Monday,
November 13th 2000, 1:30-6:00 pm
Attendees:
Michael
Schneider, EuroISPA
Hirofumi
Hotta, NTT
Siegfried
Langenbach, CSL
Barbara
Dooley, CIX
Marc
McFadden, CIX
John
Montgomery, CIX
Antonio
Harris, CABASE
Tony
Holmes, British Telecom
Barbara
Roseman, Global Crossing
Lyric
Apted, Verio
Greg
Ruth, Genuity
Scott
Marcus, Genuity
Moin Zaidi Haider, SDNP
Joe
Keeley, Business Software Alliance
Eileen
Healy, Telecompetition
Lori
Faye Fischler, register.com
Caroline
de Cock, Cable & Wireless
David
Young, Bell Atlantic
Kyle
Taylor, All West Communications
Adiel Akplogan, CAFEnet
Badiel Oudregagou, CAFEnet
André Zehl, Deutsche Telekom
Joon-Hee Lee, Korea Telecom
Ki-Je Oh, Korea Telecom
Julie
Wheeler, Boardwatch Magazine
For
short period of time:
Roger
Cochetti, VeriSign
Andrew
McLaughlin, ICANN
minutes: Anne-Kathrin Orth
1.
Introduction
About
10 voting members were present. Barbara Roseman asked to be recorded as in
agreement to the changes in articles.
2. Budget commitments 99/2000 and budget 2001
Schneider: $8,5k have been committed, $18,6k needed for 99 and 2000, only $2k paid up. Names Council meetings getting hard as perceived as rich constituency which should at least pay up ICANN related dues / meeting fees. Commitment not yet obligatory – still necessary for existence.
Dooley:
Having 10-12 voting members at a fee of 5k each (as decided in last conference
call) is not representative, then should dissolve constituency.
Roseman:
Too strict, should pick a date, e.g. Dec 31st, as of which payment is necessary and voting
members have to give proof of their commitment.
Schneider:
How about min. $500 per member that has to be paid by December 15th
to be able to stay member – "expectation" as we can't change Articles
currently.
Currently
stuck with change of Articles that we don't need quorum – will have called
everyone within 2 weeks, then could change Articles as suggested above.
Former decision was to request $5000 for voting rights, the more pay committed the lower the fee – the others for the time being losing their voting rights. Have an evaluating round next year – then decide on further steps. Current situation is that there will be no more secretariat next year, can't pay for anyone.
Need
a solution now – if we set a lower level there will still be non-paying members.
Those not paying can still participate – need to ensure that we collect
the necessary $50,000 early next year. Then can discuss what to do with members
from developing countries etc. – not the priority now.
MOTION
of informal vote: first suggestion of indication of long term participation by
provision of $500 by Dec. 15th
(for: 12, none against, no abstensions)
Dooley:
think that $5000 is a lot – deliverables not yet adequately defined. Haven't
thought about alternatives, lowering costs by sharing secretariat with other
constituencies etc.
Schneider:
has been discussed too often, people constantly wanting to see deliverables
before they pay. Those trying to produce results cannot for lack of money –
have to solve the deadlock. Either need a substantial donation or a large
budget – don't see ways of significantly reducing the budget.
Roseman:
Could wait for Melbourne, see then how well we can or can't pay up for
meetings.
Schneider:
Can't continue on a three month basis with no long-term solution.
Dooley:
Should discuss whether we consider joining with BC (business constituency) –
the big companies that could pay 5000 are already represented in BC anyhow.
Schneider:
Voting isn't moving anything in this room – is a question of whether we can function
at all and at what price. Always the same people doing the work – does it make
sense?
McFadden:
Can't we just send invoices and see who pays? Sort of like a test.
Montgomery:
There was consensus in Santiago that we would cover the cost.
Holmes:
Could easily send invoices by Email.
Roseman:
Need something like a "payable bill" – need a due date and then take
stock.
Schneider:
Could send Email-invoices of $500 (those that became members 2000) and $1000
(members since 1999) to outstanding members, asking whether they want an
additional paper bill and then see what happens. Certain that barely any more
will be transferred. Nothing – for the moment – will happen to those who don't
pay.
Dooley:
should at least cover current dues – then decide whether we can exist.
VOTE
to send invoices as described above – whereby payment is voluntary. Only to
cover current debts towards the Names Council and ICANN.
second
suggestion of imposing $5000 fee on members as of 2001 for voting rights (no
one for) – had support during last two conference calls – can't keep changing
opinions.
Schneider: Leaves us with no plans for future.
Roseman:
Could ask for $1000 for 2001 to at least cover some cost e.g. until Melbourne.
Montgomery:
prefer that to at least somewhat secure the future.
Harris:
Don't think we should dissolve constituency – industry is large enough, have to
get our act together. Combining with BC not good – voted against us in last
elections, don't represent our interests.
Schneider:
Assuming that we have one large B-ISP constituency – with 3 NC members –
contribution per constituency will rise when divided by 6 (resp. 5 as non-coms
won't pay) instead of 7 so contributing companies will put value in question.
Currently NC statements to Board still treated like any other public comment ® companies are addressing the Board directly anyhow; at some point large
members will decline paying dues, could in the long run even lead to dissolution
of DNSO.
Holmes:
Support Harris' view, largest budget problem is that numbers are uncertain.
Could have a budget for period until March and then – with final estimate for
NC budget – develop a final budget.
Schneider:
Have to estimate our own expenses first.
Cochetti:
Budget year for DNSO is different than for ICANN (July vs. January). For ICANNs
first fiscal year '99 $5k per constituency were estimated. $13k for 2000 – for
next fiscal year budget will be set during second week of December. Increase by
about 100% likely – because AfNIC donations (cost-free secretariat) will not continue
(theoretically discontinued this January already).
Montgomery:
So with the mid-standard own budget and other DNSO cost we would be at ~ $65k.
Schneider:
Will hence probably not be much lower than 3-5k per member – 1k far too low.
Harris:
Why not $1k for the first semester.
Schneider:
Will not find a secretariat if we have short-term thinking, no future or
long-term commitment.
McFadden:
Detailed work programme and set of priorities set out, then provide a concrete
budget and assessment of expenses. If people then don't pay over the winter
Melbourne would be a time to take stock.
Roseman:
$5000 will be prohibitive for participation – $1000 is reasonable for almost
everyone. If e.g. 25 members pay, we would have at least NC budget covered.
??
– Certain liabilities to clear out, can discuss what purpose constituency has
and then find members who will pay for that.
Schneider:
Already have a mission statement, don't have a secretariat with enough manpower
and when it comes down to doing the work no members are willing to participate.
Harris:
Need ISP representation in DNSO – not sentimental, need counter-balance against
governments.
Apted:
Would rather have a lower number (e.g. $2000) to get as many members paying as
possible – object to assuming from the start that only few will pay up.
Ciza:
Am only here by chance, not enough advertising and outreach being done – if
membership were larger, could easily raise enough money to cover budget.
Langenbach:
Always a gap between theoretical and practical commitment: we will go broke if
we don't collect the money. Have to end the theoretical discussions and have to
start collecting money. If we set a number that could leave us with less than
the required amount, the problem isn't solved.
Young:
whole ICANN process has this problem, not just our constituency. As participation
increases, costs will increase which are born by consistently less people
willing to foot the bill. Should maybe send a strong message to the Board by
signalling that close to broke.
Roseman:
CAN cover current dept and begin the new year by incurring a dept. Even
if we spend a lot of time on budget discussions at each meeting.
Harris:
should alert each new applicant that fees will probably be incurred. Should
approach the large ISPs directly.
Exodus
(4 reps present, no names given): Aim at 100 members (reasonable) and ask large
comps for additional funds.
Schneider:
send out 1000 for 2001 and in parallel ask large ISPs for individual
contributions – e.g. individual meetings. ("sponsoring")
Holmes:
be aware that some of the larger comps will only pay 1000 as not interested in
sponsorship.
Genuity:
some companies will pay for banners etc.
Dooley:
companies that can't pay need to apply to Officers that amount is individually
reviewed – lowered for a year at a time. Small amount required – even if just
$100.
Schneider:
Have each member choose between "large ISP" paying $5000 and
"small ISP" paying $1000 (and applications to the Officers requesting
less) as well as choice of additional sponsorship.
Dooley:
Votes should be equal – we barely vote on anything anyhow. Large companies are
affected relatively more than small companies, hence higher fee legitimate.
VOTE:
self-selected tiering as of 2001 (2 levels: large ISP, small ISP, can
apply for less and choose to sponsor additionally like individual conference
calls etc.)
3.
DNSO review
Schneider:
no results from statement yet – will be compiled with other constituencies'
comments. Will make you aware of developments.
Harris:
CABASE feels that large content providers should have a constituency, if they
don't get one included in ours? (no further discussion on item)
4.
At-large elections
a)
evaluation
Schneider:
As a European not happy about result. Auerbach is knowledgeable but not in ISP
camp. Müller-Maghun comes from mobile telecommunications and wasn't involved in
activities until someone asked him to run. The hacker association in Germany
captured the vote – he hasn't even replied to our invitation to join our
meeting today. Pretends to be the prime minister of the Internet towards
newspapers – provocative. Will probably not support ISPs in any way. Quaynor
has worn many hats – but is reasonable. Katoh highly qualified and involved for
a long time.
Looking
at result at-large approach does not seem useful, especially not if another 4
members are replaced this way. Know that Langenbach e.g. was very supportive of
approach – others?
Harris:
Latin-America vote was favourable to ISPs.
Langenbach:
My view not as negative as Schneider's. Election of Müller-Maghun reflects original
intention of including people from outside the industry. Now they have to adapt
and find balance between theory and real life. Problematic if they stay
idealistic. Germany had a meeting – discussing monetary issues. Currently no
at-large membership fee, possibly fee would change people joining and election
results. Should be willing to pay for something they stand for.
??
– effectively undemocratic if charge is raised, electoral college similar,
those that have served cannot run again. If ICANN professes to represent
interests, small fees would be fair.
McFadden:
Believe the election was not successful. Firstly relation of members to voters
poor – also ratios of voters on different continents. Technical problems making
it impossible for many to join or vote. ® irregularities make elections a failure, besides the results of who got
elected.
Harris:
Large numbers during last two weeks of registrations couldn't sign up.
Dooley:
also no provision for voting beside online, e.g. Email, excluding those without
Internet access.
Schneider:
should not blame Board for every detail that went wrong. Should analyse whether
election makes sense at all – and how to prevent capture.
McLaughlin:
all the points valid, only had $200,000 to do the experiment. Should be well
aware of the dangers and risks. Should give thought to how to finance future
elections and get around the problems in the future.
Harris:
Repeat that Certification would have solved the fraud problems.
Schneider:
one of the concrete suggestions would be that it is premature to elect the
other 4 other Board members before an analysis of how it went is at hand.
??:
Need to handle finance problem.
McFadden:
Not a referendum about yes or no at-large voting but rather constructive
suggestions about improvements.
Akplogan:
Payment method also needs discussion if fee is raised.
Mark:
Should be careful about how we judge the candidates elected. True that certain
members could make the functioning of the Board difficult.
Dooley:
Flaw is that the elections turn into nationalism – many nations will never be
represented.
Schneider:
concerned about potentially half the Board being "unreasonable" –
majority enough to elect CEO, who votes as well.
??:
a small fee would prevent capture – e.g. corporations signing up all their
employees.
??:
fee is undemocratic.
McLaughlin:
have been thinking of a team putting together input for 3 months to find
problems.
Schneider:
Issue of Bertelsman Foundation's honourable engagement leading to relatively
larger number of members in Germany compared to rest of Europe.
® Statements formulated to be
forwarded to ICANN Board
b)
Stability of ICANN Board
Holmes:
Other 4 Board members should not be replaced (in which ever way) too quickly,
should remain until study done.
Officers
should be allowed to say that the constituency is against removal.
McFadden:
Should be clear position of DNSO / NC meeting.
Hotta
could raise it during ABO tomorrow (Names Council meeting)? Opposition from
Non-coms certain – compromise usually foul, harms us.
Schneider:
Include in statement towards Board?
5.
Affinity presentation (application for .biz and .inc)
Have
support of Confederation of British Industry, IPC
want
someone from ISP industry for Board
thorough
pre-screening of applications to avoid IP-issues
reserved
for active business use of domain name (requirements, extensive controls,
extended UDRP)
$2000
per registration – half for controls (cheaper for 3rd world)
30-50k
sales per year
® real alternative to .com,
where cyber-horders have taken all sensible names
6.
website
ISPCP.org
to go online Tuesday. Will have summaries of NC meetings on restricted section
of homepage. An overview of election schedule will also be online.
7.
no changes to mission statement applied.
8.
AOB
Use
5 minutes during open meeting to present nTLD position – mainly old 6
recommendations. Include evaluation process?
Schneider:
Result not very good – individual prejudice quite evident (influence on final
decision). Report should have gone to NC instead of Board – again being
bypassed. Nothing has been discussed on this issue by the Names Council.
Akplogan:
Africans have problem with application for .africa TLD. Like property of Africa
that would be hijacked by a company.
Schneider:
Too much detail, but could mention that the issue was raised in our
constituency and that serious concerns are recognised. Also, $50k not refunded
– almost rude considering the bias and subjectivity that was applied in the
short evaluation published.
McFadden:
Criteria not applied consistently across all applications. .travel is most
evident, feels as if there was a bias against the proposal.
Langenbach:
As involved in some applications, also know of inconsistency: many weaknesses
NOT found as well!
Schneider:
Is a result of the time pressure which we had criticised from the beginning!
Roseman:
There were 3 people on the technical, 8 on the legal and 1 on the financial
committee.
McFadden:
Should also be constructive, many weaknesses to point to.
Langenbach:
Pointing back to NC because of evaluations being bad would just cause delay.
Expect report on expenses at least! Should have been used up or be refunded if
some money is left over.
Holmes:
Mentioning the $50k doesn't change anything – won't be refunded anyway.
Roseman:
Request accounting break-down of evaluation process.
Apted:
Old Board will vote on evaluation, hence this week.