Registrars’ Teleconference on the Reorganization of ICANN

April 2, 2002, starting 5pm Eastern Daylight Time

Attending

Michael Palage (Constituency President, Moderator)

Bryan Evans (Constituency Treasurer, Interaccess)

Timothy Denton (Constituency Secretary, Tucows)

Margie Milan (Mark Monitor)

Donna McGehee (Bulk Access)

Mark Bamante, Gretchen Olive (Corporate Names)

Joyce Lin (007 Names)

Rob Hall, Stephanie Fewster (Namescout)

Bruce Tonkin (Melbourne IT, Names Council rep)

Paul Stahura, Kelsey Greer (eNnom)

Elana Broitman (Register.com)

Elliot Noss (Tucows)

Werner Staub (CORE)

Nazih Erkman (000 Domains.com)

Bruce Beckwith (Verisign)

Liz Williams

Introductory comments

Tonkin: General feeling that ICANN could be improved.

Denton: The Board of ICANN is not all agreed on Lynn’s plan.

Palage: Lynn’s document should be viewed as dynamic. It should be recalled that any change will require a change of the contracts that ICANN has with registrars and registries.

Broitman: Is that so? Palage: I believe so.

Noss: All the balls are up in the air.

Williams: When are the deadlines for comment?

Palage: April 15

1. Problems with ICANN as currently organized

Milan: delays in getting problems resolved. Process too cumbersome.

McGehee: agrees with Milan.

Olive: delay in resolving issues is the chief problem.

Lin: No one seems prepared to enforce the contracts.

Hall: lack of communications between registrars and ICANN; difficulty in getting things done at ICANN. No service out of ICANN for the money we put in.

Tonkin: A distinction needs to be made in the processes for creating new policy, which should require consensus, and clarification of existing policy, which should not.

Noss: we have put an alternative proposal on the table and we invite people to look at it. (www.byte.org/heathrow or Real Name: Heathrow Declaration) We should feel empowered to take a clean-sheet approach to remaking ICANN.

Stahura: Delays in getting things resolved. ICANN needs to be stronger.

Broitman: Thinks ICANN micromanages out businesses, for example – whois: changing fields. ICANN gets beyond its core functions.

Staub: Slowness in resolving issues. ICANN’s problem stems from a lack of power, plus there are not enough people at ICANN. Two people handle most of what ICANN does.

Erkman: ICANN is not enforcing its agreements. It is not fixing renewals and transfers. They have the power to enforce agreements; they are not inclined to do so.

2. Funding

Would registrars contribute more?
What type of Board representation would be sufficient?
What do we think of participation by states?

Broitman: (Speaking as member of ICANN budget committee) Stuart Lynn wants to expand the ICANN staff from 17 positions to 28.

Hall: (also member of budget committee) The country codes are charged $1.5 million by ICANN, but they are paying less and less. If we paid another 1.8 cents per domain name the shortfall could be made up.

Milan: I would rather pay more than have the government involved. My concern is for the lack of representation of registrars. ICANN should think of other ways of raising funds apart from fees to registrars.

McGehee: My concern is for the future. What do we get for the money if we agree to pay it?

Bamante: Agreed with the foregoing.

Lin: Where will the demands for money end?

Hall: I am absolutely in favour of a strong and healthy ICANN. If we have to fund them some more, I am ready. The checks on abuses are sufficient; registrars have to sign off on the budget. We could use more representation on the Board. We have to be careful about the argument that it is our money that supports ICANN; some say it is not our money but the registrants’.

Stahura: I don’t have much problem with paying more. ICANN must operate on the principle of equal service to every one, and not as a proportion of fees paid. Our representation on the Board should not be a proportion of the total fees we pay; otherwise registrants could claim they pay it all.

Tonkin: Supported comments of Hall and Stahura. We are tax collectors. Registrants would say that they pay the shot. In fact, the registries collect a greater portion of fees.

· ICANN should look at how costs scale. Costs related to servicing the registrant base are very small. Fewer registrars, as the industry consolidates, will mean lower costs. Where can ICANN save?

· There are costs associated with multiple registries, and fees should reflect that?

· Registries in principle should have no more influence than registrars.

Broitman:

· I think we should ask Stuart Lynn about whether he has received commitments from governments regarding his proposals.

· Does ICANN not need tighter processes, instead of more money?

· Register.com would prefer an ICANN to an ITU (International Telecommunications Union)

· Strictly opposes mission creep

· ICANN should focus on its mission and improve its processes.

Staub: We want to contribute to ICANN but we do not want to be the only ones contributing.

Noss: All decisions are not equal. Not everything requires consensus.

Erkman: We do not need to insist upon more seats for more money, as long as ICANN is working.

Beckwith: It is not clear what ICANN’s mission is, and there is no point in increasing ICANN’s funding if that is so.

Hall: There is no way for ICANN to force ARIN or the country codes to pay what they are charged. ICANN has got its hand out for more money.

Evans: We view our payments as a contractual obligation. These entities that are contractually obliged have a right to a higher level of representation than those that do not have such obligations.

Broitman: ICANN is not getting things done. It should focus on its tasks.

Hall: is this group approving higher fees?

Broitman: No votes are to be taken by telephone according to our rules. No decision can be made without a vote.

3. The Role of Advisory Bodies

Palage: ICANN is willing to consider some sort of buffer between direct elections and the board of ICANN. They want to prevent capture of the Board. So how do we think about the principle of direct election? How should registrars be represented?

Milan: direct election by registrars

Bamante: No comment

Lin: direct vote

Hall: We do not want too many devices [to protect the Board]. We should elect our own representatives. We could cooperate or split seats with the registries. I agree with the concept of providers’ constituencies.

Tonkin: I think the Board of ICANN should approve policy made elsewhere. The Board needs to referee whether a committee was representative and had community support. If the correct procedure was followed, then it should be okay with the ICANN Board.

The Board and the subordinate committees need to be elected. It is okay to add people with expertise who might be selected by a nominating committee, or a particular committee in question could vote in someone with expertise who could contribute to the discussion. But the general rule is that people should be elected.

There is no need for lots of standing committees. The ICANN Board should be able t put groups together who have relevant interests. The current structure [of the DNSO] means that people who have no real interest or concern get to vote on registrar-registry Issues.

Broitman: Direct representation is best. Let us be clear about who gets to be on the Nominating Committee, how it will be selected, what criteria it will operate by. We need clear processes.

Staub: I favour electoral processes. We should not renounce them. We could use a balance between elected and appointed processes.

Beckwith: Agrees with position of Rob Hall. We could potentially cooperate with the registries. Elections could provide a clearer mandate for Board and committee members.

Conclusion: Executive committee to summarize and formulate a position on ICANN reorganization by April 15.

Hall: We are actively involved in the reorganization and we will be heeded.