Meeting of the DNSO- ISPCP constituency

Monday, November 13th 2000, 1:30-6:00 pm




  1. Introduction
  2. Budget
    1. report on commitments for budget 2000
    2. budget discussion 2001            
  3. Update on further developments regarding DNSO review
  4. At-large elections
    1. analysis and improvement for future strategy
    2. future stability of ICANN Board
  5. short presentation of Affinity (TLD applicant)
  6. Summary and presentation of new homepage
  7. Discussion of "mission statement" and what specific goals to set for 2001
  8. Any Other Business          



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,

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 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.