[ga] NC Bucharest meeting minutes, June 26, 2002

["DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>]

[To:ga@dnso.org; announce@dnso.org]
[To: council@dnso.org]

[ http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-minutes.html ]

ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Names Council Bucharest, Romania Meeting on 26 June 2002 - minutes
27 June 2002.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-agenda.html


List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc         ccTLD  *proxy given to Elisabeth Porteneuve
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD
Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business
Greg Ruth              ISPCP
Antonio Harris         ISPCP
Tony Holmes            ISPCP
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
Richard Tindal         gTLD
Cary Karp              gTLD
Ellen Shankman         IP
Laurence Djolakian     IP absent, apologies
J. Scott Evans         IP
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH
Harold Feld            NCDNH
Erick Iriate           NCDNH absent, apologies

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary

Recording of the meeting:
http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ICANN/icann_bucharest.html#archived


Quorum present at 14:00 (all times reported are local time in Bucharest).
Philip Sheppard chaired this NC meeting.

Approval of the Agenda

The agenda was approved with the addition of :
Two Budget committee resolutions proposed by Roger Cochetti for acceptance
by the Names Council.

Resolution 1

Motion proposed by Roger Cochetti, seconded by Ken Stubbs.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/Owed-to-ICANN.xls
An invoice received from ICANN management for Wcom teleconference expenses
for $8567.12 covering the period December 2001 to April 2002.

Motion carried unanimously.

Resolution 2

Motion proposed by Harold Feld to the Budget committee seconded by Roger
Cochetti:

The Budget Committee recommends to the Names Council that the Non-Commercial
Domain Name Holder Constituency has shown adequate cause why it has not paid
the balance due on its 2001 invoice. Accordingly, the Budget Committee
recommends that the Names Council waive the sanctions that would result from
failure to pay the balance due on the 2001 invoice.
I would like to make clear that this motion only addresses the issue of
sanctions. It does not address the question of whether the Names Council
should forgive the remaining amount due on the 2001 invoice.
Motion deferred to the next meeting

Agenda Item 2: Status report from WHOIS Task Force

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-WhoisTF-final.ppt

Tony Harris introduced the report stating the Mission of Task Force:
"Consult with community with regard to establishing whether a review of
ICANN's WHOIS policy is due and, if so, how best to address "
Among the activities : Extensive TF discussions plus a non statistical
Survey to which 3035 responses were received.
Purpose of Survey was to seek to understand how WHOIS is used; who uses,
what perspectives are:
Initial Consultation : June - August - 9 weeks Initial Report of Responses,
Characteristics of Respondents: Santiago, Chile, Paul Kane, Chair Task Force
Expanded, new co-chairs - end of year, '01
Statistical assessment, Analysis of Statistically selected "300" for Interim
Update in Ghana, March, '02 Undertook Further Narrative Analysis plus review
of Question 20.
Analysis of Narrative responses have been very challenging in terms of time
and complexity.
Draft Report is being posted - with four week comment period Present draft
final report at Bucharest meeting; final report in July after further
discussion regarding findings and recommendations.
Present to NC for forwarding to the ICANN Board - July, '02

Marilyn Cade, who kindly made a telephone connection possible, introduced
Thomas Roessler on line.

Thomas Roessler : GA Chair reported on point 4 "statistical considerations"
and point 5 "What people told us" mentioning that for the latter, two thirds
of the responses had been looked at.

Steve Metalitz: Intellectual Property constituency (IPC) presented an
overview of Key survey findings, grouping the findings with a set of
categories Accuracy Uniformity and Consistency Searchability Resale,
Marketing and Bulk Access, the 4 areas of focus for the recommendations.
With regard to question 7, Accuracy, there was widespread concern across
categories of users.   Suggested cures (examples):  Facilitate registrant
updates, Require validation/re-validation, Cancellation/suspension remedies.

Rom Mohan: gTLD constituency reported on questions 11 - 15 Uniformity and
Consistency. In general this was supported across all the gTLDs as well as
the ccTLDs.

Steve Metalitz: IPC commented on Searchability saying there was strong
support in all categories to search on elements other than domain name
(WHOIS search restoration), mixed support for enhanced searchability and
defraying cost of enhancement could be met through a registration fee
Absorbed by registrar/registry WHOIS searchers.

Karen Elizaga: Registrars constituency, reported on questions 17 D, 18 & 19,
and said concerns were expressed re marketing uses/bulk access and there was
a mixed review for third-party services.

Marilyn Cade said that Question 20 offered a unique opportunity to the
respondents to share "other thoughts". The Task Force read over one-half of
all responses and identified "gems". Gems are incorporated section by
section to illustrate unique concerns or views. They are not in any way
statistically valid, but they are interesting, often informative, and
sometimes even amusing.
In conclusion she commented on marketing use of WHOIS data; Bulk Access
Provisions and issues that need to be explored further: Privacy issues in
general, differentiated access to WHOIS database for different elements?
What are additional considerations related to ccTLD WHOIS access and
availability? Costs to make any changes, improved notice efforts by
Registrars/Intermediaries, updates by registrants themselves for "aged"
data, validation/revalidation, "centralized portal access" and which changes
require consensus policy?

Harold Feld commended the Task Force for their excellent work but expressed
concern that the solutions may be more sophisticated than the raw data
shows.

Chun Eung Hwi remarked that environment and data format were being
distinguished in the privacy issue with regard to the ccTLDs, which in many
situations would lead to a suspect solution as self- identification elements
depend on national laws and according to each environmental context the
information could be different.

An e-mail dialogue on this issue should be encouraged.

Agenda Item 3: Transfers and Deletes

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020604.NCTransferTF-report.html

Marilyn Cade said that a status report from the Transfers Task Force had
been sent to the Board by the Names Council on June 10, 2002 and has been
posted on the ICANN website for public comment.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-TransferTF-final.ppt

In a power point presentation to the meeting Marilyn Cade mentioned the
complex issues such as definition of apparent authority and the role of
"author-info" within the process and the delay in the work due to the
Evolution and Reform process and new work required on Wait Listing Service.
The revised plan will entail:
Revisiting the survey concept
Work with At large or other resources
Finalise the draft Apparent Authority with comments received
Add Express Authorisation and its linkage
Determine whether examples of Expressed Authority are useful.

Timeline to be revised for Transfers, while work continues to determine what
the situation is with deletions and incorporate related issues and assess
what has to happen in addition re deletions.
The goal being to finish work on Transfers and to establish timeline on
further deletions work.

Questioned on timelines, constituency responsibility is important.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-VRSN-proposed-WLS.ppt

Grant Forsyth introduced the subject saying that within "Deletions,
Solutions and WLS" the Task Force concentrated on WLS due to a call by
Verisign for a quick response.
The issues concerned: competition/Registrant, Registry, Registrar and
Registrant concerns.
Individuals, businesses, governmental agencies and non commercial users are
all losing domain names due to mistake or error.
Concerns included that the cost of service might continue to rise, lacking
pressure of competition - clearly the currently suggested price is not cost
based (the usual basis for pricing a monopoly service)
Competition should always be viewed as to the effect on the eventual
consumer - this is the framework of consideration the TF has taken.
The existing competing "lapsed-name" services will be eliminated by the WLS
service.
Monopoly services are usually price regulated on a "cost-plus" basis - this
introduces regulatory burden.
Participants in the calls have suggested that WLS should not be viewed as a
solution to remaining technical issues/concerns.
Verisign and Snapnames presented information that the present registrar
level competitive services are "exclusionary" and that they are not "widely
available" to any interested individual registrant or are cost prohibitive
for a single name registration.
Counter arguments were presented by others in the community based on the
harm to the existing competitive services.
Technical aspects of the present approach in deletions of domain names:
Extensive discussions have taken place over several months. Versign said
that they addressed the issue, while the Registrars have identified further
technical processes.
The following policy recommendations are to be concluded by the Task Force
and then put to the next Names Council meeting for adoption and forwarding
to the ICANN Board. To reject the Verisign agreement amendment and 12 month
trial.
Should the ICANN Board not accept the policy recommendations it would
recommend that: The introduction of the WLS be dependent on the
implementation and proven (for not less than 3 months) practice envisaged in
the proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice
and the establishment of a standard deletion period.
The price for the WLS be set at the same amount as the current registry fee
for a registration.
The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the registry
(through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name when a
WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name. and that it
be fully transparent.

In response to questions from Roger Cochetti and Ken Stubbs as to the
language of the report and the recommendations that would go to the Board,
it was stated that Deletions, Solutions and WLS had been handled only by the
Task Force, recommendations had not yet gone to the Board.
Concern was expressed about implementing the Grace Redemption Period, (GRP)
as soon as possible, to which Grant Forsyth replied that a request was put
to the Names Council to give input to the GRP and if the WLS goes forward it
should be dependent on the GRP.
Concern about price was expressed by J. Scott Evans and Ellen Shankman.
Price recommendation was a function of monopoly supply.

Agenda Item 4: ICANN Evolution and Reform

Philip Sheppard asked for comments round the table.

Elisabeth Porteneuve, ccTLD constituency: reported on the formation of the
cc Supporting Organisation (SO), preference given to the name which reflects
historical and cultural internet language. On funding, the ccTLDs remain
committed to funding ICANN. When the cc SO is approved, funding will be in
relation to domain names registered. Each ccTLD develops policy at its own
country level and is paid for it. The constituency is against the nominating
committee, but in favour of an international council. Close cooperation with
the GAC is sought and a single representative is not enough. The first GAC
ccTLD workshop took place at the Bucharest meeting.

Ken Stubbs, Registrar Constituency: reported that the ICANN Registrar
Constituency has provided unwavering support of ICANN reform and its efforts
to foster and maintain competition in the domain name marketplace. The most
recent support can be seen by the pending approval of the 2002-2003 budget
which currently contains a 30% increase in registrar contributions from last
year, specifically an increase from 8 per domain name year to 11 cents. The
registrars believe the blueprint for reform is an additional step in the
right direction to ensure that ICANN is provided the necessary funding and
staff to ensure its stable operations.
The registrars also support the concept of a Nominating Committee to better
represent the global Internet stakeholders. The registrars also believe that
ICANN has taken constructive steps to streamline and resolve complex policy
issues through a process that relies upon increased outreach and
documentation. However, Registrars would like some additional clarification
about the proposed .25 per domain name fee referenced in the blueprint
document which represents an almost 300% increase from the current .08 per
domain name. Specifically, is the proposed fee to be borne solely by ICANN
accredited registrars in connection with gTLD registrations, and will there
be an grand fathering provision prior to the implementation of this new
licensing fee.
One point that the committee for evolution and reform must address is the
special contractual relationship that registrars and registries have with
ICANN and the need for a mechanism to resolve/clarify existing contractual
rights, outside of the current policy framework which all issues
nevertheless seem to pass through. It is the registrars' perception that the
organization should grant a higher status to contracting parties than it now
does, and, under the authority of the ICANN Board of Directors, devise a
means for adjudicating contract interpretations and enforcement. Much
thinking needs to be done about how this adjudication can be carried out,
and some of our members will have contributions to make in that regard.
Nevertheless, rapid, impartial, and effective contract interpretation and
enforcement is a vital interest of all contracting parties, and it is in
this regard that the current proposals are weakest.

Harold Feld, Non Commercial constituency NCDNHC: remarked that the
non-commercial presence in ICANN is shrinking, not because of lack of
interest but because many of the Foundations responsible for funding, no
longer do so. He urged that attention be given to e-mail participation to
make the constituency voice heard. The constituency is not satisfied with
the evolution and reform and feel that not all input is considered. The
Board should be reminded of the critical ICANN principles:
-Accountability to the internet community,
- Top down process alienates the community, while a bottom up process is
critical to the legitimacy of ICANN and is broadly supported
-ICANN deals with internet stability.
The constituency expressed concern at the elimination of the At Large, and
if the General Assembly were to become a cross-constituency platform, there
would be no formal role for individual opinions. Individual domain name
users are charged 25 cents per domain name but are denied representation
promised in 1988 and reaffirmed in Cairo.
- While Government involvement is invited, individuals are being pushed out.

The non-commercial constituency is composed of diverse elements and these
should not be confused with individual interests.

Cary Karp, gTLD constituency: said that the Evolution and Reform committee
had made significant steps in the direction it intended to move in. Two
points should be discussed
- means by which constituencies with contractual relationships relate to
ICANN,
- Registrars and registries can more easily be aggregated.

Roger Cochetti, gTLD constituency: expressed concern about oversight and the
absence of an independent ongoing review body. The approach is inadequate
and should be addressed before the constituency can support the blue print.

Jordyn Buchanan, gTLD constituency: said that constituencies should be
divided according to voices heard beyond the gTLD policy. In support of
separation of Supporting Organisations.

Ellen Shankman, IPC: was encouraged by the blue print and supported the
GNSO.
J.Scott Evans, IPC only 8 members perused the document so it difficult to
give an opinion for the constituency however they were encouraged by:
- the Board considerations and the committee's outreach effort.
- the GNSO
- the evolutionary approach rather than a revolutionary approach.
Cost was a concern. Trademark owners use domain names extensively and are
willing to support ICANN financially.

Tony Holmes, ISPCPC: although his report would only be presented the next
day, said he was pleased to see a step back from the initial radical
approach. The constituency favoured a different board composition with no
non-voting liaisons. They opposed to the length of office for board members
and do not want nominating appointees on SO councils. They approved one
non-voting member from GAC. They approved the considerable progress made by
the At Large and felt that the 4 unaffiliated people on the nominating
committee should come from the At Large. He went on to say that one of the
main problems with ICANN was lack of staff support. Staff support was
essential. The August 31 date should be extended as it is not viable.

Marilyn Cade, Business constituency: reported that there had been extensive
consultation, while the late delivery of the report has made it difficult to
comment on. The Board member's interest during the meetings has been greatly
valued.
Funding is the highest priority: Business users represent a significant part
of the internet community. Registrants fees are important. The BC is on
record: 2/3 of the funding from gTLDs, 1/3 from RIRs and ccTLDs
contributions.
Mission: There is support for the language of policy development in the
paper , but opposition to the outsourcing of ICANN functions. Concern was
expressed about the nominating committee and while there is support for it
to select board members, there is no support for it to select supporting
organisation councils. Strong support was expressed for a separate cc
Supporting Organisation while mutual ongoing dialogue between ccTLDs and
gTLDs was expected to take place. Consistent with the ISCPC thinking, the 4
unaffiliated board members should come from the At Large. No justification
could be found for changing the number of representatives from 3 to 2. It
was emphasised that board authority should be policy approval and not policy
development.
Government participation is a relatively new field for ICANN and the GAC. A
methodology should be formed to consult with the GAC and bring issues to it,
rather than appoint liaisons. Internet stability is a key issue and private
sector leadership can and has proved to be successful.

In a cross constituency debate mechanisms for dealing with contractual
issues were considered a key issue.

AOB: dot ORG.

Harold Feld introduced the subject saying that a number of bidders made
representations to the NCDNHC but was concerned that the non-commercials
should be more involved in the evaluation as they could contribute a certain
expertise.
He requested the Names Council to ask the board:
- to instruct staff to work closely with a non-commercial team and
volunteers from other constituencies.
- that a part of the funds paid by the application be allotted to the NCDNHC
to enable them to produce input to the Board.
- that the dot ORG decision be made during an open board teleconference,
listen only ports available. The board should record the meeting so there is
a concrete report available. A stable and final decision is important to
legitimise the process.

In concluding the meeting, Philip Sheppard said that he would remind the
Board of the constituency interest in the dot ORG process.

17. 00 the meeting ended.

The next Names Council teleconference will be held on Thursday, June 11,
2002 at 15:00 Paris time, 13:00 UTC.
Further information: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html


                 Information from:© DNSO Names Council




--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html