DNSO Names Council -- Scribe's Notes
June 2, 2001
Stockholm, Sweden
ICANN Public Meetings

I.   Introduction – Sheppard
   A.   New representatives: Delgado, Tindal, Holmes, Ruth
   B.   Agenda changes
   C.   NC members patched by teleconference: Chicoine, Aus der Muhlen, Carey
II.   Update on Business Plan
   A.   UDRP (Chicoine): Will send a questionnaire to representatives from each perspective (complainant, dispute resolution provider, etc.). Working Groups to be formed to scrutinize the issues that arise and to come up with recommendations. Drafts to be available shortly.
       1.   Sheppard: Note also parallel study by Max Plank, among others.
       2.   Chicoine: Other studies also. Mueller study, for example.
       3.   Mueller: Must consider, for example, whether forum shopping is an issue, and if so how it can be addressed. Questions I provided were not intended to be a questionnaire (“what is your opinion on …?”).
   B.   WHOIS (Kane): Taking input from all constituencies. Consultation process is via a 20-question questionnaire. Comment process begins Wednesday and ends on July 31. Questions about standardization of format, bulk access, etc. Report ready for Montevideo.
   C.   Internationalized Domain Names (Park): NC noted that internationalized domain names are available in the market, and that they raise issues to be dealt with by the Internet community. Begin with a review of IDN initiatives to date. Objectives: Provide accurate information and analysis, working with expert groups as appropriate. To make a recommendation to Board after completion of consultation process. Report drafts to be ready by Montevideo and LA. Final report by June 2002. Some concern that this is moving too slowly.
       1.   Sheppard: The group is a NC task force?
       2.   Park: Begin with a small group, then open up discussion?
       3.   Sheppard: How big a group?
       4.   Park: One representative per constituency, because this is an important issue.
       5.   Porteneuve: Comments from Alvestrand?
       6.   Alvestrand: With this schedule, ICANN will have to make decisions before seeing the final report. (So maybe the group needs to move more quickly?)
       7.   Park: Flexible. Maybe the group should move faster. There are others working on this also.
       8.   Mueller: What decisions will ICANN have to make?
       9.   Alvestrand: ICANN will have to decide whether or not to accept contracts with registries that register domain names.
       10.   Katoh: Posted fact-finding report. See http://www.icann.org/stockholm/idn-topic.htm . Propose to continue this effort for three months. Further comments would be welcomed.
       11.   Kane: Likely that IETF will reach consensus shortly?
       12.   Alvestrand: Should not begin deployment until after London meeting. Fundamental differences within IDN group. Shouldn’t make key decisions until after IETF report is complete. Also issues about intellectual property, though these are not IETF questions. Also concerned about the use of the term “testbed”; advise testing, but not production as yet.
       13.   Cochetti: Verisign’s testbed of last year was not the first. There are many testbeds at the moment, and the majority of them have no relationship with ICANN. Also, when a standard is deployed, every registration must be transferred to the new system. We are and have been practicing full disclosure.
       14.   Sheppard: One nomination per constituency? (Agreed.)
       15.   Kane: Registrars want to be confident in the services that they offer to registrants. Should defer decisions until IETF makes a recommendation here.
       16.   Mueller: What is our role here? What are we being asked to do?
       17.   Sheppard: Table Kane’s suggestion for now.
   D.   DNSO Review (Swinehart): Need to discuss implementation of terms of reference. Based on the suggestions from WG-D, which were extensive and conducted openly. Review costs in preparation for moving forward. Question of next steps for individuals constituency – accept proposals, form a further task force, etc.
       1.   Sheppard: A task force makes sense. I might volunteer to chair it, if that was acceptable to others.
       2.   Swinehart: Consultation.
           • Stubbs: Need to include the chairman of the GA.
           • Swinehart: A good suggestion.
       3.   Swinehart: GA chair (consider changes), Individuals Constituency (determine next steps), language diversity (determine costs, and make a recommendation for a cost-effective means for making translations).
       4.   Swinehart: Perhaps we should take proposals from DNSO, and evaluate the various proposals.
       5.   Stubbs: Goal is to include some representative of the GA. This may or might not be the GA chair. “GA chair or designee.”
       6.   Martinez: Is this process consistent with the Bylaws? Bylaws call for self-organizing of constituencies.
           • Sheppard: Seems OK. We’re anticipating what will happen when a group self-organizes.
           • Chicoine: Note that ICANN Board has considered prior proposals. We’re just helping move the process forward.
       7.   Swinehart: Interim group’s work is done.
       8.   Martinez: Who will pay the translation costs?
           • Swinehart: If the translation method requires payment, we’ll need to figure that out.
       9.   New TLD Evaluation – Sheppard
           • Previously postponed the interim committee until the gTLD Registry constituency was of full size. Now it is. Time to move forward?
           • Stubbs: ICANN already is forming a similar committee. See http://www.icann.org/stockholm/new-tld-topic.htm
           • Cochetti: Expertise and knowledge is sure to be helpful. But we don’t know what the Board will do here. Perhaps we should wait a bit longer. The gTLD constituency doesn’t yet have a coherent understanding to offer; new members were seated only days ago.
           • Mueller: Concerned that information from testbed new TLD program is being withheld. If ICANN cannot share information with the public, perhaps it can share information with a committee of the NC?
           • Sheppard: So we should wait until a later meeting to make this decision?
III.   GA Work Agenda – Younger
   A.   GA is to be available for consultation about DNSO issues. GA will bring new issues to NC’s attention. Want to work with NC.
IV.   Multiple DNS Roots - Forsyth
   A.   Committee received papers from Neulevel, Auerbach, Chon, Crispin, Lynn, Younger, New.net. See also Mueller and IAB papers. Those interested in this matter should read the various papers.
   B.   Mueller: Suggest the use of a dedicated list for this topic. A neutral chair should do list moderation.
       1.   Sheppard: Don’t want to impose our choice of chair on the GA.
   C.   Cochetti: Proposal to establish a WG?
   D.   Forsyth: Would like to make a motion that the NC enter into consultation on this subject.
       1.   Cochetti: Is that the same as a WG?
       2.   Mueller: Consultations already happening. How will these be different? Structure? Prominence?
       3.   Park: Expect a report from this process? Maybe need more structure than a mailing list?
       4.   de Blanc: Let’s let them use their own list to do the consultation.
       5.   Chicoine: This is very controversial. Need clear definition to avoid numerous nonsubstantive emails.
       6.   Swinehart: Focus on transparency.
       7.   Cochetti: There are competitors to the root that ICANN and the DNSO are responsible. No problem talking about this. Just need to be precise about what we want to do here.
       8.   Kane: Need to make sure that ICANN’s processes for creating new TLDs assures that the benefit of working within the ICANN process is far greater than the benefits of doing otherwise.
       9.   de Blanc: Want to encourage others to come to the consensus that it is better to be a part of the process than outside it.
       10.   Mueller: Proposed an amendment to a motion. Proposed that we use ga-roots mailing list as the basis for this discussion. If we’re going to critique what others are doing, need to have an extended, open, calm discussion. Concern about conflicts in namespaces.
       11.   Cochetti: Appreciate the problem. But alternate roots are competitors to the services we provide. We need to recognize that there is competition. However, we don’t especially need to look into this topic further.
       12.   Swinehart: Need to look at interoperability and competition. We have a responsibility to investigate this.
       13.   Holmes: Shouldn’t ignore this. Need to understand this situation.
       14.   Forsyth: Motion to open consultation with other SOs and the GA on the subject of multiple roots and name schemes. Mueller suggested amendment that consultation to be via ga-roots list.
       15.   Sheppard: Mueller, force an amendment? (No.) Vote on the motion: Twelve in favor, nine against.
I.   Kane: Proposed motion: The Names Council considers that multiple roots are outside the scope of the ICANN DNSO. (Make null and void the prior motion.
   A.   de Blanc: Need to discuss it?
   B.   Sheppard: Discussed it already. Vote. In favor, 12.
II.   New gTLDs Implementation – Neulevel .BIZ
   A.   Presentation by .BIZ – presentation http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/neuman-dotbiz.html
   B.   Sheppard: Easier systems for the future? Or this is what’s necessary given the complexity of this task?
       1.   Neuman: There are simpler methods, but this method is what’s required to accommodate all interests here.
   C.   Sheppard: Complexity and duration of negotiations?
       1.   Neuman: All this was being done for the first time. Complex issues. New registry agreements benefit the community – service level agreements, escrow plans, etc. In the future, it should be simpler/faster to negotiate similar contracts.
   D.   Forsyth: How have you let business and IP communities know that you exist?
       1.   Neuman: It was not initially clear when we needed to begin our marketing campaign. Also hoping for help from registrars with marketing.
   E.   Park: Concern about integrity of the process.
       1.   Neuman: Have found consultants in randomization. Will use a respected auditing firm to verify that the process was as promised.
   F.   Mueller: Support diversity in registries, and applaud the .BIZ plans for being different. Wonder if Neulevel thinks too much regulation was imposed? To what extent is such regulation because this was the first time new registries are being added? Business model being hampered by this process?
       1.   This time was more complicated, and this contract more difficult, because this was the first time. In the future, it may not be necessary to include such comprehensive provisions.
III.   Presentation of New gTLDs Implementation - .INFO
   A.   Pleased to have a contract. Moving forward on staffing. Posted a registrar toolkit. Pleased that some registrars have already qualified. Preparing support staff. Partnered with WIPO to offer dispute resolution processes.
   B.   Anticipate beginning randomized queuing process during the summer, moving to live real-time registration as soon as possible.
   C.   Event this evening at Science and Technology Museum – 7pm. Bus will meet the Verisign boat.
IV.   .ORG – process to change registry
   A.   Touton: New agreement with Verisign provides that Verisign will stop its operation of the .ORG TLD as of the end of 2002. Verisign will also provide $5 million of funding for an organization to run the .ORG TLD. Board will ask DNSO about policies to be made here, and about approach for selecting new registry operator.
       1.   Kane: Ask each constituency to consider the process for selecting the new registry.
       2.   Touton: Staff suggests that Board will ask NC to provide a report by October of this year.
       3.   Sheppard: October is soon. Form a task force?
       4.   Mueller: Suggest that each constituency produce a paper on the topic. Maybe form a WG from these papers.
       5.   Stubbs: “Next meeting” means …? Next face-to-face meeting, in Montevideo.
       6.   de Blanc: GA should develop a paper as well.
V.   Budget, secretariat, and sponsorship
   A.   Cochetti: Verisign had committed to match donations up to $100,000 for professional staff support. Administrative procedure now in place. ICANN to administer funds on our behalf. Now, beginning fundraising effort. Also, search subcommittee to select providers of services needed.
       1.   Gomes: Two general types of services, both currently performed by AFNIC: Administrative services and technical services. RFP has been written and will be posted on June 5. Responders may respond to both types of services or just the administrative secretariat services. Deadline for respondents is June 20. Extension of AFNIC agreement will likely be required.
   B.   Cochetti: Motion that Council authorize extension of existing relation with AFNIC for up to an additional three months.
   C.   Park: Only two weeks to submit applications? And who will review the applications and make the ultimate decision?
       1.   Cochetti: The consultant that wrote the RFP will help with review of proposals received. Final decision to be made by council (with input from budget committee and search committee) with input from consultant.
   D.   Martinez: Extension of contract with AFNIC is consistent with budget?
       1.   Cochetti: This year’s budget anticipates spending $30000 on web site and list hosting, and AFNIC costs more than that. But the budget provides a buffer (“miscellaneous”) which will be sufficient (assuming all constituencies pay their dues).
   E.   Vote. In favor: All, except Kane, Mueller, & Porteneuve abstaining.
VI.   Stubbs: An election for an ICANN Board Member seat is coming up?
   A.   Touton: Notification of identify of new Director to be made to ICANN by DNSO by September 16. Director to be seated on October 1.
VII.   Cochetti: Resolution proposed – “New TLD Evaluation Process”
   A.   Propose that all evaluations of new TLDs be done within the DNSO structure. Concerned that ICANN Board Task Force does not fit within DNSO structure.
   B.   Park: Lack of participation and geographic diversity in new gTLD selection process. Should at least assure widespread participation in new gTLD evaluation process.
   C.   Stubbs: Need to distinguish between personal opinions and the consensus of the NC.
   D.   de Blanc: Concern at fourth paragraph “… maybe forced to assess criteria which are beyond their expertise.”
   E.   Cochetti: Need to make sure there’s a suitable match between skills and work to be done.
VIII.   Kane: Status of other approved new TLDs?
   A.   Touton: Five additional TLDs still in negotiation process.
IX.   Sheppard: Board will ask us for three representatives. Should make decision in teleconference.
X.   Kane: Motion: “NC Recommends that ICANN encourage ccTLD and gTLD Registries to delay the deployment of resolution of IDNs until such time as the IETF has met in August where it is expected a standards document for IDNs will be agreed.”
   A.   Cochetti: Competitors are large and aggressive. This motion invites other systems to take over the market. And IETF process may continue for some time.
   B.   Kane: Support IDNs and wish IETF work were done. But encoding systems not yet decided. Incompatibilities will result.
   C.   Cochetti: This motion would discourage IDN providers from being involved with ICANN, and would hurt the authoritative root. No one has suggested that there’s any certainty that progress will be made by August.
   D.   Swinehart: Trying to understand why we shouldn’t wait.
       1.   Cochetti: There is a demand among non-English-speakers for non-English domain names. Competitors will exploit that if we wait.
   E.   Mueller: Proposal is carefully worded “ICANN urge registries to…” Would Verisign be obliged to do so if ICANN ordered Verisign to? If ICANN encouraged Verisign to?
       1.   Cochetti: Legal questions are hard to answer in this context. If encouraged not to add IDNs, Verisign would remind ICANN that ICANN would be the most-harmed party under that policy.
       2.   de Blanc: What’s the problem? The others are all testbeds too, right?
       3.   Cochetti: Verisign’s testbed registrations are intended to be permanent if technology permits it. If not, as close to a seamless transition as possible.
   F.   Vote: Cochetti against, Mueller abstaining, others in favor.


For additional technical information, please contact:  

Ben Edelman and Rebecca Nesson
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School 

Other ICANN-Related Content from The Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Translate with Altavista Babelfish: Deutsch, Espanol, Francais, Italiano, Portugues