ICANN/DNSO
|
|
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
Meeting recording by the meeting by the University of Oregon
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
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 |