[registrars] Minutes from Santiago Constituency Meeting

["Michael D. Palage" <mpalage@infonetworks.com>]

Santiago Chile, DNSO -Registrar Constituency Meeting
Date: 24-8-1999

Attendees:

Michael D. Palage	InfoNetworks	Member
Len Bayles	AllWest Communications	Member
Lauren Gaviser	Register.com	Member
Rita Rodin	Skadden Arps	Observer
Amadeau Abril	Nominalia	Member
Muhamad Zulkapley	CMC Malaysia	Observer
Maryann McCormick	AT&T	Member
David Rivera	AOL	Member
Monika Borgers	Alabanza	Member
Carlos Martinez	Antel	Observer
Eva Trolich	NIC-SE	Observer
Ann-Catherine Anderson	Telia	Observer
Louis Touton	ICANN	Observer
Hartmut Richard Glaser	FAPESP-BR	Observer
Karen Rose	DOC-NTIA	Observer
Clive Flory	Melbourne IT	Member
Teresra Sobreviela	InterDomain	Member
Maria Equiran	InterDomain	Member (non-voting)
Ken Stubbs	CORE	Member
Tom Barrett	NetNames	Member
Neeran Saraf	Saraf Software Solutions	Observer
David Graves	Network Solutions	Observer
David Johnson	Wilmer Cutler	Observer
Marilyn Cade	AT&T	Member (non-voting)
Desiree Miloshevic	Virtual Internet	Member
Stephan Welzel	DENIC	Observer


* Call to Order
* Review of Membership
* Adoption of Robert's Rules
* Adoption of Agenda
* Unfinished business - ccTLDs

MOTIONS
* Quorum / Participation

Amending Charter for quorum 25-33% on certain issues, mailing list for other
sustentative issues. Votebot for full participation.

* Voting (public/private)

Serious discussion needed - issue to be resolved by Votebot by entire
constituency.  Non-binding straw vote 8 voting results private, 2 votes
public. All voting results would be subject to review by neutral 3rd party.

* Permanent Elections

Move forward 9 in favor 1 no-comment.  Geographic diversity

* Straw vote on dispute policy

Defer

* Harmonization of WG-A, Uniform Dispute Policy, & WIPO Report

(1) Costs - allocations (WIPO & DNSO yes) UDP defers to providers rules.
(2) Who chooses Dispute Service Provider - WIPO & DNSO Claimant chooses,
UDP - Claimant or Registrar
(3) Need for central database
(4) Ability to go to court:
WIPO said 3d party complainant or domain holder can go to court at any time.
Discretion of panel to discontinue/hold proceedings
DNSO/WG-A can go to court at any time - proceeding automatically put on hold
UDP - Neither 3d party complainant or domain name holder may not go to court
until after conclusion of proceedings

Note: DNSO/WG-A and UDP can be harmonized

Note: Registrar will provide no gatekeeper functions for beginning of
proceedings.

* Testbed RSA CA concerns

AllWest Concern: Difficulties for US based registrars. Group license.
Limited term of patent protection within US.

* Testbed software SRS

Alabanza need for choice in software: use SRS or develop own?

* Testbed Whois concerns data format

Need for uniform data format? Uniform NIC handles?

* Straw vote of domain availability instant / delayed

Nine members voted in favor of instant access to domain name availability
although there was almost universal concern involving the implementation
mechanism. This issue and implementation discussion will be deferred to the
entire Registrar constituency. One member voted in favor of the current
delayed process.

* Straw vote of Whois date centralized or fragmented.

Defer until further input available from technical representative from each
registrar

* Common Whois data format:

Nine members voted in favor of uniform data format in accordance to those
fields set forth in the ICANN agreement. There was a consensus that this
should be the first step in any Whois discussions.

* Registrar warehousing/reselling/trafficing of domain names

Need to prevent against Registrars being viewed as a cybersquatting. Problem
of credit card charge backs. Is there a need for a charge back/credit with
NSI (registry). Conflict /ethical concerns. Need for debate among entire
constituency. Options available to implement safeguards

* Participation in Working Groups (B & C)

Need to increase participation. Working Group C is of vital importance to
the Registrar constituency.

* Testbed Xfer Fees and Procedures

Domain name portability is vital to competition, current fees are
unreasonable.  Concern over administrative costs - min. overhead.

* Straw vote of voluntary payment of ICANN fee

Yes to $1 (  )
Support Funding in principal (  )
No Comment (  )

* Potential nomination to ICANN board.