|
June 3, 2001 Stockholm, Sweden ICANN Public Meetings I. Welcome – Vint Cerf A. Thanks to ICANN Board, sponsors, local organizers. B. Note that trains run infrequently today and tomorrow – weekend and holiday. II. Management Report A. Report of the President – Lynn – Presentation Delivered [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/lynn-presreport.html] B. Report of Vice President/General Counsel – Touton – Presentation Delivered [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/touton-vpreport.html] III. Report of the Finance Committee - Wilson A. Trying to think through budget as the relationships (that inform the budget and place demands on it) continue to evolve. B. Work via teleconferences. Joint meetings btw Finance and Budget Committees. C. Special requirements of ICANN structure require unique methods of collecting funds. 1. Connect incoming funding to purposes of ICANN. D. Budget framework includes “other” (for one-time or exceptional expenses) and a reserve. E. Sometimes hard to know what level of ICANN services are required, i.e. whether ICANN budget should be larger or smaller. Sense is that budget needs to be somewhat bigger, but not too big. Budget needs to be appropriate to organization. F. Conscious of outstanding loans. (See http://www.icann.org/financials) G. Ongoing long-term financial planning: Understanding what drives ICANN’s expenses. Comments via email, web, in-person discussion. H. Revenue model. See Lynn comments later. I. Include opportunity for comment and input on the budget. J. Have considered adjustment of registrar fees. http://www.icann.org/stockholm/registrar-fee-topic.htm . Favor proceeding as suggested by that proposal. K. Committee Members: Schink, Campos, Cohen IV. Meetings Committee – Cohen A. http://www.icann.org/meetings B. September 6-10 - Montevideo C. November 12-15 – Marina Del Rey D. Attempting to fix dates and locations further in advance. E. Question of whether to have three or four meetings in 2002. Decided to have four. Call for proposals posted – see http://www.icann.org/meetings . Upcoming meetings in Sub-Saharan Africa (Feb/March 2002 in Sub-Saharan Africa, June 2002 in Eastern Europe, September 2002 in Asia/Pacific (perhaps in conjunction with Apricot meeting), and November 2002 in West Coast US or Canada). Will make an effort to contact local organizers. F. Working on 2003 meetings now. Board might prefer fewer meetings (i.e. three), but four might be in best interests of community. G. Considering a voluntary meetings fee. Funds perhaps to be administered by an outside trustee, to help fund attendance by additional people who might otherwise be unable to do so. H. Mueller-Maguhn: Consider providing exhibition space. I. Cerf: Meet on weekends versus weekdays? 1. Cohen: May do a survey. J. Kyong: Having ICANN meeting between RIPE and Apricot would require switching dates. V. Audit Committee – Davidson A. Letter of engagement for auditors is about to be completed. Within budget. KPMG to begin work in July. Information to be posted by October. B. Want special investigation of DNSO funds. VI. Root Server System Advisory Committee - Murai A. Presentation delivered [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/murai-rssac.html] B. Auerbach: Who pays for the analytical tools? 1. Murai: Root server operators for now. C. Auerbach: Reverse lookup is being served by root servers? This affects analysis? 1. Murai: Will discuss this in our next meeting. D. Auerbach: What does “root zone availability” mean? Competing roots will want to copy the zone file. How open will we be to that? 1. Cerf: Put that on the table without having a discussion about it now. E. Touton: Reason for use of Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) – four of root servers operated by US Government agencies. It’s therefore appropriate to use a US Government – private sector agreement. 1. Auerbach: But we should avoid bringing the USG back in? 2. Cerf: No choice in this instance. VII. Governmental Advisory Committee: Twomey A. Communiqué presented [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/gac-communique.html] B. Auerbach: When discussing WHOIS data, should be clear whether we mean DNS or IP WHOIS data. 1. Twomey: First priority is domain name system, but we can clarify further. C. Schink: Reference IETF in particular? Or all PSO members? 1. Twomey: Language should be inclusive. VIII. Report on PSO Activities - Moore A. Presentation delivered [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/moore-pso.html] B. Abril i Abril: Structure of PSO is fixed? Are all PSO members actively participating in enum discussions? 1. There may be an application from another standards organization to join the initial four signatory members of the PSOPC. Membership is open to any organization that meets the criteria of the MoU. No discussion of enum in PSO as yet. IX. Report on ASO – Hans Petter Holen A. Presentation delivered [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/holen-aso.html] B. See also Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries and associated resolution, [http://www.icann.org/stockholm/emerging-rir-topic.htm] C. Auerbach: Routing table expansion? 1. Thinking primarily about address consumption, but also thinking about routing tables. An important balance to keep in mind. D. Public comments about emerging RIRs? 1. None. X. DNSO Report – Sheppard A. Constituency reports 1. Non-commercial (Park, Mueller): Four motions: Membership/DNSO dues (fees by NCDNHC members to Constituency; exceptions if requested; to support DNSO dues), ccTLDs (local communities desire consultation by managers; ccTLD contracts should go through DNSO process), ICANN budget (should use a more open process; concerned that there was no budget for At-Large Membership), UDRP (registrations held by a registrant for three years should be exempt form UDRP challenges; concern about forum shopping, consider declaratory judgments / consider registrars choosing the UDRP service provider and competing on this basis; concern that a US court refused to allow a challenge to a UDRP decision; oppose WIPO2’s additional regulations on naming system), endorsement of idea of individuals constituency, encourage translation. Hope to see .MUSEUM operational shortly. • Abril i Abril: Can individuals (who are making non-commercial uses of domain names) join NCDNHC? • Mueller: No. • Abril i Abril: Concerned that individuals can’t join the NCDNHC. • Cohen: There may not be a bias in UDRP, even as complainants often win UDRP. Expect to see a few wrong decisions. And the fact that some defendants win suggests that system is working properly. Don’t believe a bias has been established, but welcome studies. • Mueller: Service providers vary in the frequency with which they find for the complainant. Vary also in market shares. Note a correlation between the two. • Auerbach: Heterogeneity in NCDNHC. Should NCDNHC be broken up? Different groups for education, religion, local government, etc.? Concerned about possible exclusion of NC for lack of payment of DNSO dues? • Mueller: Heterogeneity is extreme. NCDNHC member groups have never worked together before. We’re working on “getting our act together.” But it takes time. Some split might make sense. Have been told by Budget Committee of NC that if we don’t pay DNSO dues, we will lose our NC voting rights. Are trying to raise money; hope for more time. Request clarification re whether or not NC votes can be lost for nonpayment. • Lynn: Size of constituency? • Mueller: 150 organizations. Mix of large and small. • Cerf: Budget share? • Mueller: Same as other constituencies. But that’s actually not as equal as it sounds, as other constituencies include big companies. 2. Business (Swinehart): Discussed privacy initiatives, status of new TLDs, housekeeping. Discussed roots, naming schemes, and the need for uniqueness. Support competition in DNS, but concerned about uniqueness and reliability. “Only with uniqueness can businesses … be assured reliability in communications.” Global uniqueness in the root is a key priority. Favor competition while maintaining global uniqueness. • Auerbach: How many individuals are members of the business constituency? • Swinehart: If an individual has a business, welcome to join. There are some. 3. Holmes (ISPCP): Public and closed meetings. Discussed enum. Supports Business Constituency statement about uniqueness of root. Add that business models which cause conflicts or instability create uncompensated costs in technical & customer support for ISPs. Urge taking these costs into consideration. Pleased to offer support to concept of ccTLD SO. But this requires more debate within Constituency. • Auerbach: Individuals participating in the constituency? How many? • Holmes: Individuals are not members as such. Program of outreach focused at ISPs globally. • Abril i Abril: Ask about individuals for those constituencies that represent user-side (demand-side) rather than supply. 4. Intellectual Property Constituency (Evans): IPC allows individual members. Wood is membership coordinator. Accept all members, even those critical of the UDRP and the policies the IPC favors. Presentations from new TLDs. Discussed alternative roots and alternate naming systems. Very concerned about technical stability and consumer confidence. Aware that ccTLD Constituency seeks its own SO. IPC supports ccTLD in developing its own SO. Hope that this will help the ccTLDs address their unique issues. Hope this will help develop best practice guidelines to protect intellectual property in ccTLDs, extend WHOIS in all ccTLDs. • Auerbach: What do we mean by “stability”? • Evans: We’re not technical. Read Crispin, Lynn, and Forsyth which expressed concerns. • Auerbach: Concerned about confusion among users? • Evans: Confusion is caused by technical issues. • Cerf: If confusion results from a technical flaw or decision, that’s a technical problem. 5. gTLD Registries (Gomes): New members seated (Neulevel, Afilias, Verisign). No individuals. Interim chair for next six months. Committees formed. Presentations from each registry. Every approved registry operator has been involved with the gTLD Registries constituencies. Things are going well. Pleased with quality of people. • Abril i Abril: We had provisionally accepted the gTLD Registries constituency with only one member. Now that there are multiple members, time for new bylaws? Interested in weighting of voting based on number of registrations? • Gomes: New representatives to NC (Tindel, Delgado). Thought it would be good to include a representative of sponsored TLDs. Organizational work ongoing. 6. ccTLDs (Howard): Two days of meetings. High attendance. Work subject to ratification by ccTLDs not present. Favor becoming a SO. Discussions required with other constituencies, Board and Staff. Disappointed that Board and Staff have not responded to draft contract from Melbourne meeting. Established permanent secretariat. New AdCom member welcomed. Response to NCDNHC: Note sovereign issues raised by ccTLDs, governments with varying views, local Internet communities, etc. • See [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/ccTLD-communique.html] (Communiqué) • Cerf: Thanks to ccTLD Constituency for its support. What Bylaws changes will be required to make this happen? Long delay? • Touton: Bylaws provide a procedure for establishing a new SO. One step is amendment of Bylaws. Previously, that was time-intensive for lawyers and policy staff. • Lynn: Haven’t assessed staff implications. Are building up staff. • Howard: We communicate directly with ICANN, and might be able to do without voice in the DNSO for a time. • Abril i Abril: Request to ccTLDs to work within DNSO. A ccSO might ultimately build up the same structures within the DNSO – “businesses that use ccTLDs” and so forth. Not sure that creating more separate rooms will contribute to overall discourse. • Howard: ccTLDs have been working with local communities on best practices. Policy is local, and recognizes local sovereignty. • Auerbach: As big as DNSO? • Howard: Haven’t gotten to that point yet. • de Blanc: Respectfully request that members of the media read the communiqué for what it is. ccTLDs support the ICANN process. We’re pledging financial support. Hope legal situation will reflect the structure that’s evolving here. • Quaynor: Note that several constituencies support the ccTLDs in their request for a new SO. Perhaps the other constituencies can explain why they provided this support? • Sheppard: Business Constituency recognizes differences between ccTLD Constituency and rest of DNSO. Recognize this difference, and see their discomfort. Feel that this is appropriate. Want to continue to work with ccTLDs, and want them in the structure healthiest for them. • Pisanty: ccTLDs have effectively made their own DNSO Review. Differences between inward-looking ccTLDs versus for-profit ccTLDs catering to those beyond their country. Constitutional questions raised by such a change? Important to hear from the NC on this. • Howard: It’s too early for these questions. Varying models of ccTLDs all need to be included. Re board seating, we note that much of ICANN funding comes from ccTLDs. • de Blanc: We’re not making “demands” but saying that we want a different structure. Want improvements, and will do our best to address questions about things over which we have control. • Abril i Abril: Names Council itself has little to say. Surprised by lack of debate here during GA and NC meetings. Relationship between ccTLDs and ICANN has been improving. • Howard: Pleased to see these improvements. Just note that these improvements are outside the DNSO. • Campos: ccTLDs are coherent, international, bottom-up. • Katoh: Can amend the bylaws. But bylaws also require consensus development. Must debate why ccTLDs are so unique that they need their own SO. Also, a new SO makes changes to ICANN Board; need to take this seriously and think carefully. • Auerbach: Different ways to think of the world. ccTLDs are still domain names, but they’re related to governments. Any fixed structure is inappropriate in some contexts. Should try to form a fluid structure that better accommodates changing interests. • Cohen: Need to reflect on this within the community. Decisions here fit in with At Large Study outcome also. The whole process benefits from review. • Fockler: Hope the media were listening to de Blanc. This seems like a healthy move. • Abril i Abril: ccTLDs mentioned encouragement by ICANN Staff to form a peer organization in Yokohama. This is true but was not based on Board recommendation. 7. Registrars (Palage): Well-attended meeting. Election guidelines and timetables. Presentation by Sims re ICANN-DoC contracts. Agreed that registrars will pay ICANN directly (not via registries). Requirement that 2/3 of registrars approve the budget will be satisfied by letters sent out to registrars. Discussed transfer requests among registrars, possible contractual ambiguities, stability, consumer confidence. Attempting to resolve this problem internally. May create new policies & procedures. B. Names Council update (Sheppard): Preparing a questionnaire re UDRP and also reviewing reports from academic institutions. Internationalized names – report to be produced, final version in June 2002, and initial drafts sooner. Consultation and working groups to follow WG-D procedures. Also interested in alternatives to email-based groups. Development of new constituencies – recognized interest in an Individuals constituency, and want to generate criteria for new constituencies in the future. Studying options for translations. Discussed new TLDs, proposal for evaluating new TLD process; considered different evaluation method suggested by gTLD Constituency. Discussed unique root. Asking constituencies to consult internally about .ORG registry views. Call for voluntary funds to DNSO, with Verisign matching funds, towards DNSO outreach and secretariat. Working on transition of secretariat. 1. Abril i Abril: Note also WHOIS WG work. Also, need for a new director to replace me. • Sheppard: Recognize WHOIS issue – individual lookup, and bulk marketing of data. 2. Auerbach: Hiring a policy manager? Who is the employer? • Sheppard: ICANN is our banker and administrator. Follow-up with Budget Committee. C. Public Comments 1. Nickelt: Why was a meeting of the ISPCP closed? What went on behind the closed doors? • Sheppard: Typically a constituency has its secretary’s fees’ meeting behind closed doors. 2. Nickelt: Budget of DNSO is hard to find on DNSO web site. Who administers it? Where? Need answers here before we can give money to DNSO. Danger that non-commercial constituency can lose its vote, or not? • Sheppard: DNSO is a body of voluntary people. Need a secretariat to be effective. Board has declined requests for funding. Divided funding in sevenths for fairness. Further details from constituency representatives to Budget Committee. Most of problem seems to be in convincing people to pay on time. And non-commercial does not mean a lack of wealth; there are probably non-commercial bodies that could be approached for funding. 3. Steve Chadima (New.net): NC passed a resolution declaring the issue of multiple roots is outside the DNSO’s scope. Need rational discussions, and we’re here to have them. Technical community seems to be OK with what we’re doing. 4. Rodriguez (#1295): Deadline for report on UDRP process? How to handle public contributions? • Sheppard: Accept comments online and otherwise, now and later. 5. John Brown: Alternate roots are a sign that we need to get other TLDs out there. A number of network operators have to deal with support costs as a result of a fragmented root. • Cerf: Comments later this afternoon. 6. John Lewis (Business Constituency): Support ccTLD SO. Commend their contribution to the DNSO and look forward to working with them in the future. 7. Milton Mueller: Non-commercial Constituency does not know what the position of our constituency is at this time. Pisanty’s questions are interesting. Perhaps view ccTLDs as sponsored TLDs? • Pisanty: System has checks and balances. If we upset the balance, might cause problems. 8. Christopher Chiu (ACLU/IDP): Continued interest in additional TLDs beyond the seven approved in November. Look forward to more. XI. Simultaneous Language Translation - Lynn A. Presentation Delivered [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/lynn-translation.html] B. “Fault line” on the question of whether or not SLT is an issue, but not a separation on the basis of native-English-speaker. C. Luque: Costs about $50,000 per meeting. Suggest covering Public Forum and Board Meeting. Suggest seven languages initially. Suggest that SOs fund this. Task force in charge of collecting funds. D. Abril i Abril: Appreciate the ability to listen and speak in native languages. But emphasis on simultaneous translation is misplaced. Should focus on translation of written documents. Also, choice of languages needs to be location-dependent. Problem of cultural traditions that discourage participation in the ICANN process. Difficulty of translating idiomatic expressions. E. Lynn: Written documents have to be translated perfectly, with verification, leading to very high costs. So, suggest starting here. F. Cerf: Having a good-quality translation of written documents would be helpful. How to gauge which languages would be most helpful? 1. Lynn: Task force. G. Katoh: Should have a sense of how much more participation we can expect as a result of these services. Helpful in assessment of this project. H. Cerf: An n-squared problem? 1. Luque: Leave it at other-languages-to-English and vice versa. I. Luque: Make interpreters aware of Internet jargon. J. Gaetano (#1299): Translation is “a must” for international organizations. XII. ICANN Budget and Finance (Lynn) A. Presentation – [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/lynn-budget.html] B. See also [http://www.icann.org/stockholm/registrar-fee-topic.htm] – Proposed Changes to Registrar Fees 1. Increase in Registrar Application Fee ($1000 to $2500). 2. Change in Annual Registrar Fees - $4000 for the first TLD, and $500 for each additional TLD. Note that fee is unchanged for those registrars that continue to register only .com, .net, and .org. 3. Mueller: Don’t understand why registrar accreditation doesn’t cover a registrar for all TLDs. Accreditation demonstrates that a registrar is competent, responsible, etc. Why reaccredit in each TLD? • Lynn: Workload goes up, the more registrars and registries there are. It’s not huge, not linear with registries, but it’s there. 4. Jason Hendeles: Concerned that these additional fees might discourage small registrars from selling names in certain smaller TLDs. • Lynn: This is $500. Not so much. By the time there are a thousand TLDs, we’ll of course adjust the fees appropriately. 5. Abril i Abril: Concerned about the effect of this policy. Maybe proportional fees would be better. Per-registration fees, rather than per-registrar fees. • Lynn: With proportional fees, there’s a concern about “domain name taxes.” Also, note that ICANN policies do not directly speak to registrar-customer disputes; we don’t enforce our contracts that way. C. Questions 1. Andrew Shen (EPIC): Thanks to Lynn for open communications. How much money could be diverted from administrative expenses to at large activities? • Lynn: The staff will come to the board and ask for the expenditure from the board. Money will come from reserves. 2. Luque: Why don’t more ICANN constituents pay for the ICANN budget? • Lynn: Certain interests generate funds related to the work of ICANN. Those are the interests that have paid in the past. 3. Sheppard: Need a different model for funding secretariat work? Perhaps ICANN can share DNSO expenses for secretariats? Would assure good long-term secretariat support, and would let stakeholders concentrate on policy rather than attempting to raise money. 4. Auerbach: Need funding for At Large. Resolution in progress. 5. Younger: DNSO asks for funding from ICANN for DNSO and other SOs. See [http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-2motions-IndConstituency-DNSOfund-vote.html]. 6. Fockler: Four meetings per year forever? • Lynn: Just next year. Slide in error. 7. Quaynor: Cost of root services? This is essential. • Lynn: Additional staffing (systems manager, support) is associated with this work. Could be more clear. Agree that this is important. 8. Abril i Abril: gTLDs account for more than half of budget. That’s unfortunate. Concerned to see 19.2% budget increase. Maybe spend less money on travel? Spend more on staff (to do actual work)? • Lynn: Staff is supporting the Board and constituencies. And focus on increase in base budget, not “other.” 9. Abril i Abril: Internationalize the staff to increase legitimacy. • Lynn: Should try to hire more non-US citizens. Seek help in finding the right people. 10. Jason Hendeles: IP numbers are increasingly valuable, but ASO’s share of budget remains small. • Lynn: Most of what ICANN does involves domain name issues. 11. Cohen: Budget raises questions of what ICANN should be, how often to meet, what tasks to take on. Some visions of ICANN require significant expense. Travel is important for outreach. Many parts of ICANN seem to consider themselves underfunded. 12. Osten Franberg (.se & Local Host): Important to visit different local groups. Increases interest in ICANN. 13. Auerbach: Budget is too large. Participation would be more vibrant if policy were inside SOs, not in Board or Staff. Concerned to hear creeping mission growth. 14. Paul Jouve: Have offered help to ICANN as a volunteer, but have been turned down. Disappointing to increase staff while turning down assistance. XIII. Internationalized Domain Names (Katoh) A. Presentation [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/katoh-idn.html] B. See also report, [http://www.icann.org/stockholm/idn-topic.htm] C. Teare (RealNames): Have not had a chance to interact with Board. Intend to do so. RealNames’ relationship with Microsoft permits it to support the testbed if it chose to do so. This could produce a stable environment for further testing. D. Abril i Abril: Registrants register IDNs based on speculation. Questions about how to make WHOIS work in IDN context. Testbed gives no rights other than to use a feature first. Problem here is that those participating in the testbed may expect some kind of grandfathering into actual implementations. E. Auerbach: Foreclosing change in the future? How to deal with the “oops” factor for your customers? 1. Teare: Don’t directly have customers. There’s no hard-coding in the browser. We can make changes in the future. F. Mills: Have so far received eight cases alleging potential infringements. All from Asia-Pacific region. G. Hotta: Launched IDNs with a sunrise period. Japanese users want to use IDNs as soon as possible. ICANN should help this process. H. Harald Alvestrand (IETF): Moving names across DNS has solved the simplest 1% of the problem. Need to be able to email messages including IDNs, to send email to addresses with IDNs. Can’t readily change all the legacy software that would be needed to address these problems. Process is not simple. I. Bob Connelly (PSI-Japan, Inc.): It’s unusual to pay to be involved in a testbed. Had expected to be able to resolve these names more quickly. Customers may be disappointed. J. John Klensin (IAB): IDN Committee did a good job on an impossible task. DNS part of this problem is not an adequate solution. Things work well when software is in a controlled environment. But in the real world, possibility of creating “islands” without intercommunication. This is a hard problem; shouldn’t try to rush a solution. K. Cochetti (Verisign): Thanks to the Board and IDN committee. Disconnect between work of the standards community and demand in the marketplace. The demand will be met by whoever comes to the market first with a workable service. Question is whether to participate or not in the marketplace. Have attempted to explain to customers that they are participating in an early-entry service, and think this disclosure is important. Our testbed was intended both to test & evaluate services and techniques, and to meet a demand that would otherwise have been satisfied by others. L. Siegfried Langenbach (joker.com): What happens if you want to send a message to someone whose address you can’t even enter on your keyboard? This would be a serious problem – prevent interoperability. Doesn’t sound so international. M. Staub: Process used for testbed was not fair or orderly. Possibility of conflict/disappointment when encoding schemes change. Should use a normal sunrise process in the future. N. James Seng: Problem is not simple. Work being done by many. ICANN should go further to understand the issues here. So many committees formed that it’s hard to keep track of who is doing what. O. Paul Twomey (GAC): GAC comment about testbeds was concerned about testbeds generally, not about IDNs in particular. GAC’s Melbourne statement discussed the importance of interoperability, not “islands” (even “testbed islands”). Islands would be a trade issue, and governments would take this very seriously. P. Kozo Yabe (Yuasa & Hara): Disputes about domain names especially problematic when complicated by multilingual issues. Asian character sets, which are similar across different languages, make this especially difficult. Q. Dave Crocker (Brandenburg interWorking): Problems become difficult when we lose the technical focus. Should focus on coming up with solutions that are technically better. R. Bill Manning: Disruptive technology is needed here. Need to change the “on-the-wire coding.” Consider also the need for different input devices. XIV. Choice of next topic A. Unique root vs open mic? XV. Discussion Draft on a Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS - Lynn A. Presentation [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/lynn-singleroot.html] B. Discussion Draft document: [http://www.icann.org/stockholm/unique-root-draft.htm] C. Public comments – 73 against, 1 in favor. 36 written by one person. D. Auerbach: There need not be a single uniform namespace that everyone uses. E. Keith Teare (RealNames): RealNames has been approached by those wishing to use its system to support alternate roots. So far, has declined. Possible difference between alternate naming systems (separate from DNS, but perhaps looking like DNS) and alternate roots (which use DNS)? Does ICANN have a view of the future development of namespaces outside of DNS? 1. Lynn: Not knowledgeable. 2. Cerf: We have no position on systems outside DNS. Our scope is limited to DNS. But we have an interest and responsibility in systems that interact with DNS. 3. Auerbach: Two different problems. User confusion versus technical instability. 4. Sheppard: “Names Council considers that multiple roots are outside the scope of the ICANN DNSO.” Distinguish this from the NC not being interested in the issue. 5. Nigel Roberts (dotGG): New TLD process has been continuing for years. Alternate roots spring up in response to frustration at pace of change. Replacement of a monopoly with an oligopoly will lead to true competition at the registry level? • Cerf: Hope to create new TLDs more easily. And think about whether it’s really helpful to have 1000 TLDs, whether or not that would be a service to customers. It’s not clear to me that many TLDs would be useful. • Roberts: ICANN’s job to specify how many TLDs should exist? • Cerf: Will ultimately get to the point where market decides. • Abril i Abril: Competition does not mean “more competitors” but a robust marketplace. Need to avoid adding monopolies to monopolies. 6. Ken Stubbs: Concern about artificial sense of urgency and about statistics used here. Comfortable with Lynn’s document, but arguments need to be simple so that as many people as possible can follow this. • Auerbach: Shouldn’t stop new businesses in order to protect intellectual property. 7. Milton Mueller (Syracuse University): Feel responsible for Lynn’s paper. de Blanc and I wanted to consider multiple roots. Prepared a briefing paper – presenting issues (not policy). RFCs don’t speak to this. NC considered this question by saying this is outside the scope of ICANN DNSO. • Lynn: Began this document considerably earlier, based on calls received at and just after Melbourne. If you believe new policy is needed, don’t delay, but help us figure out how to proceed. 8. Gallegos (#1304): Concern that ICANN is about to create a TLD collision (.BIZ). • Cerf: Our responsibility is to deal with the single root that we manage. She maintained a separate root outside our authority. She’s welcome to do that, but we don’t have any particular responsibility as a result of her doing so. • Lynn: Encourage Gallegos to read the paper. [http://www.icann.org/stockholm/unique-root-draft.htm] It can’t be that we can’t add a TLD because it already exists somewhere else. • Auerbach: Inconsistency here. We’re frowning on other TLDs and trying to discourage their growth. • Mueller-Maguhn: At some point, we will have a discussion about this problem. • Kraaijenbrink: My browser doesn’t resolve to the alternate root. I’ll never have a collision, and neither will 99% of Internet users. 9. Steve Chadima (New.net): Pleased to see that ICANN is open to feedback and comment. Hope to participate in future ICANN processes. • Cerf: Documentation is helpful for understanding of proprietary systems. • Chadima: available on website. 10. Noss: Applauds Lynn for taking on hard problem. Tucows finds alternate roots issue frustrating. Believe in single, authoritative root. Many relationships w/ ISPs. In a good position for DNS-based alternate system. Feared priority for people w/ large user base and pressure to create alternate system to compete. Dislikes characterizations of alternate roots as Internet old-timer. Tucows wants to propose operation of .web next time around. • Auerbach: What should ICANN do to protect DNS TLDs? • Noss: not concerned by market problems. Concerned about official ICANN bid processes. 11. Younger: A mailing list discusses precisely this topic. 12. Harald Alvestrand: Need to believe that we can separate technology from policy. Dialogue in community has improved over the past days. 13. Kent Crispin: There is a single root because this guarantees uniqueness of namespace. There are other ways to get uniqueness – negotiation between operators of multiple roots. But no guarantee. 14. John Klensin (IAB): Interesting to see clusters of proposals for alternate roots. “There should be one, and it should be ours [or should be yours plus ours]” say some people. Also “We don’t really need a root at all” which leads to chaos and seems undesirable to many. Shouldn’t confuse old tricks (for certain special cases) with what is being discussed here. 15. Bill Manning: Lynn’s paper is helpful. But may need more “engineering” on the Internet. Accuracy important. 16. Duncan Pruett (ICFTU): .UNION was tempted to be added to alternate roots. After all, there’s no certainty re the timeline for adding more TLDs. Delays are excessive. This encourages people to go beyond the ICANN root. • Cerf: Need to move more quickly is apparent. 17. Dave Crocker (Brandenburg InternetWorking): When alternative roots began, they understood the possibility of collisions and were prepared to deal with it. Obligation to do so is theirs, not ICANN’s. CONTACT INFORMATION For additional technical information, please contact: Ben Edelman and Rebecca Nesson |