19990525.Reg-minutes.html, Minutes of the Meeting:

Draft Minutes of the Berlin Meeting: DNSO – Registrar Constituency

Prepared by: Michael D. Palage, Interim Secretariat

Refer comments and/or corrections to mpalage@ipwarehouse.com

The first meeting of the DNSO Registrar Constituency group was convened on May 25th, 1999, at approximately 9 A.M. local Berlin time at the Hotel Adelon. The following people were in attendance and signed the role call sheet:

Chuck Gomes NSI chuckg@netsol.com

David Johnson Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering djohnson@wilmer.com

Michael D. Palage InfoNetworks mpalage@ipwarehouse.com

Eric Eden Verio eeden@verio.net

Paul Stahuna eNom stahura@enom.com

John Kane CSC Jkane@cscinfo.com

Richard Lindsay InterQ richard@interg.ad.jp

Bob Connelly Procurement Services tconnelly@psi-japan.com

Jordi Himajasa

Lauren Gaviser Register.com lgaviser@register.com

Jeau Michel Becar ETSI becar@etsi.fr

Amadeu Abrili I Abrili Nominalia amadeu@nominalia.com

Abril i Abril ;-)

Louis Touton Jones Day/ICANN lltouton@jonesday.com

Gregoire Seneclauze France Telecom

Ken Stubbs CORE kstubbs@corenic.org

Hal Lubsen Domain Bank hlubsen@altronics.com

Ivan Pope NetNames ivan@netnames.com

The first issue that the group discussed was the "proper" definition of a registrar. There was a heated discussion over the dangers of an extremely narrow or broad definition. After great debate the group as a majority adopted the following working definition:

A registrar is an entity that acts as a (technical and operational) interface between domain name holders ("registrants") and a TLD registry, pursuant to a right to write records to the registry database providing registration services for the public as a business enterprise. Registrars directly submit to the registry zone file information and other data for each of their customers in a given TLD.

After adopting this definition, the group then turned its attention to the membership requirements. Amadeu suggested the following four (4) classes that the group discussed individually. Listed below are the proposed classifications and the decision of the group.

(1) Accredited Registrars and those entities intended to be accredited by ICANN as Registrars.

The group decided that initial membership in the Registrar Constituency would be broken down into two distinct time frames. The first time frame being that period of time preceding 90 days after conclusion of the testbed stage. The second time frame being the 90 day post testbed period conclusion.

For membership during the testbed and 90 day post testbed period membership would be limited to the following three classes:

Those entities accredited as Registrars by ICANN (i.e. those currently participating in the testbed stage)
those entities intended to be accredited by ICANN; and
Network Solutions

For membership following the 90 post testbed period, membership would be initially be exclusively limited to ICANN accredited registrars.

NSI and their counsel David Johnson, voiced their collective concerns that this definition on its face would exclude NSI from participating in the 90 post testbed stage since it was not their intention to sign the current registrar agreement with ICANN.

This was in response to a statement from Louis Touton, representative counsel for ICANN, that NSI would be required to be bound by the same requirements that all other ICANN registrars. At the beginning of the meeting representatives from NSI made the collective statement that NSI had two divisions – a registry and registrar. However, it was unclear from the discussions the basis of NSI’s objection to sign an agreement and if this objection was raised on behalf of both NSI divisions.

After several comments from the group that the topic of conversation had gotten off track, the discussion was turned to the remaining.

(2) Representative Associations

After a brief discussion the group as a majority agreed that allowing a representative association an independent membership, without first seeking independent ICANN accreditation, would violate the one registrar one vote rule. However, the group did agreed in principal that nothing would preclude a member of association (i.e. CORE) from seeking independent ICANN approval and therefore gaining their own independent membership and voting privileges.

(3) ccTLD Registrars

The primary discussion involving this class centered on non-ICANN accredited ccTLD registrars. After much heated debate, the group decide to defer for further consideration how to handle membership for ccTLD registrar. It was unamiously agreeed upon that this group has potentially valuable insight into .

However, there was a concern voiced by Kenn [AAA: Ken] Stubbs and agreed upon by several other participants that there was a fundamental problem that need to be addressed. Specifically, allowing a registrar to participate in the formation of policy making decisions that they themselves would not be bound by. Ken Stubbs offers the poignant example of him travelling north to Canada and trying to lobby, propose and enact legislation for the Canadian people with the returning to the confines of the United States of America. The group expressed a genuine interest in adopting guidelines to allow for the inclusion of ccTLDs registrars, however, time did not permit for this resolution of this matter. It was therefore decided that a special committee would be commissioned to look into this matter in a prudently expeditious matter.

The adoption of this definition was not without opposition. In addition to NSI, protests a representative from South Africa (get name and organization) voiced his concern that this initial determination effectively preclude him and similarly situated ccTLDs registrars from initially particpating in this Constituency group. He then voiced his opinion that his own recourse was to petition ICANN for the recognition of a new Constituency Group since he did not feel that the ccTLD group could adequately protect his interest.

(4) Reseller and Others

The group as a whole welcomed non-voting participation from anyone or any group that could offer valuable contributions to the efforts of this constituency group. The group agreed to adopt and implement an open and transparent process for running this group.

Following this discussion, I "graciously" accepted position as interim Secretariat

With regard to the interim Names Council representatives terms, it was agreed to by all that the interim time served would not be credited against the two year terms.

The final act of business was to set the time frame the nomination of Interim Names Counsel representative (June 5-12) and elections (June 13-19)