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 Froelich

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

 

MOTIONS

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

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.

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

Defer

  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.

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

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

Need for uniform data format? Uniform NIC handles?

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.

Defer until further input available from technical representative from each registrar

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.

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

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

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

Yes to $1 ( )

Support Funding in principal ( )

No Comment ( )