ICANN Public Meeting Details 

Meeting Proceedings Archive 

Meeting held in Suntec City, Downtown Singapore
March 3, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm

Notes of the realtime scribe
Introduction | Governmental Advisory Committee | Root Server System Advisory Committee | Membership Advisory Committee | Berkman Center Study | Domain Name Supporting Organization | Domain Name Issues | ICANN Board Policies and Procedures | Draft Guidelines for Registrar Accreditation


Board Members:
  • Esther Dyson, interim chair of ICANN board: interested in hearing from the broader Internet community
  • George Conrades
  • Mike Roberts, CEO and Interim President
  • Frank Fitzsimmons
  • Greg Crew
  • Jun Murai
  • Hans Kraaijenbrink
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
international, not for profit, private corporation. managing key technical functions of the Internet
Agenda: series of reports, followed by public comments and feedback

Governmental Advisory Committee: Paul Twomey

founding chair
role of GAC is to consider and provide advice to ICANN board on activities relating to governments, government interests

GAC not a decisionmaking body, but an advisory body. ICANN is there to make the decisions; GAC is forum for the discussion of government concerns, including consumer interests

Membership open to all national governments, also includes some multilateral treaty organizations

Structural issues: operation, communication

Policy: administration of CCTLDs, intellectual property issues

working groups: practical relation between ICANN and cctld administrators

applicability of jurisdiction of CCTLDs for territories

friends of the chair group


  1. National governments endorse the principles behind the creation of ICANN
  2. Commitment to efficient procedures supporting ICANN
  3. Discussions on substantive issues relating to worldwide Internet usage, administration of CCTLDs, WIPO process
  4. Next meeting in Berlin in May.

DNS Root Server Advisory Committee: Jun Murai


The big question is the future of the root server system, to ensure its reliability.
Existing system: transparent - most people don't care how it works - but need it to work.
ICANN Bylaws: advise the Board on operation of root servers, operational requirements
Work items:
write technical procedures for operation, procedures for modification
make management of root server system more robust
Relationship with other groups

  • IETF
  • Y2K risk management
  • Membership
  • initial chair - Jun Murai
  • no set number of members - technical experts
  • second meeting, March 18 (tentative)
  • expected initial draft after meeting
  • Mailing list: rssac@icann.org
    Jon Curran (ARIN chairman). rssac recommendations impact thousands of ISPs -- what process for input? Flexible on adding experts, ISPs included among these. Any recommendations will be open for public review
    Problem: March meeting in Minneapolis -- heavy snow! The root server management system should be robust

    Q: Transfer of the A root server?

    Need some time. Any matter relating to the operations will be addressed by the committee. Discussed yesterday, further discussion needed

    Q: Y2K

    Root server system in special role, but not a unique system. Existing test efforts. Important systems, not that large a code

    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?

    Room to add. Will have to define procedures.
    Topology of the Internet needs study.
    Root Server: Technical, topological problems, not political.
    Membership: who are the people involved

    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

    Berkman Center Representation in Cyberspace Study

    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

  • Conflicts of Interest Policy – Comments
    1. Subset of the board will serve on the reconsideration committee?
      1. Yes – a separate process for independent review. Solicitations of expressions of interest in advisory committee on this issue forthcoming.
    2. Review by internal committee is inappropriate; outside review would be better.
      1. Dyson: Distinction between an internal decision that needs to be reconsidered and something that violates ICANN's bylaws and requires external review.
      2. Roberts: Legislative history – reconsideration and external review provisions are in response to concerns about accountability raised during formation of ICANN.
    3. SO participants very likely to be involved in industry and to have conflicts. Should consider more streamlined but consistent version for them to avoid repetition.
      1. Require only that SOs establish policies not inconsistent with these requirements.
    4. Do abstentions based on conflicts of interest get reported publicly?
      1. Minutes of board meeting will indicate who voted in what way. Not certain whether minutes would indicate reason for abstention.
      2. Board consensus: Director must disclose conflict to the board. Minutes would reflect the conflict.
    5. Imposing conflict of interest policy on staff (not officers) might make it more difficult to attract staff.

    Paul Wilson – APNIC
    In cooperation with RIPE-NCC and ARIN, will hold an open discussion re address SO.
    Place: Room 204
    Time: 8-10PM
    (following DNSO meeting)

    Registrar Accreditation Guidelines: Joe Sims

  • ICANN now designated "NewCo" under Amendment 11
  • More than 50 comments received
    1. Some from potential registrars – generally supportive of guidelines as published.
      1. Thought the approach of the draft was likely to produce the intended result – competition.
      2. Thought some parts of the guidelines overly burdensome and bureaucratic.
    2. Trademark and business interests
      1. Some thought guidelines don't go far enough to protect IP.
    3. Privacy and use of information collected
      1. Tried to create level playing field for registrars subject to privacy requirements of different jurisdictions.
    4. Raising questions about general appropriateness of ICANN accrediting registrars, especially before DNSO constituted
      1. Ideally, ICANN would have full complement of SOs in place, but we're operating pursuant to timeline of Amendment 11
    5. Suggestion that accreditation should be done through registries instead of directly between ICANN and registrars
      1. Staff will recommend that Board retain flexibility to change procedure if circumstances warrant
  • Preliminary views of staff in response to comments received so far
    1. Some changes focused on reducing burden on registrars and on taking into account diversity of potential applicant pool
    2. Rather than strict specific objective requirements, suggest safe-harbors.
    3. Those registrars who are accredited should have a right to continuing renewed accreditation to encourage investment
    4. Will recommend fixed counterpart of accreditation fee set at $5000 US, variable fee undetermined; application fees in draft guidelines
    5. Data escrow updated more frequently
    6. Domain name holders should have right to retain names through renewals
    7. To provide opportunity for revisiting guidelines, suggest that board commit to complete review in spring 2000.
  • Audience comment/questions
    1. Q: To begin with, one company will be registry and registrar. Not a level field. Between which parties is domain name contract made? Will there be contract between registrar and NSI?

      1. Between person seeking DN and registrar.
      2. Expect business relationship between registrar and NSI, subject to amendment 11 and informed by ICANN guidelines.
      3. We don't know when NSI contracts will be published
    2. Q: Comment about delegation of authority from ICANN to registry to registrar. Why isn't that possible now?

      1. Circumstances of competitive registration, registry also serving as registrar. Not precluding other models. Recommend flexibility if other models are more appropriate later.
    3. Q: Defining a business model, ability to assess up to $1 per domain name. Will that be expanded to CCTLDs?

      1. Guidelines speak only to .com, .net, .org domains. Do not extend to CCTLDs or other TLDs
      2. Don't mean to be defining a business model. Processes and Bylaws operate as check on fees.
    4. Q: Will registrar's only incremental cost be $1 to ICANN? Will registrars sell domain names for 2 years, or only 1?

      1. No, that's only related to accreditation by ICANN
    5. Timeline
      1. Have to prepare detailed process, then set dates. Expect those next week.
    6. Q: Country code registrar – different model.

      1. Diversity of business models is a good thing.
    7. Q: Problem with licensing requirement, not necessary for deregulation. Regulatory body solely for the purpose of regulating NSI – even though they're subject to antitrust law and amendment 11 – necessary?

      1. Don't believe we're creating a regulatory regime. Unique situation with NSI. If objective is to promote competition, don't interpose NSI in the process, instead, deal directly with the registrars.
    8. Q: Imposition of regulation by accreditation unnecessary. Does accreditation merely gain the right to sign a contract with NSI, leaving contract with NSI the key issue?

      1. Recognize the issue. Amendment 11 constraints
    9. Other things needed for competition: price control (under Amendment 11). Domain name portability is crucial to competition.
    10. A: Becky Burr: See Amendment 11 re pricing. (". . . no more than a dollar amount per registration to be specified in a further amendment" (reflecting costs and reasonable return on investment).)
    11. Q: (via email) Will regitrants still be able to go straight to InterNIC for a domain name. Will that go straight to NSI's registry, or through NSI as registrar?

    12. A: Identical interface between NSI as registry and all registrars (NSI and others).
    13. Q: Anti-slamming policy?

    14. Q: Concern with sites that contain ip infringing material. Will IP owners be able to locate website owners quickly?

    15. A: Slightly outside of the scope of these guidelines.
    16. Q: Motion Picture Association – DNS that is not well-administered is threat to copyright owners whose works can be distributed on Internet. Need to prevent domain name abuse; establish system for rapid identification of websites involved in piracy. Concerned that draft allows too much anonymity. There should be no opportunity for third-party registration of domain names. ISP should be fully identified and there should be unrestricted access to WHOIS-type domain name information database.

    17. A: Dyson – other public policy issues (privacy and freedom of speech) are involved. There may be ways to have anonymity but to protect copyright with third party liability or other mechanisms.

    18. A: Roberts – clarify that registrant is still legally responsible even if they register on behalf of third party.
    19. Q: Shouldn't assume that most people who apply will be ISPs and large corporations. In Canada, we found that less technically sophisticated parties apply. Current financial requirements are too high.

    20. A: Qualifications for test bed should be higher because it's as-yet untested system. But staff will suggest modifications that lower requirements for regular (non testbed) accreditation.

      Q: Concern re extending regulatory regime to contractual relationship between registrars and registrants. Protests including anything from WIPO recommendations in accreditation guidelines. It is very controversial. Especially problematic before DNSO is formed.

      Q: Follow up on earlier question regarding whether or not NSI gets retail sale when a registrant goes to InterNIC.
      A: (Don Telage) There will be a totally new interface that will be the same for all registrars. (Chuck Gomes) InterNIC is really both a registrar and a registry. Registrar and registry functions will be split.

      Q: So what will people get when they go to InterNIC?
      A: (Gomes) If they go to NSI registrar site, they will be able to register a domain name.

      Q: Suggests including a registrar in the test bed that is of "lower quality" to test the worst case scenario.

      Q: For the millions of names currently registered in gTLDs, who will process renewal?

      Q: What is status of data in WHOIS database? Who owns it? Who has access to it? Who owns the root name server?
      A: (Joe Sims) Whois is still an issue to be discussed. (Esther Dyson) We are concerned with balancing openness and competition with privacy.

      (On to more discussion of DNSO.)

      Q: How will board deal with DNSO proposals?
      A: (Dyson) There are two formal proposals and a significant comment (the Singapore document). Goal is to make a decision on general form of new DNSO at Thursday board meeting—using proposals and comments. Still details to be worked out.

      Q: (ICC) Appreciate need to move forward. But has strong concerns that process proposed puts priority on speed rather than on hearing from all stakeholders groups. Proposed process also deviates from process they expected and that ICANN represented it would follow. Their understanding was that only applications submitted by Feb. 5 would be considered at this meeting. Welcomes participation of CENTR and looks forward to working further on principles. But it's impossible to come to conclusion today on whether to support these principles—cannot approve new proposal without further consultation. Process could damage credibility of ICANN. There should be a new period for comment on any new proposal—at least three weeks.

    21. (Esther Dyson) There is not completely new material being considered here. Just variations on what has been on the table.

    Q: Would like to hear board discuss the issues in public. (The issues identified in the CENTR proposal.)
    A: (Kraaijenbrink) Can build on principles and revise if necessary. More public review won't solve the differences.

    Q: (Dyson) What are board member views on what should and should not be a constituency?
    A: (Crew) Too many constituencies could be difficult to administer and make consensus on council difficult to achieve.
    A: (Conrades) Need to have more discussion regarding pros and cons of the constituency list. Need to balance clear identification of interests with need for simplicity. Generally not imposed to increasing constituencies. But concerned about workability of the SOs. (But making details work is up to the DNSO.)
    A: (Roberts) All information coming into board, from whatever constituency, is welcome.
    A: (Fitzsimmons) Thinks that five or six constituencies is not unreasonable.
    A: (Dyson) Would tend to be generous in recognizing constituencies in order to forge compromise.

    Q: This process was determined by the ICANN bylaws. Is ICANN allowed to change the proposals under the bylaws?
    A: (Dyson) She understands that following applications and final comments, board has some leeway to come up with final form. (Sims) (See Article VI of ICANN Bylaws.) Language not entirely clear, but Board will attempt to act in accordance with the bylaws.

    Q: Consider constituency of registrars (listed as potential constituency in CENTR draft).

    Q: (Roberts) Do you believe that Board has on the record a comprehensive view of community’s thinking about this? (Clapping and affirmative noises.)

    Q: Only Paris draft met ASCII requirement
    ;-) Seriously, note that White Paper says that individuals should be represented.

    Q: Is there anything DNSO groups should be doing in the next day to help?
    A: (Dyson) It might be helpful to talk after the board meeting on Thursday to work on possible language. Can’t promise anything, but will try to vote on everything by 4:00 press conference. Will try to have something detailed enough for ICANN lawyers to write the bylaws.

    Q: There has been adequate input from a wide variety of parties.

    Q: Any entity with an interest in the domain name system should be able to join the DNSO. Including non-profit organizations, more. Shouldn’t be exclusionary.
    A: (Conrades) That’s why I support more constituencies rather than less. CENTR draft was very helpful to me.

    Q: CENTR draft allows anyone and everyone with an interest to participate.

    Q: (To Hans) What do you think about individual DNSO members?
    A: (Kraaijenbrink) I intend to formulate my view in discussions with my fellow Board members.

    Q: (Abril i Abril) Some school of thought says that domain name holders can be commercial, non-commercial. [snip, with apologies to Amadeu.]
    (Jennings) Board has enough information to conduct its discussions. I suggest that we don’t have another formal meeting. Let’s go to the bar. [Applause.]
    (Dyson) Thanks to the Board, staff, Berkman crew.
    The Board was chosen by and large because they were not involved in these controversies. Over the past few months, we’ve disagreed, but it’s been fascinating, sometimes frustrating, but by and large constructive. I look forward to getting work done as we go along.
    (Kraaijenbrink) Thanks to Esther; thanks to Berkman crew; thanks to AP hosts!!!

    CONTACT INFORMATION  For additional information, please contact:  

    Ben Edelman and Wendy Seltzer
    Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School