Q: Transfer of the A root server?

Q: Y2K

Q: important to understand that DNS is incredibly resilient system. 13 root servers, system would continue working even if majority failed. Distributed organization.

Q: Any discussion of adding new root server? Will there be a call for proposals?

Membership Advisory Committee: George Conrades

Committee geographically diverse
6 telephone meetings, 3-4 in-person meetings
Working with the Berkman Center
Developing report that will be posted online
Received over 850 comments
Committee Introductions:

• Izumi Aizu
  
• Tadao Takahashi
  
• Diane Cabell
  
• Kanchana Kanchanasut
  
• Pavan Duggal
  
• Greg Crew
  
• Oscar Robles
  
• Siegfried Langenbach
  
• Daniel Kaplan
  
• Nii Quaynor
  
• Dan Steinberg
  
• Jonathan Zittrain
  

ICANN Board to decide on membership structure at May 25 meeting
Registration could begin this summer
Nomination in fall
Election in early 2000

1. Many points of consensus, some outstanding issues
2. Who is a member?
1. Individuals and organizations not represented by SOs
2. For any individual user, not to be limited to IP address holders or domain name holders
3. Goal of large and diverse user pool
4. Organizations should also be allowed to become members.
5. Enroll large individual membership base to avoid capture.
6. No consensus on voting rights for organizations, but consensus that if organizations have a voting right, it should be no greater than one vote per organization.
7. Arguments:
1. Many big corporations are large users of domain names.
2. In many countries, representation through organizations is typical.
3. Those who believe organizations should be excluded are confident that the executives of such entities are capable of representing their commercial interests by voting as individuals.
8. Concern of crossover voting – should individuals who have a direct vote for Supporting Organization directors also be allowed to cast ballots for At-large directors?
9. Key consensus points:
1. Individuals who have no right to elect SO directors may vote in the at-large membership.
2. Individuals who vote for SO directors as representatives of organizations in an SO should also have a right to vote for At-large directors in their personal capacity.
3. Each individual gets only one ballot per election.
4. Proxy voting prohibited.
5. Privacy should be protected.
6. No membership classes.
7. Alternative methods of voting may be necessary.
8. Some identification should be required, including physical mail address, proof of citizenship, e-mail contact (private address preferable), annual renewal presumed. Criminal record should not be a disqualification.
9. Suggested procedure for registration: Online form filled out by applicant – combination of online and postal mail system.
10. Details and costs to be investigated.
10. Fees
1. No consensus reached.
2. Benefits of fees include cost recovery and discouraging fraud.
3. But funding may not be needed from this source. Fees do not necessarily prevent fraudulent duplicate registrations by wealthy interests.
4. Possible models include:
1. No fees
2. Donation
3. Scaled fees ($12-$35USD)
4. Enroll initial membership for free and revisit the issue in 12-18 months.
11. Candidates
1. Consensus that nomination of candidates may be made by any individual or organization.
2. If too many candidates, a reasonable show of support by X members may be required.
3. A nominating committee might be useful in soliciting candidates in regions with low turnout and in overseeing election details. No support for subjective evaluations of candidates by committee.
4. Objective criteria for candidates
1. Proof of identity
2. Proof of citizenship
3. Biographical information
4. Brief statement of positions on issues
5. Statement identifying sources of income and possible conflicts of interest
6. Commitment to provide time and Internet access to fulfill responsibilities of office.
7. Provide own translation until ICANN is able to provide translation as needed.
8. Proof of adulthood
9. Disqualifications: Second-term director, government official
5. Support for campaign activities – information on web site and online forum
12. Regional Representation
1. Consensus that bylaws should be changed so that no two directors from the same SO may be from the same region, that the at-large membership must include at least one member from each region and no more than four from a single region. Consensus that the regional cap on the total Board should be eliminated.
2. Concern was expressed that the lack of regional voting pools permits nations with a lot of voters to chose the representative from each other region. But current understanding of committee is that all candidates will be voted on by all voters.
13. Dealing with uncertainties in launching the system (possible approaches)
1. Start with a zero-fee initial membership and do aggressive outreach
2. Set objective goals for membership
3. Sample registration periodically to determine how well goals being met
3. Audience Comments

1. Q: What efforts will ICANN make to make process more understandable to average users?

1. George: Hired PR firm, want to improve communications globally. We haven't come up with a final solution yet. Aware that not everyone understands yet. Need to enlist help of businesses and Internet provider community.

2. Q: Asking the wrong question. The question should not be what the membership is but what the membership is for. Includes voting for directors and more. Need many members for this to work. Need help from regional groups to do outreach for nominations. Need petitions to require minimum support for nominees. If nominations done right, voting will be easier.

1. George: Some discussion already of soliciting members from existing groups.
3. Q (Izumi Aizu): Those who argue in favor of only individual members voting don't want to exclude organizations altogether; the exclusion is just for voting. Interactions with SOs very complicated.

4. Q: How can refugees satisfy proof of citizenship requirement? How is adulthood defined? Aren't children important Internet users?

1. George: Considered issue of children, but given responsibilities of the voters decided limitation was desirable. Define adulthood according the country.

5. Q: Other examples organizations using the procedures proposed for registration and voting?

1. George: Different procedures drawn for a variety of organizations. NSI and other organizations made suggestions based on their experience.

6. Q: Role of at-large membership in policy formation?

1. George: Intend to have as broad as possible a representation of the user community. Main task of membership is electing directors. Participation in broad-based policy discussions possible as well.

7. Q: Bad to exclude people who are active in SOs.

1. George: Not meant to be exclusionary. Goal is to get as broad a membership as possible.

8. Q: Concern of capture. More specific solution possible: Regulate how user domain name and IP registration data may or may not be used to solicit votes.

9. Q: Timetable for membership.

10. Q: Concerned about economics of membership model. Need to factor membership into business plan. Proposal will be quite expensive. Need subsidized process, especially for a large membership.

Berkman Center Membership Report: Jonathan Zittrain

1. Intertwined with the MAC
2. How to conduct useful academic research in an open environment?
1. Open workshops - accessible online
2. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs has the archive of the workshop and other work of the RCS
3. Attempt to have the Internet serve the organization as well as be the subject of its deliberations.
1. Translation
2. Remote participation
4. Focus on outreach and collaboration
5. Hoping for more collaboration with other researchers worldwide

Presentation on DNSO

1. David Maher
1. BMW proposal not withdrawn
1. Singapore group doesn't represent all stakeholders.
2. 90% would probably be acceptable to BMW group.
3. Constituency list should be that of BMW, not CENTR.
2. Q&A

1. Q: Key points of Paris draft are embodied in new proposal.

2. Q: Also supports new document. But it's not a draft, just a set of agreed principles. Not something ready for board consideration. Remaining concerns: Definition of constituencies. Supports BMW list of initial constituencies. Says that others agree. Another concern is role of individuals.

3. Q: Need clarification re role of individuals. Are they members? Need clarification of working groups.

4. Q: IATLD supports Singapore proposal.

5. Q: Speaking for ICIIU and DNRC: Inconsistency in 6.1 vs. 6.3. Are constituencies self-defining or defined by ICANN? ICIIU does not accept the list of constituencies in the new document. Need role for non profits.

6. Q: Speaking for NSI: Yesterday was a productive session. Paris draft is a good source of details. Hopes to put together a functional broad-based organization.

7. Q: Speaking for individual domain name users: Says there's no objection in the meeting to individual users as initial constituency. Wants to hear what the arguments against it are. It's in the interest of other constituencies to have the individuals within the DNSO rather than outside.

8. Q: The two original proposals should still be considered.

9. Q: Individual participation? The CENTR proposal allows any individual to be a member. This is good because its voting structure doesn't turn over determination of issues to general membership.

10. Q: .ca TLD. Shocked that BWM and Paris drafts are still being put forward as official proposals. ICANN Board should forget the titles and take the best of all of the proposals. Support Singapore draft although it's not perfect.
11. Q: Jay Fenello, ORSC. Supporter of Paris draft. Pleased with proposal. Individual participation in GA not sufficient, should be separate constituency as well.
12. Q: CIGREF supports BMW draft. Corporations are major developers of the Internet and of .com. Constituencies representing business interests should not be deleted.
13. Roberts: Want to assure that structure protects minority rights, but also want to avoid duplicate process that makes it impossible to efficiently make policy. Protection of minority views in ICANN Bylaws – e.g. notice and comment to SOs, GAC, and public. Also reconsideration policy, independent review process, and there's always litigation. All adds up to substantial protection of minorities.
14. Kraaijenbrink: Concern that there's still not agreement on central issues. It would be easier if original drafts were withdrawn.
1. Johnson: Paris draft included detailed procedures that ICANN might adopt. Have been working to develop ways to ensure that DNSO can act quickly. Wants to continue to work with Board on details.
2. Fay Howard: Any members of the Board who belong to organizations that have signed on to drafts?
1. Hans—ETNO has expressed support for BMW, but not signed on to draft. Notes that many other organizations support BMW draft as well.
2. Dyson notes that Roberts used to work for Educause (was Educom) which has expressed support for BMW.
3. Fenello suggests that Hans should abstain.
3. Do earlier drafts have to be withdrawn?

15. Q: If it matters how many corporations and organizations sign up to support a draft, more time needed to organize support.

1. Dyson: Looking for consensus, not just a list of supporters.
2. Abril I Abril: Singapore draft should be considered guiding principles.
3. In-Room Comment
1. Rahmat-M Samik-Ibrahim, VLSM-TJT
1. "You mentioned about the term "RFC". IMHO, it is like "pointing" the star in the sky So, which RFC, which article (inregard of DNS operation)"

Domain Name Issues: Francis Gurry

1. Would exclusion list apply to non-commercial TLDs?
1. It's possible. Under some national laws, dilution can apply even to non-commercial material. But basic principle is concern with commercial use.
2. Would ccTLDs be affected by these rules?
1. Concerns addressed apply to gTLDs and to open ccTLDs that permit registrants from outside the jurisdiction. But formally our policy is limited to ccTLDs.
3. WIPO plan depends on DNSO approving a non-commercial domain and an enforcement policy to keep it that way. Is that feasible? Who would do policing of distinction?
1. Distinction would be useful. Still seeking comments. Market would police itself. People would report each other for unauthorized commerce in non-commercial domain.
4. Worry of excessive litigation. Need advocate for defendants in DNSO.
1. No surprises here for domain name holders – if their domain name is disputed, they probably know about it already.
5. WIPO recommendations are controversial. Objections by members of experts' panel. WIPO has gone beyond charge of White Paper. ICANN should not be dealing with this in accreditation.
1. There has been one dissenting opinion so far.
6. There isn't really a problem – piracy is on the wane. These proposals would slow down the DNS process.
7. Is there a clear definition of open in the context of a ccTLD?
1. Dyson: No, just a general concept.
2. Gurry: Concept just a suggestion for ccTLDs considering applicability of recommendations.
8. CORE supports tightening the disclosure requirements for contact information provided in domain registration.

ICANN Board Policies and Procedures: Andrew McLaughlin