Day one, 1620
Scribe: Kent Crispin
Amadeu: Welcome
Introductory remarks by (Jordi Masias from Cambra de Comerç (president
not
able to attend)
Amadeu: Hotel arrangements etc, time, dinner, materials, facilities.
This building seat of the Consolat del mar (Sea Consulate), one of
the places
were the "lex mercatoria" was born. They wrote the "Llibre del Consolat
del
Mar", sea laws book for 400 years written by trade association with
very
little power.
Let's not list solutions, but list concerns instead. Intro for
David.
David Maher: Reading from "scripture" -- the ICANN bylaws. Review
of section
VI 3b. Proposal tracks the 6 bullets. Proposal not complete;
just a
framework. There will be only one dnso, so it is to advantage
of everyone to
get involved in its formation.
Issues:
Bylaws dictate openness. Membership of dnso could be very
large,
therefore must be executive committee ("governing committee"),
but
with policy subject to ratification by whole organization.
Names council: intended to be open to anyone in the world; function
is to make recommendation. Not a governing body.
The ICANN directors elected by dnso. issue of geographic
constraint, not detailed in draft application.
money: ICANN board shall sets fees and charges to established
at
time of recognization by ICANN. Therefore, application
must have a
mechanism for raising money for ICANN.
Question:
Bill Semich: funding could be from charging of fees by ICANN?
Could there be
alternate mechanisms?
David: didn't think so
[brief discussion]
Session: ccTLD perspective
Kilnam Chon: Intro to ccTLD
regional TLD groups:
- aftld africa >15
- aptld asia pacific >=36
- centr europe-me-africa >=45
- lactld latin america >=15
- natld north american =2
130 cctlds out of 235 total
wwTLD
alliance of 5 regional tld groups
- annual joint meeting
- mailing lists and web sites
- secretariat works by regional groups
- any ccTLD can join any regional tld group
- each regional tld group has its own objectives and scope
- most cctlds operations are non-profit or cost-recovery basis
- 20-30% of cctlds operate like .com/.net/.org,
ie sell names internationally
- larger character sets big deal; secure dns is small deal
Bernard Turcotte: (one of co-chairs of wwTLD)
- ccTLDs still organizing (conference call this morning, meeting
this
evening)
- almost all tlds are ccTLDS
- need to protect existing registrant
- seek "appropriate representation and involvement" --
will not accept marginalization
- not intending to be DNSO
- "this is *one* of the fora"
- an issue of soveriegnity
- scripture is not interpreted the same way
Q. Francesco Marconi: cctld position on intellectual property?
(trademark)
A. Bernard: not a uniform policy; if you are acting as an international
tld,
you are under different contstraints
amadeu: point of order: should not get too much into policy
Q. Jay : what's this about only tlds in the root being real?
A. Bernard: I really didn't mean it.
BREAK:
1800:
Amadeu: intro next section
Christopher Wilkinson: Thanks to the organizers
Public policy inputs into this process
- the internet functions within existing rights and obligations
--
the law and governement
- public policy -- the unreached people are important, and public
policy must address
- European point of view: management of internet must be global,
private self-regulation is good, but must be withing a framework
allowing international participation
- trademark law and competition law must continue to apply in
an
appropriate manner Europe always gives strong support to WIPO
- internet ways to go before becomes fully multilingual
- transparency is necessary for taxes, consumer protections
etc
- acknowledged US contribution
- hope next week us ec and others announce and endorse the new
org.
- we are here to put together an application. other so's
business
as usual, dnso is a creative leap.
- three observations:
a) very little sympathy if we merely recycle the
old debates
b) although there are serious policy questions,
many of these
issues are almost incomprehensible to the average
bureaucrats,
need to be clear otherwise you may not get a sympathetic
ear
c) further serious delay would be "undignified"
- wide range of possible solutions, it is necessary to chose
a
framework -- it can be modified later
- industry self-governance is supposed to be more efficient
than
government, not proven so far
Jordi Masias from European Chambers of Commerce (Eurochambres): represent
14,000,000 companies; international level; most members not set up
for
ecommerce, but is exploring the issues; promotion of internet; importance
of
businesses being able to get domain names
Carles Prat (MARQUES): Marques has monitored the dns/trademark issue
for a while. Need to avoid conflicts between tm and domain names.
Concerns:
1) problems with ICANN board -- lack of people involved in tm
2) interested in participating in dnso perhaps as a subcommittee
3) process is important and want to continue involvement from
beginning
Amadeu: clear interest by tm interests compels them to participate,
but have
specific issues, not everything -- implies subcommittees, advisory
bodies for
specific issues in the dnso
Q. Bill Semich: Is MARQUES going to officially support this meeting?
A. will be involved, but not decided on formal support.
Q. Marcel: easy to say to avoid conflicts. searching domain names
is easy -
are there plans to have an easily searchable database for trademarks?
-- next session
amadeu: intro
Ken Stubbs (CORE): 84 companies, 23 countries,
explosive growth of internet over the past 5 years 35,000,000$ worth
in 1995; expect 1-2 trillion dollars.
- things are subsidized heavily
- almost all support for growth of internet is coming from commercial
use
- lack of good domain names is constraining growth of business
- concerned about delays as a businessman; delays by perfectionist
--
don't make the "best the enemy of the good"
- need to impose some burden of trust on Board
Q. Bill Semich: appreciate your concern, OTOH maybe names aren't
in as short
a supply as you say, especially outside US.
A: 1) more names from outside us in NSI domains last 6 months
2) growth in .nom thousands of requests from pacific rim
family names
Glenn K: slds, not tlds
jonathan robinson: must move forward quickly because other directory
systems
are competing within any cc area there is equal demand for generic
names (ie
cc_demand/gtld_demand is constant per cc area)
Jay : representing private free market registry .per, and ORSC
ORSC composed of prospective registries and some old-timers (steff and
brian reide)
ORSC priorities:
- need to get moving
- segment for policy questions: forprofit/non-profit; gtld/cctld
- gtld expansion 60 million -> 1000 million, expansion must
occur
- taxes(fees)
- trademark issues
ORSC Concerns:
- DNSO mtg organized from a particular point of view (POC).
Happy
to report it doesn't seem to be a problem
- prospective registries not included
- representation will be unbalanced between cctlds -- gtld's
few
now, number will grow
- cctlds may specify rules that won't apply (capture control)
- protection of minority interests
Glenn K: quick action is a good thing, but openness for evolution is
very
important -- things change
Q. Bill Semich: what does "capture" mean?
A. Jay: eg: there are 230 ccTLDs; they could "capture" the dnso if they
were
given 230 votes, and other organizations were given 1 each.
Ken Stubbs: need to embrace responsible perspectives -- avoid "fait
acompli";
shoved down peoples throats
Q. Marcel: be careful not to make fools out ourselves -- fenello.per
only
works for one fenello family.
A. Jay: make the pie bigger
Ken: first come first serve is an issue -- argument for more domain
names.
amadeu: transparency of this process -- is Jay ok with this?
Jay: OK
Telecom interests: Neil Gibbs, and Olivier Muron
Neil: European public Telephone Network Organizations (ETNO) much wider
than
just EU. Number of "former monopolies" 44 companies, 33 countries;
these
companies are all major ISPs.
ETNO position on dnso:
1) fair geographic balance
2) registries shared resource
3) registrars should be competitive
4) tm interests must be respected
Olivier: France Telecom: an old company transforming itself into a "net
company" an ISP under the "nice name" 400000 subscribers by end of
year.
backbone services; 2/3 ofa french IP backbone traffic (work for lots
of ISPs);
number of other services; relationships with other ISPs are very complex.
- very concerned about names and protocols
- consensus was easy in europe
concerns:
- appropriate application of international law ICANN must be
insulated from us law
- geographic balance of board -- this applies even more to dnso
but
ICANN proposal is a reasonable way to start. ECPoP will
speak on
the dnso.
Q. Bill Semich: Are some of the telecoms involved in CORE as well
A. Amadeu: European telcos within CORE are:
-Telia, PTT Telecom, Deutsche
Telekom and France Telecom
Plus some who are membrs
thorugh subsidiaries: Telefonica/Interdomain,
Telecom Italia/Saritel and Retevision/RedesTB
- Some telcos outisde Europe
are also members
Amadeu: comments on agenda? structure, finance etc.
Henning: Deutsche Telecom: thanks. Role of names council should
be clarified
Bernard: need to clarify structure. spend time identifying issues
the dnso
will address.
amadeu: your assignment, should you chose to accept it, is to come up
with a list
Bernard: OK
Nii: clarification geographic regions defintions need to be reconciled
Amadeu: non-OECD groups are underrepresented
Amadeu: closing remarks, choice of moderator for tomorrow -- suggests
Tadao Takahashi and Nii Quaynor, needs one more...
*************
DAY TWO
Scribe: Kent Crispin
Session Chair: Nii Quaynor.
Bernard :what is a dnso for?
Ie what is the business
1) contracts for existing TLDs
2) framework for creating and administering a system of registrars,
dispute resolution
3) new gTLDs
4) intellectual property questions, dispute resolution
5) funding
6) elect members of the board
Session : Structural issues:
What is the "names council" vs dnso (diagram on screen; See
slide 1).
Willie B goes to screen and presents: much discussion
D Kaplan: creating a complex monster -- too much structure
Ken: paralysis the inevitable result of too many constraints
Bernard: need a process for adding and deleting constituencies
Amadeu: need for structure is a fact
Floor, do various classes exist?
Jay: agree with Bernard
Representation classes:
Amadeu: don´t know all possible groups, not practical
to find them.
Bernard: don´t need to settle groups.
There are three for sure.
Concentrate on forming rules.
Willie B: need to get down to earth
Registries, registrars/isps, trademark, at-large
Michael S: ISPs a major constituency
Bernard: need individual users class
Liman: ISPs very variable
Ken: should define by function
Jonathan: ISPs in fact don´t care, function is important
Bill Semich: need to factor in funding
Amadeu: how to channel power to excom
Use functional designation to make that determination
Roberto: hard to put organizations in boxes, some are registries/registrars
Three large categories front office,back, and users
Ken: people being impacted should be included (users)
Need to allow new groups
Bernard: about 4 groups
Marcel: 2 distinct classes
Registry; users of registry functions
Siegfried: ??
Kent presents his pet scheme: no rigid membership classes --
"class" applies
to excomm members and voting structure
Jonathan: registries, registrars, trademark
Javier: three functions
Willie: registrar really is a separate function
Michael S: ??
Rough Consensus that registrars, registries, "users" are a class
Jonathan: proposes a fifth class: network providers
Kent: harps on his pet idea: classes are defined by representation
in excom
Francesco: 3 major classes dns infrastructure users
Bill Semich: four classes, from the bylaws; prefers fixed constituency
model
BREAK
More on classes:
Javier: wider question - do we agree that we define class by function?
Neil Gibbs: classes for excom, not membership
Willie: need categories for voting, as well
Michael S: separate user/industry
[general discussion free-for-all]
Amadeu proposal:
15 member board
Registries: 5 [6]
Registrars: 2 [3]
Network connectivity etc:
4
Commercial users: 3
Trademark interests: 1
plus
At large: 3 [2]
[Amadeu later revises his own numbers. He has underrepresented registrars
seats, as this is the group he represents here. He necourages everyone
to
similarly slef-restraint the seats of their own groups.;-) His final
numbers
are the ones within brackets]
7 votes for each member
Advisory committee on trademarks is necessary
Advisory committees in general are an important component
Membership criteria possibilities
1) structural criteria
2) pure fee
3) internet related income
Amadeu prefers #1
Bill Semich: problem with voting procedures
Kent: registries are a trade group, anti-trust concern with them setting
their
own policy or having veto power in any group
Daniel Kaplan: need simple rules - structural criteria is not practical
Need broad classes
David M: names council is mandated
Review Appendix A:
[much discussion]
Willie: Section 5 should be rewritten
Daniel: should have individual members of dnso
Consensus: excom should exist!!! 10-20 members, odd number
LUNCH
Session Chair: Tadao Takahashi
Morning summary:
Concentrated on classes, several views
Consensus on classes:
registries, registrars, connectivity providers, commercial entities,
trademark, plus at-large
Consensus on excomm: 10<members_of_excomm<20, odd
Consensus on constituency based rigid structure
Afternoon: FINANCIAL MATTERS
Tadao: Quick review of Bylaws
Ken S: There will be administrative costs for the dnso It is incumbent
on us
to propose an equitable method of supporting IANA ICANN must be run
as a
business; common sense is so necessary for success that we might as
well
assume it.
Javier: administrative fees should be paid by all; ICANN fees should
come from
domain registrations
Willie: few revenue sources is better than many revenue sources
Bernard: ICANN shouldn´t care where the dnso money comes
from Dnso should
figure it out
Per Koelle: what is a domain name for charging purposes
David: straightforward to define
Willie: we are rushing ahead, getting to detailed for this stage
Oscar: care is required-don´t want to push ccTLDs to charging
or for-profit
models that are inappropriate
Bernard: agree - we are too detailed at this point
Michael S: SOs should decide; favors transaction charge
Javier Proposal:
- 2 revenue streams
- money for ICANN comes from domain registrations
- dnso will set membership fees on its own
- measures such that the dnso should not be able to hijack the
board
by not paying
amadeu: The following are consensus points?
- similar members should pay similar amounts
- should be a membership fee
- should be transaction fees of some sort
There was general agreement
Ken: must be run on a "going concern" concept. We are wasting
our time in
adversarial things that won´t realistically exist
Willie: Yes, no fighting please.
Willie proposes:
Split ICANN support strictly in proportion to representation in excom
Michael S: 2 sources of revenue: 1) transaction fees 2) per seat member
fees
Tadao: general question about possible sources of revenue
[discussion of transaction charges - diagram]
Tadao: basic member charges? Yes (consensus)
Members pay fees to get representation (consensus)
At large members pay a fee, but much reduced (consensus)
[vigorous extended debate on transaction cost model]
Budget should come top down (consensus)
Should be some cost related revenue stream (consensus)
Registries expect to pay majority of the domain name
related costs of ICANN (consensus)
member fees will support internal dnso operations (consensus)
will be cost recovery based (consensus)
There will be membership categories (consensus)
There may be varied charges for different categories (consensus)
------------------------------------------------------------------
We received word just before the evening break that humble, gentle,
shy Dr Jon Postel, friend to many and respected by all, had died.
After the announcement an impromptu moment of silence was held.
**************
DAY THREE
Scribe: Kent Crispin
Session Chair: Fay Howard
Bernard. (representing ccTLD interests) proposed alternate excomm
allocation to constituencies:
19 member board
Registries: 8 (regional
integrity) 66% funding
Registrars: 3
(11% funding)
Network connectivity etc:
3 (11% funding)
Commercial users:
2 (11% funding)
Trademark interests:
0 (ex officio standing committee)
plus
At large: 3
(users and at large)
[heated discussion followed]
Kent C. later presented a more balanced proposal for contrast:
19 member board
Registries: 3 (fund ICANN
costs related to dns administration)
Registrars: 2
Network connectivity etc:
2
Commercial users: 2
Trademark interests: 2
plus
At large: 8
Moratorium on heated discussion called. New Topic: Decision processes
Fay: some issues should fall back from excomm to membership?
Willie: start with a weak excomm, all policy decisions ratified
by
membership
Glenn: There is some merit to IETF "talk 'til you drop" rough
consensus approach
Amadeu: Trust will build with practice
Daniel: matter of minorities wishing veto power over decisions that
may affect them negatively [ie avoid tyranny of
majority -- kc]
Michael: more on minorities, veto powers, and related issues
Kent: supermajority votes for structural issues [avoid tyranny of minority
-- kc] clarity about decision procedures simplifies
allocation
decisions
Javier: proportional representation in excomm is same as in dnso --
how could a membership vote give a different result
than an
excomm vote?
Glenn: a membership class may have more influence over "their" area
Limited power for excomm to begin with (consensus)
Up to each constituency to determine themselves mechanisms for consultation
by
reps with the constituency within the framework of guidelines to be
set by
dnso (consensus)
[That is, a constituency determines the relationship between itself
and its
excomm reps, perhaps within guidelines set by the dnso -- kc]
Roberto: how do we do a membership vote, anyway?
Willie: a number of ways to do this
1) members get a weighted vote (weighted by proportion
of rep in excomm)
2) members get one vote
think of votes as currency, each constituency gets a stake in
proportion to their seats on the board
Jonathan: Yes weighted voting
Voting weighted by representation on excomm is the mechanism (consensus)
Term of office:
Agree on proposal as worded (consensus)
BREAK
Discussion about process. Mailing list logistics. Possible
lists:
discuss@dnso.org (open list)
participants@dnso.org (participants -- those likely to become members,
and
others with direct interest)
credentials@dnso.org (list for credentials committee that determine
who
participants might be)
Credentials committee a tricky issue
Discussion of follow on.
The DNSO should be formed as quickly as possible -- nobody gains by
delay, should finish in 1998 (strong consensus)
Follow on -- decided there should be one more meeting; there would be
a secretarial group to produce a draft for discussion on discuss/participants
lists; as much will be done on the lists as possible, there will be
a wrap-up meeting.
[Extensive discussion about meeting logistics, several venues (SF, LA,
Vancouver, Mexico, Australia, Hawaii; and times were considered in
detail]
Final meeting Nov 14-16 Mexico (Guadalajara/Monterrey) [decided by
vote on vancouver vs mexico -- clear majority favored Mexico]
Discussion: Should we draft a statement to USG that we need to "maintain
momentum"? No clear conclusion.
Back to Decision procedures - definition of majority
Glenn: suggests bicameral approach - 1 vote per constituency vs
proportional vote for some issues
Will defer for list/wrapup
Chairperson of excom is a non-issue (consensus)
Bill S: Roberts rules of order, at least at first (consensus)
Selection of ICANN reps
Bernard: excomm membership vs board membership
[discusson]
Board members are ex officio members of the excomm (consensus)
No a priori restriction on who dnso may select for a board rep (consensus)
[not even necessary that the board member be from the dnso!! -- kc]
Reps recalled by a supermajority of dnso?
Ken: Should be a consistent recall procedure throughout ICANN
Glenn: this would imply a consistent voting procedure, which is unlikely.
Representation on excom should have some mechanism which will meet the
requirements for international and diverse representation specified
in
the ICANN bylaws. (consensus)
Drafting committee: Amadeu, Fay, Michael S., David Maher, Kent, Nii
Organizing committee: Oscar, Kilnam, Nii, Tadao, Fay,
Javier, Rosa, Jay
Credentials for participants list a very tough problem: Registries,
registrars, ISPs, legally recognized associations, legally recognized
organizations, corporations.
We will start the participants list, and discuss how to expand it.
END OF MEETING
Thanks to Amadeu for the stellar job in setting up the meeting.
======================================================
Bill Semich asked that the following be put in the minutes, copied
from an email from Dr Eberhard Lisse:
"1) Africa must have at least one representative
on the Board of
the new company, elected by all country TLD administrators
of
Africa.
2) The current technical RFCs, in particular 1591,
must remain the
basis of the DNS
3) The DNSO must be formed by all TLD administrators,
or at least
all TLDAs must be full members of the DNSO.
4) Only those TLDs that operate on a commercial basis
will have to
contribute financially. In other words a percentage
of revenue,
but if the TLD chooses not to generate revenue,
no penalty must
encur.
5) The new company ust support development of the
Internet in
developing countries, eg assist fledgeling Registries
in
developing countries."
However, none of this was discussed. |