Resolutions of the Noncommercial Constituency of the DNSO, Passed at the Stockholm meeting, June 1, 2001.

UDRP Resolution

Passed 29 in favor, 1 opposed, 1 abstention

As policy advice, the Non-commercial constituency submits to the Names Council and the ICANN Board the following ideas for improving the UDRP:

1. Domain name registrations that have been held by the same registrant for three years should be exempted from challenges under the UDRP.

2. We note that statistical studies of the UDRP have shown that "forum shopping" by complainants exists in the application of the UDRP. This biases the results and needs to be changed. We encourage exploration of the following remedies:

2a: ICANN could provide domain name holders with some form of a declaratory judgment. Domain name holders should be able to initiate a UDRP proceeding, using the dispute resolution service provider of their choice, to obtain a finding that they have a "right and legitimate interest" in a name. Prospective complainants would be given a period of time to contest the claim.

2b. Registrars, rather than complainants, could select the dispute resolution provider. Such a selection should be done not on a case-by-case basis, but through contracts that would apply in a non-discriminatory fashion to all names registered by that registrar.

3. We note with great concern that one US court has decided that a respondent has no right to appeal a decision by a UDRP panel to transfer a name.* If this becomes a precedent, the procedural and substantive aspects of the UDRP need to be substantially revised.

4. We oppose any extension of the UDRP to new rights in names, such as rights of personality, geographic place, and so on. The domain name system is a method of giving mnemonic names to Internet resources and of mapping information to those names. The process of assigning domain names should not become overly burdened with regulations and legal and political baggage. Such a linkage of domain name assignment to global legal rights is inimical to the Internet's growth, freedom and stability.

         Judge Young (Mass District Court, USA) held that no declaratory judgment was available to the registrant of, including under the ACPA, if the victorious party in the UDRP (the trademark holder) disclaimed any intention to file a trademark lawsuit of his own. There being exactly that disclaimer, he then dismissed the case for failure to state a claim.



Charter Revision on Membership

Proposed by Mueller, Pisanty, Peake


Passed 23 in favor, 3 against, 3 abstentions


All NCDNHC member organizations are expected to pay annual membership fees. The fee for Small organizations is US$50 per year, with exceptions noted below. The fee for Large organizations is US$300 per year, with exceptions noted below.

For small organizations in the countries with an annual Gross Domestic Product per capita below US$10,000 as of 2000 (source: CIA World Factbook), the annual membership fee will be US$25.

Large or small organizations may be exempted from paying the membership fee by applying to the Adcom. The application should explain why the membership fee constitutes an economic and administrative hardship, and should document the organization's budget. All Adcom members and the Membership officer will be
empowered to vote on exemptions. Decisions will be based on majority rule. Adcom members who do not respond to votes within ten days need not be counted, except that at least three eligible parties must vote.

Membership administration
The Adcom will select, by majority vote, a membership officer. The membership officer may be, but is not required to be, an Adcom member. The membership officer shall
* maintain the official membership list

* inform the e-mail administrator of which organizations to add or remove from the email list used for voting and announcements.
* keep track of discussions and decisions regarding the eligibility of organizations that apply to join the constituency
* inform applicants for membership of the status of their application
* recommend to the adcom changes in membership policies and practices.

Membership shall be annual. The membership year will coincide with the Western calendar year. For existing member organizations, membership fees will be payable
from Jan 1 to March 1. [Note: the charter should also be amended to have Adcom elections the second week in March.] Organizations that have not renewed their
membership fees by that date will be stricken from the membership list and not permitted to vote in the Adcom elections or other elections held during the calendar year. If any votes are held between Jan 1 and March 1, organizations that have not paid their membership fee will not be allowed to vote.

New member organizations can pay their membership fee at any time after they have been informed of their acceptance by the membership officer, but they will not be added to the voting list until the fee is received. Organizations exempted from the membership
fee will gain voting rights after the Adcom decision admitting them has been sent to the list.


Resolution regarding ccTLDs


Proposed by Hakikur Rahman, amendments proposed by Horacio Cadiz and YJ Park


Passed 19 favor 9 opposed, 5 abstentions


The NCDNHC supports formation of a body which would provide technical and policy assistance, such as operations, domain name disputes, etc., and necessary guidance in enhancing ccTLD registries in developing countries.


That the NCDNHC form a body which will help ICANN investigate violations of the ICP-1 and RFC-1591 ccTLD documents;

That the same body be tasked with studying whether the current ICP-1 and RFC 1591 documents need to be modified, supplemented, or replaced by a new document which will ensure that the ccTLD administrators adhere to community-based, community-supported, and neutral registry operations of the ccTLD Registries in consonance with ICANN's policy of ensuring a neutral gTLD registry.

The ccTLD contracts among ccTLD-ICANN-GAC should go through an appropriate, open, transparent and documented consultation process with Local Internet Community, which by nature includes various non-commercial organizations and its members.

Therefore, NCDNHC, would like to propose that ccTLD contract should first go through DNSO consultation in order to encourage local Internet community discussion rather than negotiation among small group of people, ccTLD admin contact, ICANN staff and representative from GAC.



Creation of a new DNSO constituency for individuals


In favor 21, Abstain 7, Against 3


The NCDNHC recommends and request formally to the ICANN Board the
creation of a new constituency that represents individual domain name
holders and that all the process required be followed according to the
By-Laws regarding new constituencies.



Resolution on ICANN FY 01-02 Budget

Proposed by Andrew Shen, Electronic Privacy Information Center


Passed 29 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstentions

At the ICANN meeting to take place in Stockholm on June 1-4, the ICANN Board of Directors will vote on the ICANN FY 01-02 budget. The NCDNHC wishes to alert the ICANN Board of Directors to the following issues before the final vote.

1. Budget for At Large. The proposed FY 01-02 budget does not reflect any funds for the continuing activity of the At Large. The funding allocated for the At Large in the proposed budget only covers the costs of the At Large Study Committee (estimated at $250,000 for 2001, out of a total cost of $450,000). ICANN should also allocate funds
for At Large elections with the presumption that elections would take place in late 2001 or during 2002. Given that the At Large election that took place in the Fall of 2000 cost $250,000, ICANN should at least allocate an equivalent amount since the planning for such elections would begin during the FY 01-02.

2. Translation Services. The proposed FY 01-02 budget does not prioritize or provide any funding for simultaneous translation services for ICANN public meetings or translation of ICANN documents. If ICANN wishes to include Internet users from around the world in its process, it needs to provide these services as a high priority. The international impact of ICANN decisions require such international participation.

3. Input into the Budget Process. The Budget Group advising the Finance Committee and the President only includes representatives from registries, registrars and RIRs. In order to ascertain a full picture of the priorities that ICANN faces in the coming year, the Finance Committee and the President should have consulted other constituencies
and not merely those that "contribute the largest share of ICANN's financial support." After all, the Internet is for everyone.