I.   Welcome – Esther Dyson
   A.   Thanks to local hosts.
   B.   Archive of meeting at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive
   C.   Presenters: Please bring documents / notes to scribes. Bring three copies: one for scribes, one for translators, one for yourself. Copying machine out the main doors to the right.
   D.   Coffee breaks – on your own, saves time. Available at 10:30.
   E.   Lunch break – 12:30-2:00.
   F.   Full schedule.
       1.   New gTLDs
           • Ken Stubbs - Names Council
           • Touton, Nesson – ICANN staff
   G.   90 seconds per commenter, please.
II.   New gTLDs
   A.   Roberts: Discussed for more than five years. A major task for ICANN, per Memorandum of Understanding with US Government.
       1.   ICANN referred the question to DNSO of how new gTLDs might be introduced into Domain Name System. Stubbs will explain process used by DNSO, recommendation it made.
       2.   Staff has posted additional background materials.
       3.   Tomorrow is day of decision.
   B.   Touton: Decision comes to Board after two recommendations from Names Council.
   C.   Stubbs (Chair of Names Council): Series of Working Groups provided input to NC.
       1.   Working Group C: Guidelines for rolling out new TLDs if the Board elected to do so. Submitted report to Council on March 21, posted for public comments, comments received over the web. NC requested and received a supplemental report on April 17, then discussed in teleconference, and adopted this statement by a vote of 16 to 0 (two members missing):
           • “Names Council determines that report of WG-C indicates that there exists consensus for introduction of new TLDs in measured and responsible manner. Recommend to Board that it establish a policy for introduction of new TLDs in measured, responsible manner, giving due regard to … need for order … minimize use of TLDs for infringements of intellectual property rights … recognize needs of users for confidence in stability of DNS.”
           • Also recommended that limited number of new TLDs be introduced initially and that future TLDs be added only after a careful evaluation of initial introduction.
           • Noted WG-C’s suggestion of including several types of TLDs: Fully open TLDs (“generic”), restricted/chartered TLDs (with limited scope), non-commercial/personal domains.
           • Implementation should promote competition in DNS at both registry and registrar levels.
           • Recognized that rollout of new TLDs must not jeopardize stability of the Internet.
           • Coordination with protocol and standards organizations.
           • Recommended that ICANN staff request expressions of interest from those seeking to operate new TLDs. Proposals to specify how to satisfy values of WG-C, NC.
       2.   WG-B asked to develop approaches for dealing with famous marks and intellectual property rights in expansion of DNS.
           • NC considered report, and made statement: “Have reached consensus on three points: Need some mechanism to be determined for protecting connection between famous marks and domain name system. Does not seem to be a need for a universally famous marks list. Protection afforded to trademark holders should depend on type of top-level domain. (Different standards for personal versus commercial top-level domains.)
           • Concluded that there is a community consensus and that there should be varying degrees of IP protection during startup phase.
           • Concluded that there’s no consensus that a list of famous marks should be created.
   D.   Touton: Report on staff’s actions since receiving Names Council’s recommendations.
       1.   ICANN staff prepared and posted two documents. http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm re history, context, process, principles (drawing from NC recommendations), schedule, solicitation of statements of interest.
       2.   Summary of actions contemplated. http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic-actions-considered.htm
           • Calls for posting, comments, proposals, assessment of applications.
           • Applications to be made by persons wishing to operate a registry or wishing to sponsor a TLD.
           • Two-month period for responding to call for proposals, deadline of October 1. Public comment period overlapping the request period and lasting a week longer, until October 8. Applications to be evaluated, with tentatively selected applications announced by November 1, 2000. Completion of registry contracts by December 1.
       3.   Board to approve implementation plan including schedule for implementation, general process for reviewing applications.
       4.   Principles drawn from Names Council resolution.
           • Introduction of new TLDs must maintain Internet stability. Measured, responsible manner.
           • Due to lack of experience to guide how to introduce new TLDs, introduction of new TLDs should be well-controlled and small-scale. Proof of concept for possible future introductions. Corollary is that introduction of new TLDs should have experimental values.
           • New TLDs should have a purpose. To enhance competition in registration service, both at registrar and registry levels. Should enhance the utility of the DNS as a tool for users. Rather than having full ICANN community deliberate about policies for particular TLDs (especially those that are limited use), should appoint other organizations (well-suited to a particular TLD) to make basic decisions about those TLDs re structure, operations, requirements.
           • TLDs should enhance utility of DNS by facilitating new kinds of uses.
           • Have to address “land rush” phenomenon. Sophisticated systems may attempt to register thousands or tens of thousands of names. Presents challenges to intellectual property owners. Need to consider how to protect legitimate interests of intellectual property owners. A criterion for selecting TLDs should be proposed protections for intellectual property.
       5.   Extensive public comment and expressions of interest received.
           • Constituencies have also made statements. Hope to hear from designated representatives during comment period.
   E.   Nesson:
       1.   Presentation at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/presentations/nesson-tld-071500/
       2.   Present public comment forum. http://www.icann.org/mbx/newtlds/
           • Uses: Long comments, short comments, frequent posts from some people (as many as five posts a day).
           • About a quarter of comments addressed whether, why, and/or how to introduce new TLDs. About half were devoted to specific TLDs. About a quarter were off-topic or non-substantive.
       3.   Many favored adding TLDs. Some advocated adding many TLDs, but most favored adding ten or fewer. Some opposed adding any new TLDs at all because concerned about ineffective protections for trademarks, no increase in usefulness of namespace for users.
           • Concern: Wholesale importation of SLDs from current gTLDs would prevent expansion of DNS space. Might only benefit registrars, IP lawyers, etc.
       4.   Restricted vs. Unrestricted: Most favored adding some of each. No reasons given in general, but to expand domain name space. Some favored use of restricted domains as resource locators and to solve trademark problems.
           • Some favored adding only unrestricted TLDs. Difficulty of enforcing charters or of categorizing the DNS.
           • Trademark interests support adding new TLDs provided sufficient protection for intellectual property. Want complete Whois, application of UDRP, mechanism for enforcing rules on new registries. Some intellectual property interests didn’t want to introduce any new TLDs at all.
       5.   “Sunrise” (opening day) policy: Ambivalence. Some worry it’s not feasible to protect the needs. Difficult to define who should be allowed to register early – famous mark holders, trademark holders generally, .com domain name holders? Or no such policy because should be no special privilege for anyone based on .com status or trademarks?
           • Few comments addressing this specifically. Lottery system, limits on number of registrations by single person (or entity?), pricing systems to discourage registration of many domain names.
       6.   Non-ASCII characters: Few comments received, not detailed, but most in favor of it.
       7.   Length of TLD string: Some confusion. Some wanted to maintain the three-letter string currently used. Question of whether this presents a technical problem? Many comments specifically proposed longer TLD strings.
       8.   Timeframe: Some favored accelerated adoption because of prior delays. Others said there needs to be lots of time for public comment because it’s a major undertaking.
       9.   Registry application evaluation criteria: Many comments addressed the questions of what needs to be specified by applicants.
       10.   Expressions of interested called for. List posted at http://www.icann.org/yokohama/eoi.htm
           • Expressions of interest still arriving.
           • Some expressions of interest don’t seem serious – don’t specify all information suggested in comment forum, etc.
           • Various kinds of proposals – multiple proposals for some strings, some restricted proposals, etc.
   F.   Dyson: This is proof of concept. These initial guidelines and processes will not last forever.
   G.   Comments from DNSO Constituencies
       1.   Swinehart (Business Constituency): Update on status of Business Constituency’s position paper.
       2.   Palage (Registrars): Reached six resolutions two days ago
           • Must be new TLDs.
           • Must be generic TLDs in testbed.
           • Must be chartered TLDs in testbed.
           • All ICANN accredited registrars must be able to provide registration services in any new TLDs.
           • Registrars favor use of existing RRP protocol for shared registries.
           • ICANN must develop criteria for evaluating registries during testbed period.
       3.   Klein (Non-Commercial): Concerned about property rights, speech rights.
       4.   Crispin (?): Advantage of restricted TLDs is that they partition the namespace, whereas a completely open TLD doesn’t put sites into buckets. Open TLDs only multiply the multiple registration problem.
           • Abril i Abril: Need a gatekeeper?
           • Crispin: Sure, an organization of museums would keep a list of who is and who isn’t a museum.
       5.   Holmes (ISP Constituency): It’s taken a long time to get this far. ICANN Board should take its time now ensuring viability of new registries, defining appropriate relationships between registries and registrars, etc. Current timeframe is inadequate.
           • Dyson: Think that it’s possible to run a robust registry.
           • Blokzijl: There’s a lot more to it than that. Will judge proposals not only based on IP but on technical specifications.
           • Dyson: Should robustness be determined by ICANN or by marketplace after the fact.
           • Holmes: Staggered schedule for implementation. Implementation needs to reduce liability of ISPs.
       6.   Love: Working with non-profit organizations for social services – human rights, etc. They’re not interested in running the back-end operation. But there exists a market to run the necessary servers.
       7.   Wesson: DNS is not a directory service. Shouldn’t use DNS to find things. And need to prevent registry lock-in.
           • Cerf: Rationale for bringing in new TLD should not be for the purpose of turning DNS into a directory service.
       8.   Ambler: Agree with Cerf. Technical criteria should be robust and objective. But running a registry shouldn’t be out of the reach of those who wish to outsource. .web registry has operated for four years. Volunteer to share experience with technical criteria.
       9.   Crispin: Outsourcing is a good idea. Specialization in DNS registry hosting will help companies do a better job. Split between substantive policy decisions and technical operations should be pursued.
           • Dyson: Agreed. Interested in these new business models.
           • Roberts: Proposals to create and operate new registries must be premised on knowledge and competence in operations, technical, management, and financial areas as well as value of name being proposed. All are important, and staff proposed to judge every proposal on every criteria.
           • Cerf: The Internet is run by businesses. No guarantees that particular services will succeed or last forever. Cannot be all-seeing and all-knowing, nor should we be. Must allow for risk in the marketplace. Risk is shared by all.
           • Roberts: Outsourcing is fine, so long as every element is satisfied.
       10.   [Please identify yourself]: At least one company (an ICANN-accredited registrar) is saying that ICANN will ratify their TLD in Yokohama, and it’s already collecting money for registrations for in that TLD. Can this be regulated?
           • Dyson: True them for fraud. No one has been pre-approved. Their statements are untrue. They may well disqualify themselves. Who is it?
           • Wong: ICANN’s legal staff can have a discussion with representatives of that registrar.
       11.   Cade: Do need a sound evaluation of proposals. Can’t leave that to the marketplace. Detailed comments filed.
       12.   Dooley: A different perspective than Cerf. Competition between telephone companies exists, allowing choice of other telephone companies when customers choose to do so. But you can’t so readily move to a new TLD.
       13.   Auerbach (#841, online): Read in full. Reports that Deutsch ran an actual test with several million TLDs and it worked. New TLDs will not damage stability of the Internet. Those who are concerned about “instability” should specify precisely what they mean.
       14.   Aguirre: ICANN should provide a series of tests. Also, cannot deny that each TLD already serves as a directory service for non-technical users.
           • Cerf: Domain names are tools for creating uniqueness. People use search engines. When they guess, it only works for well-known domain names. Real utility in Internet will not come from DNS but from better Internet search engines. Even in the best case, DNS will be the weakest possible tool for finding things on the network.
           • Cerf: If we create better search engines, it’s less important to be registered in particular domains.
           • Dyson: Directory services, catalogs, maps, etc.
       15.   Crocker: Difference between mapping unique names to unique entries versus surfing. Mnemonics are good for memory but not for guessing. Also, Dooley and Cerf actually are not in disagreement.
       16.   Marcowski: New six to ten domains are only a small increase in the number of TLDs. Wondering when the last TLD was introduced?
           • Palestine, .ps, this spring.
       17.   Williams: Need simplicity and ease-of-use of processes for registrations, transfers, etc.
       18.   Crispin: Need data escrow to prevent loss of data in case of registry failure. No conflict between stability in DNS and allowing business failures.
       19.   Can we justify restrictions on number of TLDs? Stability of the Internet sounds like old arguments of universal telephone service, banks. Don’t want to see the same things happen here.
       20.   Kornfeld (Non-Commercial Constituency): Artificial scarcity of domain names. ICANN should not introduce restrictions on registration of new TLDs. Should not prevent use of company, product, or service names for legitimate and protected expressions of concern or criticism. Should adopt rapid expansion of TLD space. Accommodate multilingual needs. Should not make global trademark policy. Rights of free speech need to be protected. Names Council improperly changed recommendations of WG-C to reduce number of TLDs to be added in initial test. Registries should be controlled by affiliated organizations - .union by labor organizations.
           • Cerf: Weird to discuss freedom of speech in context of domain names. Domain names primarily to provide unique identifiers. Weird to work hard to create freedom of speech. Only 63 characters to work with, anyway.
       21.   Palage: Registrars met in Reston with representatives of FBI, Department of Justice. NSI Registry described SRS to law enforcement. We know about the problem and are working on it. Working also on a code of conduct to increase consumer confidence in registration authorities.
           • Cerf: Escrow data may need to be transferred into another database. Working on that?
           • Touton: Yes, task force is working on that and related points.
       22.   Kirk (Intellectual Property Constituency): Favor measured and controlled rollout of new TLDs. Need complete and current contact data. Cross-registry Whois needs to be developed for free use. Registrars should adhere to UDRP. Protection of trademarks should be included in new TLD rollout (limited to registered trademarks for one year or longer; some favor including domain names and common-law trademarks). Verification of compliance.
           • Abril i Abril: Data from registrars should be standardized.
           • Wong: New TLDs require reconsideration of UDRP process.
       23.   YangWoo (Peacenet): .Com is overpopulated. If ICANN wants to solve this problem, it should add .biz or .web to compete with .com.
           • Blokzijl: Internet community continues to expand .com by about a million names a month.
       24.   Love: It’s not that you can’t get a domain. It’s that you can’t get the domain you want. Clearly names have purposes other than providing unique identifiers. Less a question of what it should be than what it is. Shouldn’t use technical rationalizations to make the world do what you want it to do. Don’t impose own view about how the world should work.
       25.   Teernstra: Adding value is economic purpose of Internet. No question top of DNS must become bigger. Expansion=value.
       26.   Schneider: ISP concerns: exposure, stability. ISPs suffer in case of failure. Reduce liability, one at a time, reasonable timetable. Consider stability, public comments.
       27.   Carey: Users in some countries will be left out if special policies don’t look out for their interests.
           • Dyson: Don’t have the staff or budget to sponsor development of the Internet worldwide. We just can’t solve those problems. But we’re glad he’s here.
           • Blokzijl: INET has these issues on its agenda.
           • Carey: Companies make millions of dollars on their registrations. Maybe use some of that money?
           • Dyson: No taxing authority.
       28.   Heltzer (Intellectual Property Constituency): Four principles: Available on Constituency web site. Outreach, Whois, Daybreak, modifications UDRP. http://ipc.songbird.com/TLD_Guidelines3.htm
       29.   Walter: Need competitive model. Pioneer’s preference. Avoid lock-in during a time of exponential growth.
       30.   Chiu: Domain names are well-known. Can’t ignore that “.com” is effectively part of the English language. Domain names have gone beyond uniqueness to a way to find things. Need to consider this.
       31.   Metalix: Support comments of Intellectual Property Constituency. Agree that Whois needs to be improved.
       32.   Gaetano: DNS as resource locator is ridiculous. Try different business models for new registries. Thick/thin, unrestricted, chartered, geographic diversity. UDRP is enough.
       33.   Dyson: geographic (and other) diversity will be one of our criteria.
       34.   ?: Names are very powerful. Unions want to organize. Board can’t decide who are good and bad unions.
       35.   Gibson: UDRP has worked well for three.. UDRP capacity: committed to keeping it up.
       36.   Pindar: 10X increase is o.k.?
       37.   Gibson: committed to resources
       38.   Dyson: Panels will rise to meet the need.
       39.   Gibson: Increasing diversity.
       40.   online comment: ICANN going to gain financially?
       41.   Dyson: ICANN has no vested financial interest
       42.   Roberts: TFF considered this, posted recommendations. Board will apply TFF process.
       43.   Davidson: Access to new gTLD namespace affects free expression. Support new TLDs, diversity a touchstone, possible fee waiver for non-commercial applicants.
       44.   Sims: Who should pay expense of processing applications?
           • Davidson: Diversity isn’t possible if there’s a prohibitive barrier to entry.
           • Dyson: Don’t wan to be in the business of deciding who’s a charity.
       37.   Tsuru (Mexican Association for the Protection of Industrial Property): Agree with concern about TLDs in developing countries. Even without resources to do a massive campaign, need to work to help entrepreneurs in developing countries.
           • Cerf: Internet Society focuses on these concerns. Must be careful not to overload ICANN.
           • Dyson: Investors may be the best source of assistance.
       38.   Chun: ICANN doesn’t reflect the interests of developing countries. Consider justice between countries.
       39.   Markovich: Fees seem large for emerging countries. Propose keeping expenses at lowest possible level.
       40.   Tatham: Panelist for UDRP. Pay is bad, but it seems to be working as designed. Majority (or fewer than at outset) of complainants are unable to prove bad faith. UDRP should be used in new TLDs.
           • Improvement: Loser in a complaint should be obliged to pay costs.
       41.   Luque: Not everyone speaks English natively. Speak more slowly and clearly. Also work on translation of important documents.
           • Dyson: Still requesting assistance with translations. (But hard to translate more while lowering fees as requested!)
       42.   Porteneuve: Translation needs to be done professionally, not by volunteers.
           • Dyson: Request contributions to help us do good translations.
       43.   Chun: Online environments should follow rules of real space. May need a new system of identification.
       44.   Ambler: Yesterday, asked NC why they reversed consensus of WG-C. Question was met with silence. So ask Board: Why accept recommendation of NC if perhaps it doesn’t reflect consensus of WG?
           • Abril i Abril: Question is “6 to 10” being changed to “limited number”?
           • Ambler: Yes.
           • Abril i Abril: Just a rephrasing, not a reversal. And we haven’t accepted it yet. Board is ultimately responsible for the whole policy. Will take into account everything, including the WG-C report and the problems that WG had.
           • Ambler: Disagree that it’s just a rephrasal, and the chair of WG-C agrees with me.
           • Dyson: We have the record.
       45.   Simons: Developing countries were unable to pay ACM’s fees for developed countries. Lowest tier is subsidized. This is a possible model for ICANN.
           • Dyson: First need fees from top two tiers.
       46.   Torii: Support DNSO and thank it for its efforts. Request for the protection of globally famous trademarks. Important not just for the holder of the marks but for society, because these marks are valuable to everyone. Must establish a mechanism to prevent damage or infringement of these trademarks. I believe there’s a consensus for doing so. Difficult to prepare a list of globally famous trademarks, so we shouldn’t use such a mechanism, rather use the UDRP. But using the UDRP so much will be an enormous waste of resources. Need to solve the problem in advance.
       47.   Raju: New registrars should be chosen on a country basis rather than on a regional basis.
       48.   Fockler: Process is exceptional. Lots of ways to participate.
       49.   Abril i Abril: We’re currently contemplating a test. Will not be able to address all diversity goals in initial batch. Maybe in the long run.
III.   Reports
   A.   President’s Report
       1.   Organizational Chart
           • http://www.icann.org/general/icann-org-chart_frame.htm
           • Much of work done by community.
       2.   Periodic challenges to authority of ICANN and to US Government actions to implement White Paper. General Accounting Office did an investigation – report is about 50 pages. http://www.icann.org/general/gao-report-07jul00.pdf
       3.   ICANN provides department with status reports under terms of transition agreement with US Government. Nine tasks specified in MoU with DoC: http://www.icann.org/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm section V.C. Three quarters to eighty percent of the work has been done. In discussions with DoC about how to proceed.
       4.   Budget. Recommendations adopted re budget process. Task Force, public comment in Cairo and thereafter. Budget adopted in June telephone meeting. Budget posted online. http://www.icann.org/financials/budget-fy00-01-06jun00.htm
      B.   Audit Committee – Linda Wilson
       1.   ICANN has engaged local accountants to support financial affairs and statements.
       2.   Searching for external audit firm. Audit Committee recommends that one of the “big five” international auditing firm. Recommend KPMG. Ask firm to report on ICANN’s balance sheet, activities, and cash flows, using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for Not-For-Profit organizations. Committee found KPMG’s fees reasonable.
       3.   Verify that checks and balances are in place to limit what staff can do without approval of Board.
       4.   Q&A
           • Dengate Thrush: GAO states that it’s unclear whether DoC can transfer control of root to ICANN. Board’s thoughts?
           • Touton: See status report to DoC. http://www.icann.org/general/statusreport-30jun00.htm (Item 3, bottom of file)
           • Burr: GAO was unclear about transfer of ultimate policy control. DoC can definitely transfer control of operation and management of root server system to ICANN.
           • Abril i Abril: GAO says DoC has no present intention to transfer policy control of the root.
           • Burr: Do intend to transfer it to ICANN when we receive an operational plans that makes necessary assurances for stability. Have not looked at ability of administration to transfer ultimate policy authority over root. A legal question of how to do it. Will address the question when we need to.
   C.   Murai – presentation delivered http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/presentations/murai-071500
   D.   ASO Status Report – Takashi Arano
       1.   Presentation delivered http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/presentations/ASOUpdate0700
       2.   Cerf: Will RIRs assign large number of IPs to organizations that need many?
           • Arano: IANA assigns address blocks to RIRs.
           • Cerf: Procedures and practices for those allocations?
           • Arano: Yes.
   E.   Becky Burr – US Department of Commerce Update
       1.   DoC’s report to Second Status Report from ICANN. (http://www.icann.org/general/statusreport-30jun00.htm )
       2.   Impressive. Congratulations to community and ICANN staff.
       3.   Expect to extend a revised MoU only for the tasks not yet completed. Don’t expect to add new tasks. Expect that length of agreement will be only that necessary to complete the outstanding tasks.
       4.   Consider ccTLD issues fundamental and hope agreement can be reached.
   F.   Report from Government Advisory Committee - Twomey
       1.   Open sessions held
           • Briefing from Roberts
           • Dialogue with ICANN Board re ccTLD administration and delegation
           • Meeting with ccTLD Constituency of DNSO
       2.   Communique presented – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/GACmtg6_communique.html
       3.   Cerf: What does “communication-based regime” mean?
           • Use the word “communication-based” because these communications could vary among jurisdictions. These messages need to be writing, but otherwise they may vary.
       4.   Kleinwachter: Did you discuss membership?
           • Brief discussion, incomplete.
       5.   McClurg: Supply and demand-side representation?
           • Exaggerating and simplifying: Two paths to ICANN’s growth. ICANN becomes either an international association of system administrators (supply-side) or of Internet users.
       6.   Dyson: You’ve changed your job? Explain?
           • Resigned effective the end of next week. Will remain special Australian representative to ICANN/GAC and will remain responsible for Australian domain name space. Rest of time will go to other pursuits.
       7.   Cerf: Ambassador to Internet? So Internet is a country?
           • “Call me his excellency.”
       8.   McLaughlin: GAC will not provide specific advice re definition of geographic region?
           • Happy to refer you to several of these lists.
           • McLaughlin: Those lists are helpful, but they don’t use a five-cluster structure.
           • One list splits countries into twelve, then those twelve Fitzsimmons into five pretty neatly.
       9.   Love: Consumer protection and monopoly issues in the context of the existing mission of ICANN (domain name system)? Or in a broader context (e-commerce generally)?
           • GAC wouldn’t support an expansion of ICANN’s mission. Interested in consumer protection and public policy only as they relate to domain name policy.
       10.   ?: Clarifications on process for dealing with ccTLDs not in good standing?
           • Twomey: GAC asks ICANN to write to relevant governments or public authorities to get views re issues for their ccTLDs.
           • Cerf: Communique says ICANN shouldn’t attempt to enter into a contract with a ccTLD administrator for which a redelegation request is pending.
           • Twomey: Right. Asks ICANN to consult with governments before entering into a contract with a ccTLD administrator who’s
   G.   DNSO Report – Ken Stubbs
       1.   GA supports establishment of an additional constituency of individual domain name holders. Suggest establishment of working group plus a task force with one member of each constituency. Hope for rapid resolution of the issue.
       2.   Review of DNSO – need to work closely with Executive Committee of the Board.
       3.   Grateful for Cohen’s work representing the NC on the Board. Working on election of his replacement. Nominations to be open soon – within the next 10-14 days. Announcement on DNSO and ICANN sites.
       4.   Discussions about increasing efficiency of the NC and improving its support via the secretariat. Hope for contributions to help support the secretariat.
       5.   Discussed expansion of the namespace.
       6.   Cohen: Think it’s important to build bridges between constituencies. Status?
           • Stubbs: Working on it. Some bumps, but generally on track. After long deliberations, many (most?) votes are unanimous.
       7.   Dyson: Committee to look at individuals constituency needs to be open-minded.
           • Stubbs: Will include Gaetano for that reason.
       8.   Wong: Working group to address the DNSO Review process should be helpful. Thank you.
IV.   At-Large Membership: McLaughlin
   A.   Presentation delivered: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/presentations/membership
   B.   Structure of elections: One member elected from each of five regions.
   C.   Public membership statistics http://members.icann.org/pubstats.html
   D.   Membership application process:
       1.   Application received
       2.   Duplicates (name, address, etc.) removed by ICANN staff
       3.   Email verification
       4.   PIN letter mailed
   E.   Nomination - Wilson
       1.   Nominating committee has seven members
       2.   All nominations for Nominating Committee candidates are now received. Reviewing the 167 individual names received. (Good distribution across geographic regions.) Now developing slate to be presented on the ballot.
   F.   Member nominations - http://www.icann.org/at-large/self-nomination.htm
       1.   Crew: Nominations Committee considers reducing the 10% threshold of member nominations for addition to the Member-nomination section of the ballot. Still need to keep number of candidates small to reduce burden on staff, and some voting systems under consideration don’t scale well to large numbers of candidates. Instead of percentages, could accept for inclusion on the ballot the top x number of member-nominated candidates in each region.
       2.   Cerf: A person can only endorse candidates within the region in which he will vote?
   G.   McLaughlin: Outstanding questions: Can one person express support for more than one candidate? Also, suggest requiring expressions of support from outside of home country. Should list of supporters be public?
   H.   Dyson: Provide more of this information via email? Very helpful for some.
I.   Comments:
       1.   Klein: What if candidates want to withdraw after being nominated? Could happen if candidates have similar positions.
           • Dyson: Don’t plan on having too many stages of this process. Let’s keep it simpler.
           • Cerf: Maybe not so many people will want the job.
           • Kraaijenbrink: Groups with similar interests should find single candidates. Don’t go through the intermediate step of nominating too many people.
       2.   Klein: It should be possible to participate using nothing but email so as not to exclude those with only email access.
       3.   Davidson: We’re in uncharted territory. Time of year is difficult – many people aren’t around in August, and that makes it harder to get nominated. Saying “top two” helps deal with this problem.
           • Dyson: OK. What’s a reasonable cap for number of candidates per region?
       4.   Teernstra: Concerned about issue of regional representation and citizenship. Propose that candidates be assigned to regions based on residence.
           • McLaughlin: this causes other problems elsewhere in ICANN’s structure.
           • Dyson: A small but nagging problem.
       5.   Kornfeld: Advocate lowering thresholds. 10% is too high. Supporting only one candidate turns the process into a de facto election. Don’t want to deter people from supporting candidates. Lists of supporters shouldn’t be public.
           • McLaughlin: It’s true that we said we’d never publicize member names. Publishing supporter names would break that promise. Hadn’t thought about that.
       6.   Fockler: Capping size of ballot?
           • Election Committee Recommendations - http://www.icann.org/elcom/recs-07jul00.htm#V
           • Fockler: Perhaps limit Member-Nominated portion of ballot to twice the size of the Nominating Committee’s ballot?
           • Kornfeld: Anyone with 2% should be allowed on the ballot.
        7.   Comment from Fausett (#860)
       8.   Cerf: What does the staff think it can manage in terms of numbers of candidates?
           • McLaughlin: Have 42000 verified membership applications. Getting about 1500 more per day. Will have about 75000 by the end of the month. Membership staff will be fully occupied by members and their activation problems. Leaves me and one other person to be hired to deal with candidates. I’d get nervous with more than about 35 candidates, say seven per ballot.
           • Cerf: How many candidates do we need in order to select one? (Assume that Nominating Committee selects good candidates, as does the Member-Nomination process.)
           • Cohen: Seems fair.
           • Hotta: Have used outreach efforts and corporate channels to raise membership rolls. Have translated membership registration site. Have learned that millions of Japanese users use only the email on their mobile phones. Need to take them into account. Support Klein’s suggestion of using email for participation.
           • McLaughlin: Thought about this. Decided we would require people to go to an Internet café, business, friend’s computer, etc. But we have limited money, limited staff, etc. and couldn’t build a system that worked for everyone. At least to cast votes, and maybe for other parts of the process, have to use the web.
           • Roberts: It’s common in the United States to “spoof” email addresses. ICANN has been the target of this several times. Our advisors said we should be extra careful about security and fraud. That you have to have a secure web browser to participate may change in subsequent elections.
           • Murai: Local people can and should work on interfaces to specific devices. It’s unreasonable to expect a central authority to support all.
       9.   Aizu: Breakdowns by region?
           • McLaughlin: Haven’t defined the regions yet.
           • Aizu: Concerned about a nationalistic competition. If one country registers far more people than other countries in the region, then it is difficult for candidates from other countries in that region to get elected. Japan and Asia in particular.
           • Fockler: Just reaching the threshold doesn’t mean you’re on the ballot if there’s a cap on the size of the ballot.
           • McLaughlin: This is a problem. But we’d be discouraged if members voted by nation rather than by candidate.
       10.   Yumi: The application process will be complete by July 31. But what if you aren’t a member by then? Many more people will still be interested. And how to continue free-of-charge membership in the future?
           • McLaughlin: July 31 deadline is not arbitrary; that’s what’s needed to make the vote take place in October. Independent outside monitor has to review the data for attempted fraud or capture. And want members to interact with the candidates. Leaving time for all this requires closing membership registrations on July 31. Re cost, the number of registrations currently received is putting huge strains on ICANN’s budget and staff. Markle Foundation grant is not sufficient. Anxious but optimistic that we’ll be able to keep registration open through July 31. In future years, if there are future elections, we will have to figure out a way to fund the process.
       11.   Baker: Enough time for member nominations?
           • McLaughlin: NomCom announces nominations on July 25. In first two weeks of August, member nominations let us know. There should be enough time, even for those who want to think about it a bit first.
           • Dyson: Put lots of content in the email messages we send to potential Member Nominations?
       12.   Concerned about 10% threshold. If non-Japanese want to run, they will find it difficult because the Asian membership roster is so large but dominated by Japanese. Similarly with gender imbalance.
       13.   Kim: Korean Internet Forum was an effective means of conducting outreach. Surprised by statistics previously displayed – didn’t realize Japanese representation was so huge. Concerned that candidates only get votes from members from the same region.
       14.   Love: How many sponsors needed to get on the ballot of the Internet Society?
           • Cerf: 50, I believe.
           • Love: Anyone who can get 50 supporters should get to be on the ballot.
           • Roberts: This seems like a US-centric view. And in the US we solve this problem with primaries. Only one election here, so it’s just not possible to have dozens of people competing for a single seat.
       15.   Simon: Need to lower percentage from 10% to 2%. Problem will not be too many people getting petitioned on. A cap is reasonable – perhaps eight to ten candidates (per region). Finally, NomCom should nominate more than one candidate (in each region).
       16.   Williams: Should not have any limitations on the number of candidates on the ballot. ICANN must be inclusive.
           • Cerf: Oklahoma City has the power to tax. We’re not in that position. Please be careful about the resources required to carry on the procedure that you’re suggesting. Directors are obliged to assure the financial stability of ICANN.
       17.   Citizenship versus residency? Also, favor use of email interface, despite problem.
           • McLaughlin: Need to be a citizen to be elected to represent a particular region. Residency not relevant for this purpose.
       18.   Danginu: System chosen does not work for Africa. Want perhaps fifty members from each country. Also, would favor email participation. MITF has a mission but not resources which makes its work hard.
       19.   Abril i Abril: Board Members do not represent individual countries or regions, but the global Internet community. Thinking of the election this way prevents the nationalistic competition.
       20.   Who pays for Directors to attend meetings? What languages do they need to speak? Technical qualification?
           • Dyson: Have to trust the people who do the voting to address specific requirements for candidates. Want to leave much of these questions up to the electorate.
           • McLaughlin: Must be at least 16 years old. NomCom has posted some guidelines – English fluency, time availability, basic technical knowledge assumed. Expenses reimbursed, but that’s all.
       21.   Nelson: Do want to have a manageable number of candidates. Somewhere between 2 and 4% should be about right. But what about serious database problems with receiving applications? How to deal with this problem? Should I send IBM salespeople?
           • McLaughlin: Don’t have a magic amount of money waiting to buy new machines. Nor to move from one system to another while keeping systems reliable. We’re just not equipped for the kind of load we’re getting. We designed a system for certain specifications, which have been exceeded.
       22.   Bailyn (Markle Foundation): How much more money might you need? (To pay for mailing of PIN numbers or other expenses that can be paid at this point?)
           • McLaughlin: Can’t give you a good answer to that. We can use money from just about any source. We can use more machines, translators. But we only have two weeks – so it’s not clear that throwing money at the problem will fix that much.
           • Bailyn: Markle will match funds to maintain this system.
       23.   Maruyama: Why not poll the membership? Have to encourage those who can make contributions to become members. It would be odd if members could participate in no way other than voting in elections. If ICANN needs more support, it should solicit membership fees.
           • McLaughlin: Question is what At-Large Members do other than voting. Membership for the purpose of voting does need a cutoff point. But no cutoff for general participation in the ICANN process. We’ll want to give interested people the information they need to participate in the ICANN process.
           • Cerf: Expanding ICANN’s charter may not be a good idea.
       24.   Connelly: Other countries should consider the Japanese model for registration. Used a high-profile newspaper to announce Japan ICANN Forum. This attracts public participation and interest.
       25.   Gaetano: OK to hire additional staff for a few months if needed. We have 50,000 people registered and maybe 100,000 more coming. Have to organize them. This isn’t the priority now, but it needs to be on the agenda in the future.
       26.   Kraaijenbrink: Transfer the ICANN At-Large list to ISOC and its chapters? These people have shown an interest in the further development of the Internet.
       27.   Online comments read:
           • Leah Gallegos (#863) re publication of member lists.
           • Bret Fausett (#864) re setting a date for election of subsequent At-Large Board Members.
           • Teri Powell (#865) re importance of inclusiveness.
           • Roger Antao (#868) re fundamental principles.
       28.   Delays in receiving mail in some countries. May need to adjust the process accordingly. Also, should translate more.
           • McLaughlin: Are translating already into Chinese, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish. Done professionally.
       29.   Kornfeld: Capping number of nominees would be OK if cap were 8 to 10.
       30.   Aizu: Two votes for each member. Vote for your region with one vote, in any region with the other. Also, Japanese link on membership page is broken.
   J.   Campaign: Don’t want to unduly advantage rich or technically advanced candidates.
   K.   Online voting: Election Committee recommends preferential voting. Least-preferred candidate gets knocked off the list, then votes for them shuffled down according to voter preferences, then recount until someone gets a majority.
   L.   Online voting system: Four (and a half?) proposals received. Intention is to outsource to a commercial vendor.
   M.   Bylaws revisions - http://www.icann.org/yokohama/atlargebylaws-topic.htm
       1.   Sims: Have struggled to figure out how to adjust structure created at start of ICANN to form an effective mechanism for obtaining those At-Large directors. Temporarily suggested a jerry-rigged At-Large Council. In Cairo, dumped the process previously used and moved to the current process to elect five (not nine) At-Large Directors. Ask four initial Directors to stay for another year. After the election of the initial five, will conduct a study to consider how to proceed.
           • Bylaws drafted to reflect as much caused some confusion. Some worry that Bylaws revision are prejudging the outcome of the study. Suggest a new revision to Bylaws to give the Board a free hand after the study to decide the subsequent makeup of the Board.
           • Don’t intend to suggest that there will be five, nine, or any other number. Is intended to leave the Board free to study the issue and make some determination
   N.   Monitoring & Oversight
       1.   Recommendation 6 - http://www.icann.org/elcom/recs-07jul00.htm
       2.   To assure that system adopted works as expected. Might seek the services of an organization dedicated to the task of overseeing elections.
           • Offer from Carter Center.
       3.   Study timing: Begin after elections, end no later than second quarterly meeting (June) of next year. Study, public comments, and reactions would be done by Annual Meeting next fall. So that new At-Large Directors could take office in the Annual Meeting in 2002.
       4.   Kraaijenbrink: Five newly-elected directors should participate.
       5.   Comments?
           • Leader: Not everyone is a native English speaker. What does “soup to nuts” mean. Re size of Board, the nine At Large Board members were supposed to balance the nine SO members. Changing this changes the status quo.
           • Sims: Key conceptual point of confusion/misunderstanding/disagreement. Board’s actions in Cairo were intended to respond to concerns expressed by the community. Wanted to respond to what the Board thought were inherent difficulties in electing half of the Board. Hence, the Board said they’d solve the problem by reducing the number to be elected from half to a third (5 of 15), then reconsider the question.
           • McLaughlin: Want to write accurate bylaws that don’t prejudge the questions. Note that Board will have to take action one way or the other.
           • Sims: Current bylaws provide for At Large Council and indirect elections. If we don’t do this, we have indirect elections.
           • Dyson: There really is no status quo anyway.
       6.   Davidson: Thanks to staff for working on this hard problem. Hard to work in real-time with complicated language. We think changes go beyond the community understanding of Cairo resolution. The “provided that…” paragraph is the difficult one.
           • Sims: Four extensions are for one year, not more. We need to address the question one way or the other.
           • Davidson: This changes the presumption. This is a change in that. The Board should recognize as much. Current language is simple and straightforward.
           • Dyson: I perceive this language as a warning that if we don’t do anything, we’ll end up with five directors.
           • Sims: Time period on the study was not ambiguous in the Cairo resolution. Said “in time for elected directors to be seated in 2002.” Have struggled with this for a long time with much public input, etc.
       7.   Cerf: Seems that some people if the revised language said that our target was nine directors until the study is complete. We can fill the four slots by appointment if needed, as done by ISOC when no election cycle available.
       8.   Abril i Abril: There has not been a change. Also, this influence from public interest groups from Washington DC does not reflect the entire community.
       9.   Simons: Not in Cairo, don’t know precisely what the Bylaws say. But the community’s view is that there will be nine At Large Directors. Appreciate the problems. Need to leave nine in the Bylaws to keep public confidence.
       10.   Sims: It’s conceivable that the Board might decide that nine At Large Directors is the wrong number.
       11.   McLaughlin: Should retain flexibility to keep number at nine if Board wants to later. Or change the number later.
       12.   Kraaijenbrink: Confirm Sims’s recollection. Cairo decision was clear – a compromise between views. Thanks to counsel for expressing this so clearly in the text.
       13.   Abril i Abril: Criticism of ICANN seems inconsistent. First, complaint that Initial Board wasn’t elected. Now, that we can’t let number of Board members fall.
       14.   Wilson: Plenty of time for Board and community to consider the outcome of the study before we have to design the subsequent election.
       15.   Nickelt: Many At Large members from Germany because some people worry that ICANN might be very powerful or not reflect their interests. These will be difficult worries to resolve. The more vague the Board is, the more radical the elected At Large director from Europe will be.
       16.   Blokzijl: Object to being called “non-democratically elected.”
       17.   Kleinwachter: Cairo was not nine versus five elections but direct versus indirect elections. “Five versus nine” questions came up only after Cairo meeting.
           • McLaughlin: We’re arguing about timing. Want to make decisions after the six-month study. Make the decision now, in November? We want to make the decision when it makes sense.
       18.   Markovich: Board should reiterate ICANN’s commitment to strong public voice and to nine At Large seats set aside directly for that voice on the ICANN Board.
       19.   Wilkinson: Tone of this debate and implication of Bylaws changes tend to lean towards the corporate goals. Public policy interests lie elsewhere.
           • McLaughlin: How does the resolution do that?
           • Wilkinson: Shouldn’t be so cavalier in changing Bylaws. Some clauses of Bylaws should have been in Articles (which are harder to change). Should not have vacancies on the Board.
       20.   Simon: Review ICANN’s minutes from Cairo. Revisions to Bylaws suggest reduction of At Large directors from nine to zero. That’s what causes the problem and concern. To keep the principle of having nine At Large Directors until the study is complete, keep the existing Article V language but saying “nine initial members of the Initial Board or their successors.” This is desirable because it doesn’t prejudice how the Directors will be selected.
       21.   Gaetano: Concerned about reduction in numbers of At Large Directors. More urgently: This tilts the balance of power towards the SOs.
           • Roberts: Agree. Unanimous resolution of the Board in LA. Concerns expressed in Cairo, hence the current compromise.
           • Cohen: Constituencies were challenged to self-form. Membership should do the same.
           • Cerf: Sympathetic to these issues. But don’t want to think too much about how constituencies elected Board Members. Represent what everyone needs, not just the particular entity that elected particular directors.
       22.   Kornfeld: Shouldn’t stop the process before it has even started. We’ve been told that there will be nine At Large Directors. Can’t change that now.
       23.   Markovski: Need to make process more accessible to non-native speakers. Even with nine At Large Directors, that’s not a majority.
       24.   Crispin: Serious problems with process. Not clear that At Large election will really be democratic. Study is very serious – need to give it due time.
       25.   Dyson: Hard to prevent all fraud. But study is serious – not a delaying tactic, but something real.
V.   Geographic Regions - McLaughlin
   A.   Five regions according to Bylaws.
   B.   Two regions of the world are hard to deal with. Middle East – Asia or Africa? Also, Caucasus.
   C.   Dzidonu: If Middle East is grouped with Africa, then Continental African users will have no representation on the ICANN Board.
   D.   Abril i Abril: Agreed that Africa is currently missing from the Board. We can fix this.
   E.   Found United Nations list of regional divisions with five lists. Africa, Asia & Pacific, Europe & North America, South America & Caribbean, Western Asia.
   F.   Are hoping to represent Africa as a continent. Our representation should not be diluted.
   G.   Simons: Suppose we increased number of geographic regions to nine? Solves two problems at once.
   H.   Merren: Favor self-selection, as used in ccTLD Constituency. Some countries would prefer to be grouped with those with whom they share a language or culture rather than based on geography.
I.   Love: Consider nine regions. To solve the problem that some countries dominate a region, perhaps require that the next representative from a region come from a different country within the region? WHO does this.
   J.   Twomey: Shouldn’t get into politics. Use someone else’s lists.
   K.   Lay: ICANN shouldn’t make decisions about identifying regions. Besides, regions don’t matter anyway.
   L.   Are working on AfriNIC which has well-defined membership. Use this to delineate ICANN’s African region.
VI.   ccTLD and Administration Policies - Touton
   A.   http://www.icann.org/yokohama/cctld-topic.htm
   B.   Stable contractual relationships with country code registries are part of requirements of Memorandum of Understanding with Department of Commerce.
   C.   Working on a flexible contract. Draft posted at http://www.icann.org/yokohama/draft-cctld-status-quo-agreement-05jul00.htm
   D.   Comments
       1.   Van Couvering: Slides referred – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/presentations/cctld
           • Progress is being made.
           • Some difficulty coming to consensus within the ccTLD group, so it’s hard to provide status reports to community.
           • GAC proposals think of governments as a hub communicating with governments and ccTLDs. ccTLD Manager is to serve Local Internet Community, which includes the government.
           • Have a best practices document specifying expectations for fairness, non-discrimination, etc. Redelegation in case of non-performance by ccTLD manager. Encourage mediation (because communication is often the problem), then (if needed) a board to make a determination.
           • Procedure should feature openness, due process.
       2.   De Blanc (ccTLD Funding Group Chair): Hesitant to get into funding discussions without discussing whether there’s a contract for services. ccTLDs are hesitant to respond to an invoice because paying would imply consent to a contract. Commitments reach $750,000. Hope to continue decoupling of funding from contractual documents.
       3.   Markovski: Need a body to make rules for ccTLDs. Otherwise, governments will want to make their own rules. ccTLD administrators should work with local Internet users. ccTLDs should move towards competition in registration services to reduce registration cost.
       4.   Decoupling of funding from contracts will help facilitate competition.
       5.   Van Couvering: Resolution is in sight.
       6.   Gambian government made a request for redelegation of ccTLD. No response received. Gambian administrator has neither technical nor administrative contact within the country. At least tell us that investigations are being made.
           • Dyson: Talk to staff directly.
           • Roberts: There are a number of pending redelegation requests, and staff is limited. They require investigation and are time-consuming. We want to see some attempts at mediation.
           • McLaughlin: Need new policies. We don’t like this either. Hope to improve it.
           • Burr: Redelegations are difficult. Need an easy objective procedure that doesn’t expose ICANN to liability that it can’t bear.
VII.   General Comments
   A.   Olson: Support Wilkinson and Cerf’s suggestions. We perceive that the “provided that” clause amends the main texts.
       1.   Dyson: What to do with the four seats?
       2.   Olson: Not sure yet.
       3.   Dyson: That’s the point. Need to do the study. Concreted suggestions for what to do now?
       4.   Cerf: Don’t know how long study will take, don’t know what it will say. Could provide a default (“in the absence of any other plan”) to suggest “the board shall appoint four Members to replace the four who are leaving.” This guarantees that there will still be nine.
       5.   Dyson: Big difference between “we want nine Members” and “we want the Board to appoint four Members.”
       6.   Olson: Didn’t say they’d have to be appointed, but otherwise agree with Cerf.
   B.   Question of what it means for the Bylaws to be amended. Shouldn’t rush this important issue.
   C.   A few points: Registrars Constituency should be called “ICANN-Accredited Registrars Constituency.” Re funding, ccTLDs shouldn’t have to come up with so much money.