September 10, 2001
ICANN Public Meetings
I. President’s Report - Lynn
II. Finance Committee – Wilson
A. Lynn’s presentation covers much of Finance Committee’s work. Met w/ Lynn and staff re status of budget, loan repayment, reserves, revenues, matching between revenues and expenses, possible variations from current budget, cash flow. Good progress on matching program expenses with chart of accounts – to make finances of ICANN easier to understand. Working on long-term (three-year) financial planning. Board is rethinking assumptions in long-term budgeting. Formal postings to follow.
B. Cerf: ICANN has many kinds of expenses. Have to know what money we spent on what kind of activities. Chart of accounts associates expenses with projects.
III. Audit Committee – Davidson
A. KPMG to conduct audit. Results to be presented in MdR. No indications of problems so far. Last year, emphasized internal controls. Have recently worked on procedure for Director access to documents. Future activities: Teleconference in October (after completion of audit), and face-to-face meeting with auditors in MdR.
B. Cerf: Understand that ICANN may be asked to certify that it has verified thoroughness and accuracy of audit. Applies to us?
1. Davidson: This hasn’t been discussed. Will meet with auditors in November to talk about this.
IV. Meetings Committee – Cohen
A. Considers meeting dates and places. Recommend three meetings in 2002: Sub-Saharan Africa, Central/Eastern Europe, and Asia/Pacific. In March, will discuss meetings in 2003 so as to give additional advance notice. No proposals received yet for Central/Eastern Europe; one for Asia/Pacific.
B. Two proposals received for Africa – Capetown, South Africa and Accra, Ghana. Quaynor excused himself since he was involved with one proposal. Both bids offered good venues. Interviewed representatives of both proposals. Lively discuss within Committee. Appreciate approach of proposers to cooperate with others. Recommend Accra, Ghana.
C. Abril i Abril: Concern about absence of proposals for some meetings. Concerned about meetings too close together.
1. Cohen: Propose only three meetings in 2002. (http://www.icann.org/meetings to be updated!) Asia/Pacific meeting to be in November, not September.
V. Root-Server System Advisory Committee – Murai
A. Presentation delivered – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/rssac.html
B. Cerf: Expanding number of root servers? Limit to how many are possible?
1. Murai: Packet size allows at most thirteen servers. To increase number of root servers, need to update software. Relocating servers might work equally well, but there are both engineering and administrative issues.
C. Abril i Abril: ICANN needs agreements with root server operators. Glad to see a schedule for the MoUs and other milestones.
VI. ENUM: Overview and Status Report
A. Presentation delivered – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/enum.html
B. Cerf: Thank you for covering this complex topic.
C. Fockler: Does the sharing of some country codes (“1”) cause problems?
1. Yes. “1” has surprisingly many countries. (18?)
D. Campos: Surprised by how often the ITU appears in the slides. This technology opens a door for regulatory bodies? Concerned that developing countries may suffer relative to interests of developed countries. Need to encourage awareness in developing countries.
1. An issue that needs to be addressed. The regulation is fine pertaining to existing resources. Needs to be rules and administration set forth. When we move into the ENUM scenario, don’t see the need for further regulation. I don’t see this as providing a stepping stone to further regulation.
E. Cerf: Thanks.
VII. Open Microphone
A. Pindar Wong (ALSC): ALSC has considered proper definition of “stakeholder” in DNS context. Have met with developers to discuss status. Believe definition of “stakeholder” needs to be dynamic given changes in DNS, and propose reexamination of this question from time to time. Underlying point is that ALSC recognizes dynamism here.
B. Sebastien Bachollet (Cigref): Need discussion of ENUM within DNSO from user’s perspective. ICANN must act here, or this work will be done within separate countries rather than globally. Recommend that Task Force look into this.
1. Cerf: Analyze this and send us a report.
C. Keith Teare (Realnames): Disagree with last speaker. ENUM builds on DNS, but users enter telephone numbers. Realnames has blocked registration of telephone numbers in anticipation of this kind of service. ICANN does not need to be concerned about the system, except in its underlying DNS components.
D. Roberto Gaetano: Don’t be scared of ITU; ITU elected Schink, who is a good Director. This application uses DNS in a novel way. Concerned to see that Board does not object to this kind of use of DNS, while addition of new TLDs to root requires proving and reproving the concept with extended delays. Concerned to see digits split.
1. Cerf: But do not have to split numbers in that way. This design allows breaks at any point, but it is not necessary to break it at every point.
E. Bill Bezzant (#1370): Concerned that Registrar fee schedule leads to increased revenue for ICANN if ICANN creates more new gTLDs. ICANN’s motivation for new TLDs should not be financial. And a large number of registrars should be available for registration in each domain name.
1. Lynn: ICANN’s budget is expense-driven. And additional $500 per registrar per gTLD is not so much. (See http://www.icann.org/stockholm/registrar-fee-topic.htm)
F. Abril i Abril: Paranoid of ENUM because I do not understand all of its issues. But want to hear something about new RIRs, in particular LACNIC. Comments from Board Members?
For additional technical information, please contact:
Ben Edelman and Rebecca Nesson