. But all registries are being very professional about this.
2. Lynn: Will discuss this tomorrow.
C. Pisanty: Describe the ASO election process for ICANN Board Member?
1. Woeber: Documented in the MoU. http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/aso-mou.html (section (3)). Try to work by consensus.
2. Pisanty: Challenges to the procedure?
• Woeber: No.
XI. Issues and Process for Evaluation of New TLDs – Lynn (“NTEPPTF”)
A. Presentation delivered – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/tldprocess.html
B. Cerf: This task force is to submit a plan for how to evaluate the TLDs, not an actual evaluation of the TLDs?
1. Lynn: Correct.
C. Patrick Murphy: IATA is concerned about delay in implementation of new TLDs. Implications are serious for those applications that are considered “pending.” We had anticipated new TLDs in place now, and another round of additions beginning by the end of this year. We have sought support with travel community and have found it. Separately, an alternative root server is offering an unrestricted .TRAVEL, contrary to our intended operating procedures. Recommend that the Board revisit “pending” applications.
D. Naomasa Maruyama (JPNIC): JPNIC issued a document about “Alternate Root Problem” – to be on JPNIC web site. Deep relationship to new TLDs – emergence of alternate roots suggests dissatisfaction with ICANN’s speed. Uniqueness of DNS root is important and must be protected. Suggest speeding up decision-making and implementation of new TLDs. More energy needed for outreach here.
1. Lynn: Board’s decision was to begin with a proof-of-concept rollout. Job has proven difficult in ways that hadn’t been anticipated. Learning a lot in the process, and creating a framework for easier and faster rollout of future TLDs. Taking your comments to heart.
E. Joan Dzenowagis (World Health Organization): Concerned that evaluation and launch phases are taking longer than anticipated. ccTLDs are operating as generic TLDs without the controls that apply to gTLDs – for example .MD which is related to the .HEALTH we proposed. We face pressure from alternative roots (.DOC and .MED), and confusion results. We want to play by the rules, but the delay is difficult. Suggest another set of approvals in March 2002. In particular, interim steps:
1. By November, call for expression of intent to continue applications (by those who previously submitted applications).
2. Allow amendments to proposals in light of experience of past year.
3. Review amended proposals in January and February.
4. Approve more new gTLDs in March.
F. Blokzijl: We need to evaluate whether the process as a whole actually works.
G. John Klensin (IAB/ AT&T): Times are changing. ICANN shouldn’t move any more slowly than it needs to, but certain experience that we’ll have through users will inform our decision in important ways. Move as rapidly as reasonable, but monitor how these new domains are altering the DNS.
XII. Open Microphone
A. Steve Klein (Internet Driver): Have a unique multilingual solution. By design of certain systems, it is only possible to reach certain sites when using certain character sets (to enter their addresses). Board should look at solutions like ours.
B. Marcus Faure (CORE Council of Registrars): Upset about ICANN membership with GNR. GNR is allowed to sell email addresses at the second level – email@example.com - which means solely GNR provides this service. Surprised that the majority of the Board permitted this. How to justify this decision?
1. Cerf: Board observed that no one is forced to use this service and that there are many alternatives. The problem you describe could prevent GNR from getting any customers in the first place.
C. David Thompson (auDA): Enthusiastic about redelegation of .AU. Support the contract though not necessarily the process.
D. Richard Henderson (#1340): Concerned about flaws in the .INFO testbed procedure.
1. Cerf: This is part of the experiment – to figure out how to cope with these kinds of difficulties.
XIII. Sponsored TLD Agreements and .PRO – Touton
A. Board approved four unsponsored TLDs and three sponsored TLDs.
1. See http://www.icann.org/tlds draft and final attachments and charters.
2. Sponsored: For .MUSEUM, agreements ready for approval by Board after any final errors are corrected. For .AERO and .COOP, recommend a modified seven-day Board Member review period as previously used for unsponsored TLDs.
3. Unsponsored: There has been discussion of a possibility that .PRO Registry’s financial resources might vary from the description in its application. Understand that these problems may just have been resolved, but too soon to say.
B. Sponsored TLD applications anticipated using competitive registrars. Some new sponsored TLDs worry that they may have few registrations, and thus seek to avoid the expense of competitive registrars. Staff seeks advice from Board, and Board might seek comment from Public.
C. Abril i Abril: Do sponsoring organizations have anything to add?
D. Lynn: Registries may not be represented due to change of schedule.
E. Cerf: Will take their comments later.
XIV. DNSO Report – Sheppard
A. Topics of DNSO Review Report:
1. Considering criteria for adding new constituencies.
2. Options for cost-effective translation (perhaps automated).
3. Alternatives to email-based fora for discussion.
B. Also to look at structural issues – seeking constituency consensus re possible ccSO, ALSC report, individuals constituency.
C. Whois - Kane
1. Presentation delivered – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/whois-pf.html
D. Future of .ORG TLD – Carey
1. .ORG Task Force chaired by Mueller. Formed in June with a GA representative plus one representative from each constituency. To determine characteristics of new registry, policy considerations, and selection criteria. Conclude:
• .ORG to be a sponsored namespace, preferably sponsored by a non-commercial entity.
• .ORG will have a charter for non-commercial / non-profit organizations. But there will be no evictions and no remedies for those who do not comply. Charter’s focus will be relevant primarily for marketing.
• .ORG task force wishes to remain involved in deliberations re the specific registry operator to be selected.
• Final report by MdR meeting.
2. Lynn: These are recommendations to the NC? Press may be mischaracterizing this? No recommendations from NC to Board as yet?
• Carey: Correct. Recommendation to the NC, then NC makes a recommendation to the Board, and Board decides.
• Cerf: So, if NC approves of the report, it could be on Board’s agenda in November.
E. UDRP Review – Carey
1. Gathering public opinion and expert advise. Questionnaire to be available shortly (originally by September 15). Concerns about geographic diversity of task force – 16 of 22 members from North America.
2. Cerf: Consider new WIPO report?
• Carey: Yes, will consider a variety of independent studies.
F. Equitable allocation of SRS Resources - Gomes
1. Beginning in January, Verisign Registry saw a rush in requests to re-register deleted names. Problems began in July as such requests intensified. Limits imposed on connections registrars could have to the SRS. Initial limits unsuccessful, and some remedies had undesirable effects on certain registrars.
2. As many as 40 million requests in 6 hours. Check requests on a single domain name as often as 1000 times per minute. As many as 100000 check commands per successful registration.
3. New policies: Minimum guaranteed connection for each registrar. Posting the list of names that would have been deleted. Subsequently added resources to increase available connection. Provide three pools for connections: Guarantee of 15 connections per registrar; overflow pool for those who need more connections; pool for automated requests.
4. New system working OK at this point, but solution is expensive – poor use of resources for actual number of registrations.
5. Verisign and Registrars are continuing to look for solutions.
6. Cerf: Other registries having similar problems?
• Gomes: Don’t know about ccTLDs. New gTLDs are not yet operational but are concerned about this.
• Blokzijl: Could happen when a cybersquatter goes bankrupt in a ccTLD.
7. Naomasa Maruyama: Need a change in the SRS protocol. In .JP, have a “simultaneous application period” wherein all applications in a designated time period are deemed to be received at the same time. There’s then a lottery among all such applications.
• Gomes: We do have such a grace period.
8. Rob Hall (Namescout.com): Outcome of yesterday’s meeting between Verisign and registrars. Intend to assure fairness to all registrars, to produce a permanent fix, to avoid interference with other activities for other customers. Need a solution quickly, and need to consult all stakeholders. Seek consistency across registries.
• Proposed solutions include spreading deletions over a longer period; running a separate registry; selling registrations for position in queue should registration be deleted.
• Problem may get larger as more registries come online.
9. Sheppard: NC decided to defer to Registrar constituency for dialogue with Verisign. Are monitoring this carefully, but are pleased so far.
G. Poblete: ccTLD constituency met for two days. See communiqué at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/cctld-communique.html
1. IANA-ccTLD Working Group Meeting – statement at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/cctld-managers.html
2. Fockler: Understood that ccTLD had announced imminent departure from DNSO. No longer?
• Poblete: Will stop making financial contributions to the DNSO at the end of 2001.
• Fockler: So you don’t participate in the DNSO after the end of 2001? No NC participation and no voting?
• Poblete: Hope to have a ccSO proposal ready by November meeting.
3. Schink: Understood that ICANN CEO and staff are intensively working to understand ccTLDs’ goals.
• Poblete: Proposal from ccTLD community has been available for some time, but no feedback from ICANN staff.
4. Pisanty: ccTLDs should pay their share to ICANN – no free-riding. ccTLDs will benefit from a properly-functioning ICANN. And what’s the rationale by which ccTLDs are so special if there are no naming issues? Finally, need a comprehensive look at the ccSO and associated changes? Need a comprehensive proposal.
• Poblete: Discussion is about stopping DNSO payments at a future date (at which ccSO should already be in order).
5. Pisanty: Give any thought to the other changes resulting from the ccSO?
• Dengate Thrush: Outreach to other constituencies and to ICANN staff. Also corridor conversation.
6. Cerf: Could receive simultaneous proposals for changes from ccSO and ALSC. Could be problematic and could prevent us from doing either?
• Dengate Thrush: Yes.
• Cerf: Want to be clear that we may have some difficulties in that case.
7. Abril i Abril: Could the ALSC report affect the ccSO plan? Contractual relationship with ICANN is even more important than the SO structure.
• Poblete: These tasks are hard. ccTLDs still have to think about it.
8. Jeff Neuman (Neulevel): Appreciate the work of ccTLDs. gTLDs have prepared a list of questions and await responses. Look forward to a level playing field between gTLDs and ccTLDs, especially ccTLDs that market themselves as gTLDs.
9. Keith Teare (RealNames): Transition of namespace from nationality-based to subject-based presents challenges to ccTLD administrators. Ask Board to be sympathetic to ccTLDs that provide a nation-based naming system within a rapidly-evolving global naming system.
10. Roberto Gaetano: Problem is ICANN staff not moving quickly to do what ccTLDs want? If ICANN follows the ALSC’s suggestion of 6-6-6 split between providers, developers, and users, ccTLDs could be placed into one of those three classifications (rather than needing a fourth classification)? ccTLDs would accept a SO without the right to elect Board Members?
• Poblete: See a difference between problems with ICANN and with IANA. Problems with IANA can be solved, to allow faster response times; this is not related to whether ccTLDs are an SO or a constituency.
• Poblete: We haven’t thought about fitting into one of the ALSC classifications.
• Dengate Thrush: Note that ccTLDs paid between $700,000 and $1 million last year to ICANN. The funding at issue here is not that (for this year) but the ccTLDs’ share of DNSO funding (on the order of $15000).
• Dengate Thrush: No consultation between ALSC and ccTLDs re the ALSC study. At-Large is focused on solving gTLD problems, not ccTLD problems. Probably would not be able to fit into ALSC classification system.
• Dengate Thrush: A range of views within ccTLD community re number of Board seats.
11. Gaetano: At-Large is to be users of the Internet. Users of ccTLDs are included in At-Large.
• Dengate Thrush: ccTLDs are accountable to policy-making bodies in their respective countries. Need not use ICANN for such comments.
12. Denise Michel (ALSC): ALSC has recommended that Board consider six seats for ALSO and twelve for other SOs. Have not recommended 6-6-6 specifically. Hope for more input from ccTLDs, and have at least one ccTLD manager on the ALSC.
13. Pindar Wong (ALSC): Have considered potential impact of ccSO. This is what led us to the need for a structure for ICANN that is balanced for the long term. Remain interested in tracking developments of ccSO. Regarding Board Members, suggest a 6-12 split, and consider the specifics of the 12 to be beyond our proper focus.
H. Sheppard: DNSO Review will endeavor to produce its report on a timetable helpful given the other forthcoming reports.
XV. Registration Transfer Rules
A. Halloran – presentation delivered – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/transfers.html
B. See also http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appf-com-16apr01.htm#ExhibitB
C. Complaints and other public comments at http://forum.icann.org/regxfer/
D. Registrar Problem Report Form - http://www.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi
E. Topic Paper & overview - http://www.icann.org/montevideo/registration-transfer-topic.htm - with correspondence archives
F. Registrar Constituency position – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/transfers2.html - Palage
G. Abril i Abril: What is a constituency position paper in the context of this process?
1. Palage: This position paper only resolves ambiguities in the existing policy. So no DNSO approval is required.
2. Cerf: This is implementation.
H. Nigel Roberts: Speaking as an individual domain name holder. Existing agreements are clear that gaining registrar is the entity that must authenticate a transfer request. One large registrar has been unlawfully denying authorized transactions. Is ICANN a regulator for gTLDs or not?
1. Cerf: Our contracts make us effectively a regulator. But we are ill-equipped to deal with problems on an individual basis.
2. Lynn: In certain areas, we have well-defined contractual responsibilities. In other areas, not. Things work best when constituencies work through problems among themselves.
3. Cerf: If there are policy problems here, we should work on them.
4. Palage: New registries may be able to provide an alternate means of verification.
5. Cerf: Should seek to unburden parties from having to react so quickly.
I. Werner Staub (CORE): Systematic damage already inflicted. Verisign has substantially increased the costs for other registrars. Should reexamine the dual role of the incumbent.
J. Roger Cochetti: Initially, Verisign accepted all transfers. As volume of transfers increased, Verisign Registrar initially thought this reflected competition. But as Verisign examined why customers were leaving, came to require customer to send a fax. Survey reflected that many (more than a third) of registrants who had transferred away from Verisign reported that they had not done so. A second survey showed comparable results. Began a procedure of checking each transfer request before authorizing it. Cumbersome and not ideal. Look forward to improvements. Contracts with ICANN limit the authorization period to only five days, so it’s not possible to grant thirty days for authorization.
K. Elliot Noss (Tucows): Understood Cochetti to have said that Verisign would stick to its position no matter what registrars do. Have asked Verisign for evidence of specific problems with specific customers. None received to date. Believe surveys to date are not sufficient to establish that there’s a problem here. Verisign has been unwilling to investigate any possible problems, the existence or absence of problems with specific registrars, or the inconvenience to customers of the new Verisign approach. It is wrong to characterize the Verisign policy as a “consumer protection” effort.
L. Fockler: Until a few minutes ago, thought this problem was being handled within constituency. Now it seems otherwise. Does the ICANN Board have to get involved?
1. Palage: Registrars Constituency has almost unanimity at this point, save for one significant registrar. But if that one registrar does not participate, will seek guidance from ICANN.
2. Lynn: Registrars constantly ask ICANN to get involved. Have suggested that registrars work it out among themselves. Will respond only to a constituency request.
M. Kai Schatzl (#1355): An “auto-nack” procedure causes too much confusion. Note also that some ISPs choose registrars for their customers, and registry should accept these change requests.
N. Abril i Abril: Goal is to serve customer choice, not registrars’ commercial interests.
1. Palage: Seek to return to auto-ack to minimize confusion and damage to consumers.
XVI. Sponsored TLD Agreements and .PRO - Touton
A. The problem has been narrowed somewhat in the last two hours. I previously asked for public comment re new small sTLDs that wished to avoid competitive registrars so long as they remain under 10000 domains. .AERO and .COOP expect more than 10000 registrations, while .MUSEUM continues to expect fewer registrations.
B. .MUSEUM proposal: No requirement to use competitive registrars so long as less than 10000 registrations. If more than 10000, competitive registrars, and existing registrations to be moved to new registrars at next renewal.
C. Rob Hall (Namescout.com): ICANN has worked hard to produce competition in gTLDs. New sTLDs suggest using resellers but not accredited registrars. Only time for a monopoly registrar is when no competitive registrar wishes to participate.
D. Michael Palage: New sTLDs must work, especially because they get only one opportunity (for lack of major funding). Registrars want to help.
XVII. Update on ccTLD Agreements
A. McLaughlin – Presentation delivered – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/cctld-update.html
B. See also http://www.icann.org/montevideo/au-agreement-topic.htm
C. Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz): This is the only presentation that did not involve the affected group, i.e. ccTLD administrators. We had been assured by ICANN staff that these agreements would not be discussed in this meeting.
1. Cerf: Comments from ccTLDs by November?
2. Dengate Thrush: ICANN staff documents do not reflect ccTLD process over last three years. Contact should be to firstname.lastname@example.org .
D. Vittorio Bertola (@Large Member): Say that ccTLD manager has to act in service of local Internet community. But need to be more clear about what serves the local Internet community. Need some specific guidelines?
1. McLaughlin: See ccTLD best practice guidelines. (http://www.wwtld.org/ongoing/bestpractices) Also look at drafts to see whether they cover the topic. Hard to put this into words.
E. McLaughlin: Note that these documents are and have been on the Montevideo agenda. But let’s focus on reaching resolution.
F. Nigel Roberts (.GG Registry): If documents had been posted six weeks ago, we would not feel so frustrated. But we have put significant resources into producing an equitable contract. We need a formal response to the document we have produced so far, not an entirely different document.
G. Hiro Hotta (JPRS): Agreements are needed before redelegation?
1. McLaughlin: No firm rule. If a registry were to fail, ICANN would move swiftly to attempt to preserve name resolution. But at this stage, we think redelegations ought to include a written agreement.
H. Elisabeth Porteneuve (AFNIC): ccTLDs wish to be partners, including partners in drafting.
I. Bart Boswinkel: Although agreements were posted just before meeting, CENTR members understood that meeting would take place later.
J. Patricio Poblete (NIC Chile): Document was posted as ccTLD managers began to travel. Refers to many documents but notably not to the document that ccTLD managers produced.
1. McLaughlin: The ccTLD document and the ICANN proposal are similar. Documents are not demands. ICANN posts documents to the web and ccTLD managers review them. If posting is too late for this meeting, then treat it as the first posting for MdR meeting, and focus on the substance.
K. Sue Leader (.nz): ICANN considers changes to name servers to be a redelegation. Redelegations will not be considered without a contract, except in emergency. When did Board make this policy?
1. Lynn: My email to you (Sue) did not say that nameserver changes were redelegations. Rather, technical contact changes might be redelegations in some circumstances. Our data shows that actual time to process (after receiving all relevant authorizations) is only three to four days at ICANN. US Government approval takes longer. Summer vacations can make this longer in some circumstances.
2. Leader: “A change of a nameserver is not a redelegation.”
3. Lynn: Correct.
4. McLaughlin: Must look out for stealth redelegations. Might wonder whether a nameserver change is actually a redelegation (with tech contacts left the same) when server is being moved “far away.” But such a change still requires DoC approval because it is a change to the root zone file.
5. Leader: Changing a technical contact?
6. McLaughlin: Staff goal is to establish written agreements with ccTLDs. Redelegations ought to take place in the context of a formal written agreement.
7. Cerf: Have asked staff to seek written authorization in case of redelegation.
L. Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz): Have called for meetings with CEO and ICANN Staff in MdR. Not sure Board intended Staff to require contracts in order to complete redelegations. If Board did intend this, it should be a policy that follows the appropriate procedures. Board should support or request this approach in MdR.
1. McLaughlin: We see this differently. We’re trying to formalize community service relationships in written documents that benefit everybody. “Legacy arrangement” is about two pages, allows termination by either side with 30 days notice, etc. Does not seem burdensome or oppressive, and seems appropriate during a redelegation.
M. Cerf: Today is not the right day for this discussion.
N. Dengate Thrush: Not interested in further justification of the Staff’s procedure. Want an answer from the Board re whether or not they were aware.
O. Kraaijenbrink: Detect that there are ccTLDs who do not want to interact with ICANN. A group of ccTLDs in CENTR are having productive meetings.
P. Fockler: Board was aware of this procedure. Had expected that acceptable agreements would be reached more quickly. It might be reasonable to review that approach in this environment.
Q. Pilar Luque: Status of language translation task force?
1. Lynn: Tomorrow.
R. Elisabeth Porteneuve: Willing to work together on these issues.
S. Dengate Thrush: Happy note of ccTLD Communiqué. See Communiqué policy point two. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/cctld-communique.html
T. Vany Martinez (SDNP/Panama): Initially contracts had two parties. When a third party is added, does ICANN defend the ccTLD in any subsequent disputes?
1. Cerf: This would be as described in the contract itself.
2. McLaughlin: Legacy agreement model is intended to support registries who need it. Such an agreement can be helpful in some discussions with countries.
3. Cerf: Depends on nature of the legal action that the ccTLD faces.
XVIII. Open Microphone
A. Jane Mutimear (Bird & Bird): Clerical errors in .INFO sunrise registrations. In particular, at least four registrars submitted erroneous trademark dates, trademark registration number, trademark countries. So these applications seem “facially unqualified.” But Afilias will not accept changes for six months. Permitting clerical corrections to the record is important. Registrars should be able to revise Afilias records to reflect what registrars’ clients actually gave them (and nothing else). This is worth an amendment to the contract if necessary.
B. NaoMASA Maruyama: Do not change order of agenda items. Adherence to scheduled times is needed to allow audience and presenters to prepare.
C. Tony Holmes (BT): There seems to be a move towards client-side resolution of domain names in IDNs. Drafting a paper to move things forward.
D. Rachel Macgregor (#1358): Concerned that .INFO problems require the .INFO roll-out to be put on hold?
E. Danny Younger (GA Chair): We have moved away from working groups to task forces. But task forces do not address problems properly – include only a limited number of members. We look for a broader degree of participation.
1. Abril i Abril: But some of the WGs were unworkable. What to do?
2. Younger: WG-D made recommendations re systems for working groups. We should do as they recommended.
F. Abril i Abril: Questions for McLaughlin. Solely want to understand the documents on the table. How to relate to GAC principles? GAC principles bind us?
1. McLaughlin: Have told ccTLD managers that we will figure out how best to notify government that a contract is forthcoming. Government should know about the government, but we will not wait for a government to get involved if it is not ready to do so. ICANN’s policy is neutrality. Sometimes, government will be involved; sometimes not; sometimes government may be in active dispute with administrator.
G. Pindar Wong (ALSC): ALSC seeks a consensus. Input required and welcomed.
H. Joop Teernstra (IDNO): Have been waiting for NC Chair to describe the DNSO Structure task force.
1. Sheppard: Report delivered earlier in the day. See online archives. (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive)
I. Peter Dengate Thrush: Understand that there is no ICANN policy regarding contact with foreign governments. ICANN may want to take advise from US State Department? Too much discretion is left to staff when negotiating with foreign governments.
J. YJ Park: Concerned about IDN Steering Committee. Appreciate bringing those issues to the fore. But concerned about scope. Continued lack of participation from interested parties. It is premature to enter the policy-making process for multilingual domain names.
1. Cerf: Perhaps you misunderstood the proposal’s scope. We want to understand the policy issues here and to determine what policy will be needed.
2. Katoh: Agreed. Did several months of study and fact-finding to identify challenges. Now, need to review policy possibilities. Not anticipating a quick decision.
3. Park: Still premature to enter policy analysis. And other organizations are already involved in this area.
4. Cerf: See proposed resolution. (http://www.icann.org/montevideo/idn-topic.htm#SteeringCommittee)
5. Katoh: Yes, coordination will be important here.
K. Abril i Abril: It’s either too early or it’s too late. And do you have any professional affiliation with an organization that offers IDN-related services?
L. Murai: “Steering” sounds like a strong word. But that’s not the intention of the committee.
M. Roberto Gaetano: Need to facilitate participation by people from more countries. Interesting to talk to those with special travel stipends to come here.
N. Joop Teernstra (IDNO): Did not understand that Sheppard’s report was the entirety of discussion on the subject. Need to go deeper.
1. Sheppard: Report to Board was about process, not substance. Future reports to be available in next few weeks and posted for public comment as well as discussion in MdR.
O. Park: In reply to Abril (“And do you have any professional affiliation with an organization that offers IDN-related services?”): There have been efforts to identify the policy areas.
P. Danny Younger (GA Chair): DNSO-Review mailing list is posted for public review. At most ten comments were posted there.
For additional technical information, please contact:
Ben Edelman and Rebecca Nesson