|
Scribe's Notes -
DNSO General
Assembly I. Logistical Details A. Roberto Gaetano, Chair B. Speakers – please speak slowly for translators and non-native speakers. C. Turn off cell-phones, please. II. Agenda A. Report from DNSO – administrative details (budget, voting rules, etc.) B. Follow-up from Cairo meeting C. Constituency reports – focus issues, results of yesterday’s meetings. D. Working group reports E. Discussion – voting rules and list management F. Discussion – the role of individuals in constituencies G. Discussion – the introduction of new gTLDs H. Other issues – end of meeting. No requests received as yet, but time allocated for this purpose. Motions from constituencies, if any. I. Comments on the agenda? 1. (Please use the microphones when speaking – for the online audience and for translators.) 2. Discussion about elections of At-Large Directors? III. DNSO Admin Status Report – Elisabeth Porteneuve A. At Abril i Abril’s suggestion, setup of DNSO secretariat in Europe to provide international representation in ICANN. B. 1999 work history for DNSO Secretariat: 1. Voting system for election of ICANN Board Directors in September/October 1999 2. Supporting WGs. 3. Status report published in May. C. Secretariat to provide orientation for new members of DNSO. 1. ga@dnso.org for discussion 2. announce@dnso.org for announcements – more than 700 subscribers D. AFNIC providing secretariat for six months. But some budget and permanent staff needed in the long term. Difficult to obtain needed funds. Current budget allocates only $100,000. (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00278.html) IV. Other logistical details - Gaetano A. Mailing lists – difficult challenge to manage mailing lists. Needed procedures for voting. Bootstrap problem of how to establish voting procedures – use tentative voting procedure to vote on the voting procedure? Procedures for voting now in place – http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc05/msg00055.html . But process of making decisions may take longer than initially hoped. 1. Mailing lists are now active and lively. Better than a few months ago (when lists had very low traffic). V. Reports from constituencies A. Schneider – ISP and Connectivity Provider Constituency 1. Questions about the role of ISPs in DNSO and within ICANN. ISPs are consumers’ main source of information. 2. New gTLDs: Six resolutions passed. • To assure that stability and reliability of Internet are not challenged by new gTLDs, recommend limited introduction of new gTLDs. If more than one new gTLD to be introduced, they should be introduced on a staggered schedule to reduce risks. • Re massive registrations in new gTLDs, recommend that ICANN adopt policies to help ISPs act responsibly with new registrations and to reduce ISPs’ liability during opening of new gTLDs. • Timetables and accreditation: ICANN New gTLDs Topic Document suggests a timetable that is too aggressive. (http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm#III) Also, public comment periods are too short, as are periods for negotiation (with registries). Process has taken years to date; it seems unrealistic to do the work so quickly from this point. • Registries for new gTLDs must be viable. Must have backup plans for continuity in case of registry failure. ICANN web site documents don’t seem to address this concern. • Need security guidelines to protect against domain name hijacking (domains moved without proper, authorized approval). Also, registries should be able to quickly and efficiently transfer names to other registrars if one registrar fails. • Whois: Accurate and up-to-date Whois data must be maintained. Registries must also provide accurate and up-to-date information. • These recommendations to be circulated on appropriate lists, to ICANN Board. 3. Document from CIX reflects concerns of many ISPs. B. Chuck Gomes – gTLD Registries 1. Meeting takes place on Monday, 1300-1400 in room 502. C. Kirk – Intellectual Property Constituency 1. Held preparation meeting in Washington, DC in June. 2. Discussed ICANN document re new gTLDs and prepared answers to most of its 74 questions. (http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm) 3. Responses posted – http://ipc.songbird.com/IPC-Resp-final.htm 4. Accept limited, controlled rollout of new gTLDs, taking care to protect intellectual property. Five principles: • Registrants provide complete, current, accurate contact data. • Registrars provide centralized Whois searching. • Registrars should adhere to UDRP guidelines and procedures. • Adequate and effective means for protecting trademarks. • Mechanism for verifying compliance with ICANN policies by registrars and registries. 5. Helpful comments received. D. Palage - Registrars 1. Yesterday’s meeting well-attended. More than 28 registrars in attendance – more than 25% of accredited registrars, and one of the biggest turnouts to date. 2. Prior meeting of registrars held in Reston. 3. Concerns expressed about domain name hijacking. Met with FBI, US Department of Justice which have been investigating recent domain name hijacking. 4. Code of conduct task force – Richard Lindsay • Consumer confidence • Warehousing • Documentation • More meetings today. Hope to adopt code of conduct within the next several months. 5. Also working on escrow. 6. Votes • Unanimous vote for new gTLDs • Unanimous vote for some generic and some chartered gTLDs • Majority: All ICANN-Accredited registrars should be able to add domain names to all registries during the testbed. • Majority of registrars favor using existing RRP protocol for new registries. • Unanimous: ICANN should take registrar input when evaluating testbed gTLDs. E. Non-Commercial Constituency: Park, Kornfeld, Chiu 1. Agreement: Need a space in TLD structure for individuals, consumer groups, libraries, professional organizations, other non-commercial groups. 2. Agreement: Must not burden new gTLDs with excessive Intellectual Property protections. This isn’t ICANN’s proper role. 3. Agreement: Use multilingual character sets when available. 4. Agreement: New standards for trademark protection may be needed. Must serve the public interest. Not all uses of trademarks should be restricted – when there’s no likelihood of confusion. Purpose of trademark is not to give owner of a mark complete control over the mark, just to prevent confusion. Right of free speech should be protected; trademark protection should not be used for anticompetitive purposes. Policing trademarks should remain the duty of trademark holder, not ICANN, registries, or registrars. 5. Agreement: Chartered non-commercial TLDs should be controlled by registries with connections to the corresponding TLDs. 6. Agreement: Presence of At-Large Directors on ICANN Board is important for representation of individuals. Changes to ICANN by-laws appear to alter this. Non-Commercial Constituency recommends that Board retain its commitment to a strong public voice via nine At-Large Directors chosen by the At-Large Membership. F. Business Constituency - Swinehart 1. Other Business representatives to NC: Katoh, Sheppard. 2. More outreach needed. Overview of secretariat role. 3. Outreach • Must explain why ICANN is important to small, medium-sized businesses. • Translation. • Keep costs low enough that participation is affordable for all. Some adjustments to cost structure. • Use regional meetings already taking place. 4. New gTLDs • Drafting text to be forwarded to the Board. 5. Internal administrative issues • Coordination with other constituency secretariats. G. ccTLDs - Porteneuve 1. Permanent secretariat to be established. Formal outreach – translation, etc. – for greater participation. 2. Main issues: Best practices for delegation of registries. Relationships with root servers. ICANN funding. 3. Members of Constituency are in the audience. VI. Reports from Working Groups A. WG-E – this morning’s meeting was cancelled. B. No other reports. VII. Administrative issues A. If your constituency passed a resolution, please provide it to meeting staff for reference and online posting. If needed, a photocopying machine is in the hall to the right. Send electronic documents to edelman@law.harvard.edu. B. Thanks to Melbourne IT for sponsoring the webcast, to Berkman Center and Wide University School of Internet for operating webcast. VIII. Q&A A. Comments read and displayed from Dennis Schaefer(#801), Nestor Requeno (#802). B. Gaetano: Note that motions read came from constituencies only and don’t reflect position of entire DNSO General Assembly. IX. Discussion on Rules & List Management A. Rules previously adopted for GA discussion list – monitoring of certain posts, rules for posting. Intended to facilitate civil discourse. 1. No cross-posting. • Messages to the GA should be only for the GA. Don’t want messages addressed to multiple lists, which creates significant confusion. 2. Suspension of posting rights for limited time when complaints received (to ga-abuse@dnso.org) and poster found in violation of rules. 3. Voting rules – debate to take place online after these meetings are complete. B. Comments on current list rules? Proposals for enhancements? 1. Touton: How many participants on GA mailing list? • Porteneuve: See http://www.dnso.org/statistics/tab-2000070906.html. Total of 708 addresses in all mailing lists – 271 on ga, 12 on digest, 5 on full. 2. Different points of view in different constituencies. Need to hear from all. • Gaetano: Would take lots of time, and might cause a large burden on the various constituencies. Better for the NC to handle this task. GA is a place for others (who aren’t included in constituencies) to discuss and comment further. 3. Peter Dengate Thrush: GA’s purpose must not be only to listen but not discuss. Rather, must deliberate to help the NC make progress. • Conflicting reports from IP constituency and Non-Commercial Constituency re new gTLDs. Should have discussion about this. • Gaetano: New gTLDs are on the agenda. We’ll definitely discuss this topic. But oppose the principle of discussing each individual resolutions from each constituency. Better to think of the task at hand as discussing the issue itself, not these particular resolutions – more productive. Let’s start to discuss specific issues. 4. Leader – Addition to ccTLD Constituency Report • Working with ICANN on budget. More than $750,000 already pledged by ccTLDs for the budget year ending 30 June 2000. 5. Chon: Amount of funding requested by ICANN is more than $1 million. 6. Chon: Working Group E report – maybe give it to the NC only to save time. X. Role of Individuals (and other entities that feel underrepresented in current constituency scheme) in the DNSO A. Recognize individuals constituency? B. Seems that ICANN would be open to an individuals constituency if its support were sufficiently broad-based. C. Jamie Love (Consumer Project on Technology): Pressure on Non-Commercial Constituency for anyone not included in other Constituencies – becoming a sort of catch-all. 1. No one should have to apologize to participate in the DNSO – shouldn’t have to purport to represent some organization. 2. At-Large Membership may or may not solve the problem. Or find some way to form an Individuals constituency that in some way builds on or draws from the At-Large Membership. 3. Charges for individual membership (if any) shouldn’t form a barrier to participation. D. Teernstra: Other constituencies have been created from the top down by the ICANN Board. This facilitated their charter-building process and their recruitment of volunteers, membership, etc. 1. Hard for a constituency without such recognition to organize. 2. GA supported the Individual constituency in Santiago. No response from ICANN Board – not rejection (which would provide a means to improve the charter for subsequent re-application), but silence. 3. Still working on membership campaign. Have 182 members at the moment. 4. After some revisions, charter is now robust. 5. Funding still a challenge. Small businesses, individuals, etc. maybe not so inclined to pay substantial fees to belong to the organization. • Will meet primarily electronically; difficult to pay to fly many people to an in-person meeting. E. Online comment from Jeff Williams read. (#816) 1. How broad-based does a constituency need to be? F. Marcovski 1. Must keep to schedule in order to make more time for meetings. 2. Need to include individuals so that everyone feels included and welcome to participate. 3. Why no final document from ccTLDs? 4. Funding for ICANN – need to keep in mind that developing countries may not be able to pay as much as others. G. Klein (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) 1. Support individuals constituency. 2. Support fully nine Board members, not fewer. 3. Petition for consideration by the ICANN Board: • Civil Society Forum is a group of non-governmental organizations promoting the participation of individuals and NGOs in the governance of the Internet. The CSF held a successful form at the Yokohama ICANN meeting where over 70 participants approved the Civil Society statement on elections. • Urge the staff ICANN to work with CSF to facilitate broad participation. • Include CSF sessions in future meeting programs. 4. Petition will be circulated outside the door. 5. http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy H. Kornfeld (ACM Internet Governance Project): Importance of an Individuals Constituency. 1. Gaetano: Note that GA can’t create a working group. NC creates WGs. Can forward a request to the NC. I. ?: Hope for democratic elections. At least two candidates for every seat. J. Dengate Thrush: 1. Let’s vote on the motion. 2. Text of motion: Encourage Names Council to form a Working Group F to report back on an individuals constituency by the end of meeting in November. 3. Some in favor, only a few in opposition. XI. Introduction of new gTLDs A. Ambler: IOD is not a member of any constituency because no constituency has acceptable membership criteria except the gTLD constituency except the gTLD constituency, in which IOD has been specifically denied membership. Favor new TLDs, both generic and charter. B. [? from Swedem] expressed support of .web C. Love: Some favor a large expansion of domain space. Currently, inadequate space for non-commercial users. 1. Seek diversity in new TLDs by: • Point of view (parties) • Differences in culture, language, geography • Use of trademarks 2. Should eliminate artificial scarcity in TLD space as a way to help lawyers from big companies. Needn’t maintain the status quo or monopolies. Call for major expansion of TLD space as fast as possible after testbed. D. Ambler: Concern that scribe’s notes may be incomplete or inaccurate in some way. 1. Minor corrections possible during breaks or between sessions. 2. Note that scribe’s notes are not official minutes. 3. Full RealVideo archive posted each evening at conclusion of sessions. E. Markovich: Extended character sets should be supported in new TLDs. XII. Additional topics: A. At-Large Membership and elections 1. Davidson (Center for Democracy and Technology): Have submitted comments to ICANN re At-Large elections. Changes that have been proposed make an important change to the structure of the ICANN Board. Affirmative action by the Board would be required to restore the Board to nine At-Large directors. By the fall of 2002, the At-Large directors would be reduced to zero unless the Board took some steps to the contrary. 2. Simon (Common Cause): Concerned about drop in number of at-large directors from nine to five to zero. Should proceed with a study rather than changes to the By-Laws. 3. Marcovski (MITF): Concerned about At-Large Membership status. Need to be very clear in explaining to members (and prospective members) what needs to be done when. 4. Teernstra: Review resolution as posted at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc05/msg00202.html • Proposal read. Seconded. • Gaetano: Note that many people have left the GA meeting hall. • Lewis: Only one commercial constituency. Business is poorly represented in ICANN. • Nelson: Are sponsors of the resolution proposing the expansion of the Board? And what about representation for individual Internet users (rather than individual domain name holders)? • Klein: Representation in the DNSO constituencies is unbiased. 5 commercial constituencies and only two for not-for profits. The proposal would contribute to balancing the representation. • Gaetano: Straw poll. Most in favor. A few opposed. Some abstentions. Number of abstentions roughly equal to number in favor. Recount: Roughly 65 in favor, 3 against, 40 abstentions. • Klein: Only one At-Large Member from Cambodia. Need web access to gain membership. In many countries, email is much cheaper than web access. Should facilitate participation by users with email only. • Constituency Presenters: Please provide copies of your remarks for the Names Council and ICANN staff. Give your documents to staff at the technical table. CONTACT INFORMATION For additional technical information, please contact: Ben Edelman and John Wilbanks |