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
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
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
- National governments endorse the principles behind the creation
- Commitment to efficient procedures supporting ICANN
- Discussions on substantive issues relating to worldwide Internet
usage, administration of CCTLDs, WIPO process
- 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
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
write technical procedures for operation, procedures for modification
make management of root server system more robust
Relationship with other groups
- ASO, DNSO
- Y2K risk management
- initial chair - Jun Murai
- no set number of members - technical experts
second meeting, March 18 (tentative)
expected initial draft after meeting Mailing list: email@example.com
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
Root server system in special role, but not a unique system. Existing
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
- 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
- Many points of consensus, some outstanding issues
- Who is a member?
- Individuals and organizations not represented by SOs
- For any individual user, not to be limited to IP address holders
or domain name holders
- Goal of large and diverse user pool
- Organizations should also be allowed to become members.
- Enroll large individual membership base to avoid capture.
- 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.
- Many big corporations are large users of domain names.
- In many countries, representation through organizations is typical.
- 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.
- 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?
- Key consensus points:
- Individuals who have no right to elect SO directors may vote
in the at-large membership.
- 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.
- Each individual gets only one ballot per election.
- Proxy voting prohibited.
- Privacy should be protected.
- No membership classes.
- Alternative methods of voting may be necessary.
- 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.
- Suggested procedure for registration: Online form filled out
by applicant – combination of online and postal mail system.
- Details and costs to be investigated.
- No consensus reached.
- Benefits of fees include cost recovery and discouraging fraud.
- But funding may not be needed from this source. Fees do not
necessarily prevent fraudulent duplicate registrations by wealthy
- Possible models include:
- No fees
- Scaled fees ($12-$35USD)
- Enroll initial membership for free and revisit the issue in
- Consensus that nomination of candidates may be made by any individual
- If too many candidates, a reasonable show of support by X members
may be required.
- 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.
- Objective criteria for candidates
- Proof of identity
- Proof of citizenship
- Biographical information
- Brief statement of positions on issues
- Statement identifying sources of income and possible conflicts
- Commitment to provide time and Internet access to fulfill
responsibilities of office.
- Provide own translation until ICANN is able to provide translation
- Proof of adulthood
- Disqualifications: Second-term director, government official
- Support for campaign activities – information on web site and
- Regional Representation
- 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.
- 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.
- Dealing with uncertainties in launching the system (possible approaches)
- Start with a zero-fee initial membership and do aggressive outreach
- Set objective goals for membership
- Sample registration periodically to determine how well goals
- Audience Comments
Q: What efforts will ICANN make to make process more understandable
to average users?
- 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
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.
- George: Some discussion already of soliciting members from existing
- 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.
Q: How can refugees satisfy proof of citizenship requirement?
How is adulthood defined? Aren't children important Internet users?
- George: Considered issue of children, but given responsibilities
of the voters decided limitation was desirable. Define adulthood
according the country.
Q: Other examples organizations using the procedures proposed
for registration and voting?
- George: Different procedures drawn for a variety of organizations.
NSI and other organizations made suggestions based on their experience.
Q: Role of at-large membership in policy formation?
- 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.
Q: Bad to exclude people who are active in SOs.
- George: Not meant to be exclusionary. Goal is to get as broad
a membership as possible.
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.
Q: Timetable for membership.
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
- Intertwined with the MAC
- How to conduct useful academic research in an open environment?
- Open workshops - accessible online
- http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs has the archive of the workshop
and other work of the RCS
- Attempt to have the Internet serve the organization as well
as be the subject of its deliberations.
- Remote participation
- Focus on outreach and collaboration
- Hoping for more collaboration with other researchers worldwide
Presentation on DNSO
- David Maher
- BMW proposal not withdrawn
- Singapore group doesn't represent all stakeholders.
- 90% would probably be acceptable to BMW group.
- Constituency list should be that of BMW, not CENTR.
Q: Key points of Paris draft are embodied in new proposal.
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.
Q: Need clarification re role of individuals. Are they members?
Need clarification of working groups.
Q: IATLD supports Singapore proposal.
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.
Q: Speaking for NSI: Yesterday was a productive session. Paris
draft is a good source of details. Hopes to put together a functional
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.
Q: The two original proposals should still be considered.
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.
- 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.
- Q: Jay Fenello, ORSC. Supporter of Paris draft. Pleased with
proposal. Individual participation in GA not sufficient, should
be separate constituency as well.
- Q: CIGREF supports BMW draft. Corporations are major developers
of the Internet and of .com. Constituencies representing business
interests should not be deleted.
- 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.
- Kraaijenbrink: Concern that there's still not agreement on central
issues. It would be easier if original drafts were withdrawn.
- 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
- Fay Howard: Any members of the Board who belong to organizations
that have signed on to drafts?
- Hans—ETNO has expressed support for BMW, but not signed
on to draft. Notes that many other organizations support BMW
draft as well.
- Dyson notes that Roberts used to work for Educause (was
Educom) which has expressed support for BMW.
- Fenello suggests that Hans should abstain.
- Do earlier drafts have to be withdrawn?
Q: If it matters how many corporations and organizations sign
up to support a draft, more time needed to organize support.
- Dyson: Looking for consensus, not just a list of supporters.
- Abril I Abril: Singapore draft should be considered guiding
- In-Room Comment
- Rahmat-M Samik-Ibrahim, VLSM-TJT
- "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
- Would exclusion list apply to non-commercial TLDs?
- It's possible. Under some national laws, dilution can apply
even to non-commercial material. But basic principle is concern
with commercial use.
- Would ccTLDs be affected by these rules?
- Concerns addressed apply to gTLDs and to open ccTLDs that permit
registrants from outside the jurisdiction. But formally our policy
is limited to ccTLDs.
- 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?
- Distinction would be useful. Still seeking comments. Market
would police itself. People would report each other for unauthorized
commerce in non-commercial domain.
- Worry of excessive litigation. Need advocate for defendants in
- No surprises here for domain name holders – if their domain
name is disputed, they probably know about it already.
- 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.
- There has been one dissenting opinion so far.
- There isn't really a problem – piracy is on the wane. These proposals
would slow down the DNS process.
- Is there a clear definition of open in the context of a ccTLD?
- Dyson: No, just a general concept.
- Gurry: Concept just a suggestion for ccTLDs considering applicability
- 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
- Subset of the board will serve on the reconsideration committee?
- Yes – a separate process for independent review. Solicitations
of expressions of interest in advisory committee on this issue
- Review by internal committee is inappropriate; outside review
would be better.
- Dyson: Distinction between an internal decision that needs to
be reconsidered and something that violates ICANN's bylaws and
requires external review.
- Roberts: Legislative history – reconsideration and external
review provisions are in response to concerns about accountability
raised during formation of ICANN.
- 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.
- Require only that SOs establish policies not inconsistent with
- Do abstentions based on conflicts of interest get reported publicly?
- Minutes of board meeting will indicate who voted in what way.
Not certain whether minutes would indicate reason for abstention.
- Board consensus: Director must disclose conflict to the board.
Minutes would reflect the conflict.
- 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
(following DNSO meeting)
Registrar Accreditation Guidelines: Joe Sims
ICANN now designated "NewCo" under Amendment 11
More than 50 comments received
Preliminary views of staff in response to comments received so far
- Some from potential registrars – generally supportive of guidelines
- Thought the approach of the draft was likely to produce the
intended result – competition.
- Thought some parts of the guidelines overly burdensome and bureaucratic.
- Trademark and business interests
- Some thought guidelines don't go far enough to protect IP.
- Privacy and use of information collected
- Tried to create level playing field for registrars subject to
privacy requirements of different jurisdictions.
- Raising questions about general appropriateness of ICANN accrediting
registrars, especially before DNSO constituted
- Ideally, ICANN would have full complement of SOs in place, but
we're operating pursuant to timeline of Amendment 11
- Suggestion that accreditation should be done through registries
instead of directly between ICANN and registrars
- Staff will recommend that Board retain flexibility to change
procedure if circumstances warrant
- Some changes focused on reducing burden on registrars and on taking
into account diversity of potential applicant pool
- Rather than strict specific objective requirements, suggest safe-harbors.
- Those registrars who are accredited should have a right to continuing
renewed accreditation to encourage investment
- Will recommend fixed counterpart of accreditation fee set at $5000
US, variable fee undetermined; application fees in draft guidelines
- Data escrow updated more frequently
- Domain name holders should have right to retain names through
- To provide opportunity for revisiting guidelines, suggest that
board commit to complete review in spring 2000.
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?
- Between person seeking DN and registrar.
- Expect business relationship between registrar and NSI, subject
to amendment 11 and informed by ICANN guidelines.
- We don't know when NSI contracts will be published
Q: Comment about delegation of authority from ICANN to registry
to registrar. Why isn't that possible now?
- Circumstances of competitive registration, registry also serving
as registrar. Not precluding other models. Recommend flexibility
if other models are more appropriate later.
Q: Defining a business model, ability to assess up to $1
per domain name. Will that be expanded to CCTLDs?
- Guidelines speak only to .com, .net, .org domains. Do not extend
to CCTLDs or other TLDs
- Don't mean to be defining a business model. Processes and Bylaws
operate as check on fees.
Q: Will registrar's only incremental cost be $1 to ICANN?
Will registrars sell domain names for 2 years, or only 1?
- No, that's only related to accreditation by ICANN
- Have to prepare detailed process, then set dates. Expect those
Q: Country code registrar – different model.
- Diversity of business models is a good thing.
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?
- 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.
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?
- Recognize the issue. Amendment 11 constraints
- Other things needed for competition: price control (under Amendment
11). Domain name portability is crucial to competition.
- 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
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?
- A: Identical interface between NSI as registry and all
registrars (NSI and others).
Q: Anti-slamming policy?
Q: Concern with sites that contain ip infringing material.
Will IP owners be able to locate website owners quickly?
- A: Slightly outside of the scope of these guidelines.
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.
- 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.
A: Roberts – clarify that registrant is still legally responsible
even if they register on behalf of third party.
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
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
(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.
- (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
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
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
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
(Jennings) Board has enough information to conduct its discussions.
I suggest that we don’t have another formal meeting. Let’s go to the
(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