Meeting of the DNSO- ISPCP constituency

Monday, November 1st, 1999, 1:00-6:00 pm




1. review and approval of agenda                                                     10 minutes

2. introduction of new member                                                         5

3. report on ISPCP Officers election                                                 5

4. report on Names Council and DNSO                                            20

5. discussion : DNSO-Funding                                                        60

                    * Interim Funding

                    * Long term Funding

6. discussion : Articles Amendment                                                 60

                    * Officers and NC members (including Barbara's proposal)

                    * definition of regions to comply with ICANN bylaws

                    * election of Officers

7. discussion : publicizing ISPCP mailing list                                   20

8. discussion : outreach                                                                  10

                    * designing links to ISPCP web site from Member Web site

9. discussion : NSI - ICANN agreement                                           30


                    other issues                                                                30

10. Any Other Business                                                                 30


Chair: Michael Schneider (EuroISPA)


Hirofumi Hotta (NTT)

Antonio Harris (CABASE)

Henning Grote (Deutsche Telekom)

Tony Holmes (British Telecom)

Cathy Wittbrodt (Excite@Home)

Robert Hall (CAIP)

Marc McFadden (CIX)

Jason Hendeles (ATC)

Tony Rutkowski (Netmagic)

Brian O’Shaughnessy

Dave Crocker (

Barbara Roseman (Global Crossing)

Jason Smith (PathWay)

Pete Bowden (Concentric Network)

Rick Latona (IAWH)

Chris Rogers (Interland Inc.)

John Klensin (MCI WorldCom)

Amar Andersson (Telia)

John Montjoy (CIX)

Livia Rosu (ETSI)



Introduction, count of members present – 8 of 24 not a quorum



1.     agenda - no changes were considered necessary

2.     new members - introduction of AFA (not present) and Excite@Home (Cathy gave short introduction)

             [Tony Holmes (BT) arrived – 9 of 24 members present]

             3 new applications – Interland, Global Crossing, (to submit applications)

3.   elections – Marc McFadden gave a short report: 6 nominations were received, all nominees were interested and citizens of their region. Michael Schneider was elected chairman on September 27th, only three nominees remained, the two deputies elected were Hirofumi Hotta and Antonio Harris. (For details, see election report election-report-ISPCP.html)

4.   report on NC and DNSO

a.     Michael Schneider gave an overview of his impression of the NC-work between Santiago and today: said he is not pleased with the professionality and efficiency of the work, over a week was spent on the elections of the DNSO Board members with the result not necessarily representing the true wishes and preferences of the members; currently merely focussing on procedures, after posting of negotiations with NSI there was no reaction whatsoever. After a mail by himself, only Joe Sims has responded – ICANN felt it was inappropriate to consult the NC and possibly this is the direction it will continue to be handled as ICANN appears not to take the NC seriously, only considers input given, not proactively asking for it. As of today, the NC no longer “interim”, hence it needs to clearly state its position now and get started on doing some substantial work. Feels ICANN should consult with NC in all DNSO and related issues.

b.     Hirofumi Hotta: NC-teleconferences: there have been 11 since Santiago, 6 for the mere purpose of the Board elections (for details see [link]).

c.     Antonio Harris: elections were extremely heavily lobbied, all those elected were from within the NC, procedures the only issue discussed since Santiago – completely out of proportion. The ICC recently published a press release stating that “business is not what is happening in ICANN” – confcalls not very productive. Hope that future NC-work is more streamlined.

d.     Global Crossing – will future elections go more smoothly, were these just teething problems?

A: obviously it is difficult to reach consensus between 19 people representing extremely different parts of the Internet, hard to match those different agendas – hard to agree upon substance, change necessary if NC not to become rediculous. Constituencies not proportionate to one another – old discussion, couldn’t be resolved last year either, IDNO for example should be included in the GA. Difficulty of some people being able to spend more time, money and ressources on the process. Interface to Board will not improve – Joe Sims not really doing good job consulting and guiding the NC.

e.     Grote: Perception of relation between NC and Board is that the latter doesn’t accept the serious business interest involved. Also lacking regular means of communication. State of discussion with Sims is that NC is still interim… Has anyone else been contacted?

A: no, never formally at least, e.g Dyson only answers privately – only expenses etc. are discussed. Shown in statements like “the NC only selects its members to the Board”

f.      What are the major issues that need to be dealt with?

A: Some WGs are taking care of them, but substantial things require discussion and decisionmaking from the NC like new gTLDs, the NSI agreement (one thing that procedure was not OK, another that content potentially harmful – consequences that large parts of NC not in agreement?) – positions need to be publicly stated!

g.     groups need internal agreement, primary focus and solutions – would it be possible to find support in other constituencies, form a stronger common front?

A: some positions of ISPCP were identified in Santiago (like gTLDs), could easily reopen the discussion on those and other issues to at least find internal agreement.

h.     WG-C published report that yes, there should be new ones, about 5-7 – shouldn’t the question be how, who will handle them etc.?

A: “Consensus” was reached in WG-C by complete misinterpretation of statements, until NC has discussed it the paper has no true value – correct, probably no way around new gTLDs.

5.   DNSO-Funding – see paper 991101-AgendaItem5.htm – figure under 3. includes ICANN-meeting parts, webcasting etc. Fair that we need to contribute, pay for the rooms we use etc., need a secretariat but need clear breakdown of the suggested amount (300k) so that we can  decide which of the figures we’re willing to pay for, which we don’t need etc. Would like secretariat for DNSO combined with one for constituencies – then amount closer to being justified.

a.     ICANN appears not to care who pays, just wants it all “open, open open” – are allocating substantial costs to DNSO (not to other SOs).

b.     Webcasts for example are really expensive, scribing going online and Emails being read out should be more than enough – Berkman Center demonstrated that minuting live can be done in fairly good quality.

c.     Barely any criticism to date from within the NC – will ask for details, could easily cut expenses by taking cheaper hotels etc.

d.     ISPCP supports to pay its share of the costs but only once some sort of (interim) budget has been posted, discussed and possibly agreed upon. Probably contribute the $5k for Santiag and L.A. (and the next conference ?) to make sure that costs already incurred are paid for. Schneider asked for a budget (of up to $5k for next meeting) – agreed to postpone budgeting for this and even for the contributions to the past meetings until we have received for a breakdown so as not to set precedents. – Don’t pay until we’ve seen receipts and have officially been invoiced… Overall showing goodwill! (Yes in principle, allocating $15k interim budget (upper limit) to cofinance the three meetings subject to further details being provided by ICANN, funds raised on an as-needed basis) [all present agreed]

e.     Only once recurring payments are needed will we have to figure out how to proceed exactly (annual payments? Changing the articles)

6.   Quorum as Rob Hall has arrived – decision on new members

a.     Global Crossing – unanimously accepted

b. – no longer present

c.     Interland – unanimously accepted

d.     Concentric Network – unanimously accepted

e.     ® all subject to no more than two vetoes being received by November 24, 1999 (and official applications to be received).

f.      ® 15 of 27 members now present

Quick break to read the text 991101-AgendaItem6.htm on proposed changes to the articles.

7. Proposed changes to the Articles

         1.a) no one against, unanimously accepted

1.b)     i) no more than two Officers and no more than one NC representative may be citizen from the same geographic region (Barbara)

ii) if no candidate from a fifth region, seat can be given to someone else for whole term

iii) seat left open for whole term if no one elected from fifth region 

i) voted on: unanimously accepted

         2. change voting for a specific seat to just “an Officer”, the five to figure the positions out among themselves – chairman-term flexible ® rewording to be posted and only changed if someone finds it ambiguous – amendments voted on as discussed unanimously

         3. obsolete

         4. becomes more simple –

* running new election for 5 Officers, assigning different terms,

* electing two additional ones and replacing them as intended, the current three replaced in 8/16 months - unanimously accepted

         5. Rob Hall: 3 vetoes-clause – allows for capture; should be put to general vote, should final decision be made by simple or supermajority? Will be discussed further on list.

Schneider to draft suggestion of according changes to articles, if no one objects will be considered accepted.

8.     publishing of mailing list 991101-AgendaItem8.htm;

a) open up list ?? archive or other means to have it read by 3rd parties – 6:6:3 – continue discussion on list – at least create archive for new members (password protected or similar)

b) putting further people (observers or posting) on the list? Is main concern to keep list internal or to keep others from posting? Who? Externals should not be able to “interfere”, even if they may observe. To which extent do we want to be open while discussing strategy etc.? No change unless other constituencies try and we learn from them!!! (unanimous)

c) teleconferences open? Upon request unless beforehand decided that for strategic reasons closed – criteria to whom? NC and ICANN Board members and staff allowed to request joining – individual decision before each teleconference; open upon invitation (consensus).

9.     Outreach – Jason Smith to send some ISPCP-logo suggestions (to then be placed on each members’ homepage as a link; Marc and Antonio to contribute something for an “about” Homepage (e.g. ispcp/home.html)

10.   NSI – ICANN agreement – barely anyone’s read it ® summary: NSI may stay registry another 4 years, a further 4 if registrar and registry are then decoupled. - Believe that NC should postpone the decision and seek direct discussion with ICANN – not via queue of public comment! At most, an interim period should be given to NSI during which to provide registry services and afterwards a tender filed. Agreement is easy way to receive funding and be recognized by NSI – reasons to subscribe to agreement, but enough to extend a monopoly for 4 years and even continue combining registrar and registry? Will give them incredible market advantage. Not acceptable under any circumstance. Will raise it in NC and with ICANN Board, even protest if agreement gets signed without intense consultation. Other problems as well – e.g. US govoernment as last decider in a democratic process. Was presented as a faite accompli, which it isn’t at all!! Putting pressure on ICANN is usually successful – can publicly do them harm (breaking own bylaws of consulting NC etc.) – press would react strongly. Possibly a way forward? At least less extreme compromise. Several steps of escalation –

a.     stop and listen,

b.     signed by more than 2 parties! And involve others (not department of Commerce!),

c.     shorten interim term, requiring separation of registrar and registry. White Paper is the basis for ICANN’s work, hence USG shouldn’t change its position without previous warning (especially on decisions that are mission-critical to Internet-enterprises). Was this really the best agreement one could get?

Still surprised and unhappy that no one in NC has reacted at all!

11.   AOB

a.     Overall ICANN’s structure is very worrying. The at-large membership will elect another 9 Directors – should monitor closely how it is structured etc. Business constituency key to this – just as ISPCP – because they have the individual customers – are members willing to use that info for contacting individuals and encourage them to become involved? Elections easily open to capture. Action on our part could minimize the “disaster”. Should try to get many good candidates. [will discuss this further on the list]

b.     Possibly set up a company between some of the huge ISPs and tender for the registry!