General Assembly - November 14, 2000 - Los Angeles, California
DNSO General Assembly November 14, 2000 Marina del Rey, California
I. Roberto Gaetano and
Harald Alvestrand, Co-Chairs, Elisabeth Porteneuve, Secretariat
1. To ask a question:
Speak slowly and clearly. Before asking your question, please you’re
your name and organizational affiliation into the terminal to the left
of the microphone. Please also introduce yourself before speaking.
2. Today’s meeting
is being webcast. Thanks to NSI for sponsorship.
3. Thanks for funding
More detailed version has been posted.
1. Reports from
secretariat, chair. Discussion.
2. Reports from
3. Debate on issues
– GA Chair elections, Board nominations, relationship with At Large,
multilingual testbed, individuals constituency, new TLDs, composition
of ICANN Board, DNSO review.
4. Additions to
• Barant (Affinity):
Want presentations from TLD applicants?
• Gaetano: Debated
on list. I think not in order. Cannot change the agenda on only 24 hours
notice. Must assure that all 44 companies get sufficient notice, and
that wouldn’t be the case here. Better to have this discussion tomorrow.
Today we should discuss all the applications in general terms.
• (Edelman: Note
that each TLD applicant gets 3 minutes in the Public Forum on Wednesday.
[If you intend to give a computer-assisted presentation, please see
instructions for transmission on signs posted at the back of this room.)
• Alvestrand: Discussion
of new TLDs is at 11:00 if we stay on schedule.
• Gaetano: Please
turn off your cell-phone ringers.
1. Elected one Board
2. GA electorate
is poorly-defined. Have had vote on mailing list rules. Currently have
850 subscribers to various mailing lists – 517 on announce, 308 on GA,
287 in working groups (some overlap).
3. Expenses for
secretariat need to be paid by DNSO from expenses collected by the Names
4. Gaetano: Need
geographic diversity in the offices of ICANN. May make some tasks more
difficult, but this is important to the image and effectiveness of ICANN.
Difficulty in defining membership of GA, to be discussed later. Open
for comments and questions on reports. Next agenda point, reports from
II. Reports from
A. Commercial Constituency – Theresa
Swinehart: Rep from Commercial constituency. Other reps are Masanobu
Katoh and Philip Sheppard. Yesterday’s meeting had introduction to constituency,
invited newly elected At Large directors to come, Nii Quaynor, Masanobu
Katoh, Andy Mueller-Maughn, and Karl Auerbach. Went over report on new
TLDs, discussed multi-lingual domain names. Dialogue on business concerns
and next steps. Identified new issues for business constituency: SLDs,
personal names, Whois database, UDRP. Discussed DNSO review and business
1. Weinberg: What
is the status of DNSO review process?
2. Gaetano: DNSO
review will be discussed at 11:30.
B. GTLDs – Chuck Gomes: discussed
terminology, gTLDs and ccTLDs. Record attendance at gTLD registry constituency,
new interest in the constituency. Gomes reported on .com, .net and .org.
Report available at gTLDregistries.org website. Discussed moving forward
and organizing. Currently Verisign Global Registry services is the only
member. Created a list of people who would be interested in organization
of the constituency.
1. Mueller: How
do you plan to establish new membership criteria?
2. Gomes: No final
decisions were made, but it was discussed.
3. ??: What are
new terms and conditions?
4. Gomes: There
are no old terms and conditions. New registries will be added. Personal
view is that new ICANN registries will become members of the constituency.
5. Rony: Do you
anticipate that Verisign will have three positions in the new constituency?
One for .com, .net, and .org.
6. Gomes: We will
have to think about that.
C. ccTLD Constituency: Past 2
days with over 40 ccTLDs present, got substantial and sometimes unanimous
consensus on 4 items. Materials at http://www.wwtld.org .
1. Contract for
services between ccTLDs and ICANN.
2. Discussed “best
practice” document. Further discussion at 10:30.
3. Object to regional
geographic names for new TLDs (“.africa”).
4. Object to letter
from Mike Roberts to governments re ccTLDs – re content and short notice.
D. ISP Constituency: Tony Harris
1. Budget discussion
– tiered annual membership fees.
2. Support review
of results of At-Large Elections.
3. Budget constraints
should be resolved.
4. New gTLDs: Aware
of concerns about .africa. Advise careful and deliberate rollout of
new TLDs to cope with land rush problems. Concerned that review may
have been biased. Expenses of process should be made public.
• Weinberg: Specifics
• Would rather see
the review process complete before coming to decisions.
• ?: Present a paper
E. Non-Commercial Constituency:
1. Met for eight
hours, 26-30 member organizations present.
2. Funding: $2000
shortfall from 1999. Intend to collect that money. Task force on fundraising.
3. Urge review of
structure and function of DNSO.
More rounds of TLD applications and additions. In unrestricted TLDs,
oppose sunrise arrangements and other rules that privilege owners of
IP over others. (Note that sunrise arrangements not a product of WG
consensus. UDRP: Party filing a complaint should not have exclusive
right to determine the organization hearing the complaint; DNSO should
conduct review to make the process work better, and chair should be
a rep of Non-Commercial Constituency; should not see applications of
UDRP to conclude that rights to a TLD in one domain lead to rights in
all other TLDs (some restricted TLDs require special attention). Need
competition in registry function for new TLDs (select new registries
that don’t already have registries; select new registries that don’t
already have significant market share in existing registry/registrar
5. See www.ncdnhc.org
F. Registrars Constituency:
1. Five-hour meeting.
169 ICANN-accredited registrars.
2. Discussion of
3. Adoption of position
statement on new TLDs.
G. Intellectual Property Constituency:
delivered by Gurry (WIPO)
III. Working Groups and Committees
IV. Debate on Issues
A. Procedures for GA Chair Election
1. Gaetano: Chair
of GA elected for 1 year term. Election was mid-December last year.
Last year there were no voting procedures and much contention. The ICANN
Bylaws called for an election through a nomination process by the GA
and election by the Names Council. Believes that might have been appropriate
then, but is no longer. GA has voting registry and have behaved well.
No reason that GA cannot elect its own chair. Discussion begun on discussion
list. Requires a change in the ICANN Bylaws, so discussion must happen
in advance. Need opinion of the NC. Discussion here knowing that discussion
will continue after on mailing list.
• Cade: Didn’t the
GA prepare a list of names to be presented to NC?
• Gaetano: Yes.
Current procedure is that the GA nominates and list gets passed to NC
for election. Is this appropriate, or should GA claim election of GA
chairman by people subscribed to GA voting registry.
• Burton: Is there
anyone who thinks the NC should do it or anyone here who thinks that
the GA shouldn’t?
• Sheppard: Concerned
by the tone of previous question. Members of the NC are also members
of the GA. All NC members are there because of a representative structure.
Process currently in place is a democracy. Direct elections may not
produce a better result. Concept is for self-determination, should not
be a split between GA and NC. GA and NC part of same body.
• Alvestrand: when
things are important enough to vote on, people in the room can propose
a resolution, but are not the GA. In room participants can only vote
on the opinion of the GA here in the room. For important matters, the
text must be forwarded to list and discussed there.
• Weinberg: GA must
move quickly on this because it has to go through the NC. If this is
to happen before the end of the year, the NC is going to have to move
very quickly. If the NC were a representative institution then the NC
choosing would be less problematic. Lack of representation causes the
• Gaetano: No big
split between NC and GA. All participants in the constituencies are
automatically in the GA and are welcome to subscribe to the GA voting
registry and vote for the Chair of the NC. The 7 Constituencies do not
have complete coverage of interested parties. 2 step vote narrows representation.
No conflict between GA and NC, just going one step further.
• Burton: intention
was not to claim a split, just preference for direct representation.
• Crispin: Oversimplification
of the case. Everyone is welcome to join voting registry, but everyone
has not. The list has 200 members, the total number on email list has
about 850. The voting registry is clearly not representative. Some of
the constituencies bound by restricted membership and can’t increase
the number of voters on the voting roles. The scheme being proposed
radically changes the representative structure. Change should not be
• Mueller: GA has
no decision-making power over DNSO process, thus concern over chairman
should not be a big issue. But it seems reasonable to have chair elected
by same members.
• Alvestrand: The
NC doesn’t need to change the bylaws and can simply accept the recommendation
of the GA. Propose resolution that the chair should be the person elected
by the GA voting registry.
• Gaetano: calls
vote. All in favor raise hands. All against raise hands. Strong majority
in favor, but not unanimous. No problem with having the GA chair not
be an expression of the constituencies.
• Cade: Deliberation
is as important as speed. Need to ensure that there is dialogue. Learned
from Crispin’s point. Important not to throw issues out. Important to
note the number of abstentions.
• Gaetano: People
in favor raise hands. Roughly 42. Against: 2. Abstentions: 52. We said
before that there was a majority and I maintain strong majority. Not
• Burton: Curious
as to how many abstentions are not voting members.
• Gaetano: Let’s
not be too formal.
• Alvestrand: How
many people have joined the registry?
B. Procedure for the Board nomination
1. Gaetano: many
difficulties in the election process for the DNSO director in determining
who was part of the GA and who was not. Bylaws say that we have to provide
the nominees on a list. Who may nominate? All the people on the GA mailing
list, the voting registry, the GA mailing list and the constituency
members. The DNSO secretariat asked the constituencies for a list of
members to determine qualification. Some could not answer. Not a political
issue, a practical one. We need a list. This time for each candidate
we had at least 10 members that we could certify that were qualified.
Constituencies could get lists of accredited participants, another would
be to have everyone subscribe to GA voting registry.
2. Alvestrand: Conclusion
that room has no opinion on the question of who can nominate potential
• Johnson: suggest
use of GA voting registry to help grow the list.
• Crispin: Allow
anyone to nominate whether they are a member of the GA or not. That
was the original design. Anyone could nominate, but then the NC that
was verified could actually elect.
• Peek: Surprised
to see NC members nominating people, given that they will be electing
• Porteneuve: Definition
of members of the DNSO and the members of the GA are all members of
constituency and those subscribing to mailing list. Thus, the NC members
are also part of the GA and they may nominate candidates. From recent
elections, I observed wave of subscription just before elections. One
can wonder whether people wish to participate or whether they only subscribed
in order to nominate. It would be better to know the set of people who
are the electorate.
• Crispin: It is
o.k. for NC to be members and nominate are because they are elected.
If they behave inappropriately they will not be re-elected.
• Gaetano: the reason
for this point is because the secretariat had a real problem. Right
now the secretariat is obliged to verify at least 10 members nominating.
It could bring a legal issue the next time that we are having an election.
I can live with Johnson or Crispin proposal, but both need to go to
ICANN for change in bylaws.
• Alvestrand: 2
proposals: GA voting registry or anyone at all.
C. Relationship of GA to At Large
1. CSPR meeting
where GA met with the newly elected At Large members. Roles were debated.
Several thousands willing to participate.
2. Need to clarify
interaction between GA and At-Large. I suggest GA focus on DNSO issues,
At-Large consideration of all issues. But this too is subject to comments.
D. Multilingual Testbed
1. Gaetano: What
aspects of this should be brought to attention of GA?
• Lindsay: Want
Japanese characters encoded (among others). Registrars discussed review
of process from registrar perspective. Should consider this from registrants’
• Crispin: What
about the possible of intellectual property violations using the multilingual
testbed encoding strings?
• Lindsay: Yes,
it’s possible, but this is really nothing new. Could register the ASCII
string equivalents as usual.
• Maruyama: Have
a proposal for selecting the identifiers. Will shortly be released as
E. Individuals Constituency
1. Gaetano: Personally,
frustrated that we haven’t been able to move forward. Not sure whether
the problem is that individuals aren’t interested in DNSO, or that individuals
think this process won’t move forward (so it’s not worth trying).
2. Burton: People
don’t know about this effort. Some participants won’t work together.
Some people believe that there is no room / need for individuals constituency.
Suggest that all existing proposals are tainted, so a new proposal is
3. Weinberg: Coordination.
GA has twice stated that it favors work on an individuals constituency.
But previously-promised WG never created. Not clear that the NC will
create a WG; perhaps GA chair can do so.
4. Simons: Could
bring this topic to the group thinking about At-Large Membership, but
the topics are separate. Should pass a motion with a request for urgency.
5. Crispin: Have
discussed the possibility of an At-Large Constituency. Otherwise, risk
having “leftover” people not in any constituency.
6. ?: Concerned
that individuals don’t have the resources to attend ICANN meetings worldwide.
Some perception that individuals have less merit that companies. Need
promotion of the possibilities for participation. Candidates would have
liked to be able to reach those who supported them so as to suggest
7. Meyer: Personality
conflicts are serious. IDNO is trying to be recognized by ICANN Board
of Directors. No desire for any particular individual to have all the
power; they don’t care, just want to see representation for individuals.
Authority for the GA, via representation on the NC, would solve this
8. Johnson: Bylaws
say “No individual or entity shall be excluded from a constituency merely
because of participation in another constituency.”
9. Meyer: Point
is clear – the strict definitions of constituencies prevent some people
from belonging to any constituencies. This suggests that constituency
structure is incomplete. Need another constituency, or need some other
way for certain of us to be represented. Wonder how many members of
the GA are not in any constituency.
10. Crispin: Constituencies
are more open than many people assume. Almost everyone could figure
out a way to become a member of a constituency. You can be an individual
business and join the business constituency. I joined the non-commercial
constituency as a representative of my sailing club! This system isn’t
as closed as some allege.
11. Gaetano: I don’t
quality for any constituency, so far as I know.
• 1: An Individual
Domain Name Holders Constituency
• 2: A “none of
the above” constituency.
13. Weinberg: Favor
1, oppose 2.
14. ?: Modify 1
to say “individuals constituency to be developed by a working group.
15. Straw poll:
Some favor 1, few favor 2. Many abstentions.
F. New TLDs
1. Froomkin: If
“n” applications meet the cut, then to choose among them is to make
“social policy choices” which should be avoided. Also, members of applicant
community interpreted request for information about their plans for
protecting intellectual property to mean “see who can protect IP the
most” which was not intended.
2. Rony: Need to
address the suggestion of “proof of concept” of new TLDs. But ICANN
produced the staff report too late for the public to review it. ICANN
should make a statement re who will make the actual decision about new
TLDs. Ten Directors were appointed, and the five newly-elected Directors
will not be able to participate.
3. Gaetano: Other
aspects of the process are important also. Don’t understand what happens
next. Have a process for selecting some TLDs, but then what? Evaluation
of the testbed? Repayment of fees for those who applied in this first
round but were not successful?
4. Crocker: Need
to reduce the sense of urgency. This is getting blown out of proportion.
ICANN should continue to evaluate the applications not considered in
this phase. Need to encourage ICANN to operate like an administrative
group, not an Internet governance group.
5. Aguilar: Concerned
that elected Board members won’t be involved in this decision-making
process. Some of the analysis doesn’t ring true; seems arbitrary at
times. Not clear how the applicants can respond – three minutes is not
6. Menge (SBA):
Sunrise provisions create barriers to entry for small businesses, especially
outside the US (where trademarks are less common).
7. Henderson (.law
applicant): Would like to have more of a dialogue. Some concerns with
the staff report. Would like to respond to staff report.
8. Gaetano: Don’t
see how we can bring this to ICANN. Hopeful that ICANN will do what’s
necessary to make a good selection. Specific motion?
9. Simon (U Miami):
Consensus from IFWP-Reston was “Interim Board should not have the authority
to enter new gTLDs into the zone file.” ICANN should wait to add new
TLDs until new Board Members are seated.
• Gaetano: Understand
the implications – at the least, a delay in adding new TLDs. Second?
• Rony: Postpone
decision to give the applicants and public an opportunity to respond
to Staff Report. Or, approve all operationally and technically correct
• Cade: Object to
this approach. Have been working on this for years. Should focus on
what expansion of namespace is logical, not on who in particular is
making the decisions.
• Simons: Process
is important. ICANN has not adhered to stated process and procedure.
ICANN must estalish clear, public processes and procedures that allow
adequate time for public comment on all issues.
• Ross (.TV): Share
concerns about the rush to judgment. Deadlines keep changing. Technical
competence is not so black-and-white as we might like to think. ICANN’s
interpretation of who is technically competent is subject to question.
• Alvestrand: Resolutions:
“The Board should not decide upon new gTLDs until after the new Board
members are seated.” “If the Board adopts any new gTLD, it should also
adopt all competent applications (subject to name conflict resolution).”
• Crocker: Resolutions
from this body has an effect. Think hard about what this resolution
says, in the context of ICANN’s role. Process has taken place over five
• Aguilar: Want
to amend resolution to delay decision until ICANN responds to irregularities
in staff report.
• ? (.TV): Start
over with application process. Treatment hasn’t been fair. ICANN’s closed
nature puts it at risk of court suits.
• Forman (Register.com,
two bids submitted): We all knew that not every bid would be accepted.
47 applicants were far more than anticipated. There was no expectation
of getting money back if application unsuccessful; expected only that
ICANN would review the applications, which they have indeed done. Process
was not perfect, but ICANN has made substantial strides in facilitating
competition. Need to balance progress with process.
• Burton: Second
all resolutions and call for a vote on all of them.
• Matt Hooker (Net-Speed.com):
Forced to file suit in US and international courts because ICANN’s actions
may cause confusion. The 250 country-code TLDs already exist. We’re
constrained by human memories, and adding new TLDs will make confusion
• Crispin: The last
speaker proved that there’s no avoiding lawsuits. That’s no basis to
• Simons: Process
is important. Having these discussions because ICANN isn’t adhering
to its stated processes and procedures; inadequate time for public comment.
Processes and procedures should be public, and must be adhered to by
G. Alvestrand: Resolutions: “The
Board should not decide upon new gTLDs until after the new Board members
are seated.” “… until the applicants have had time to respond to the
Staff Report.” “If the Board adopts any new gTLD, it should also adopt
all competent applications (subject to name conflict resolution).” “Board
should adopt new gTLDs at this meeting.”
1. Alvestrand: “Mostly
opposed” to the first. Second: More in favor than opposed. Third: “No’s
have it.” Fourth: Unclear.
2. Gaetano: No clear
consensus on any of these. Proceed to a vote.
3. Count the votes:
1: 60 to 83, 8 abstentions. 2: 78 to 52, 23 abstentions. “Carried by
the room.” 3: 39 to 90, 16 abstentions. 4: 77 to 59, 44 abstentions.
4. But note that
2 and 4 both passed, and are inconsistent.
• Meyer: Another
• Roberto: Uncomfortable
with this situation. Board will not be able to do anything in response
to these resolutions. But will do what the Assembly wills.
H. Burton: Propose modification
“… that none of applications be considered out of the running until
review of staff report is complete.”
V. DNSO Review
A. Swinehart: Purpose of process
to review DNSO work and discuss the status of the process. Questions
for discussion on DNSO website. NC reviewed questionnaire. Sent out
for review. Amount of response received reflected how busy all the constituencies
were. Only 5 responses, only one from a constituency. Inadequate response
for full report to Board at this point. Notify Board of an extension
and have the NC put forward a calendar in order to get full input from
B. Gaetano: GA needs to provide
comments and input on the subject of DNSO review. End of meeting, but
discussion will continue on the mailing list. Final point on agenda
is the position of the Board directors with the extended terms. 2 questions
asked to GA list.
C. Alvestrand: Whether the GA
should ask for the elected Board members to be seated at the beginning
of this meeting. Should the 4 remaining board members to resign immediately?
1. Froomkin: Fundamental
trust issue. Assured by Board members that they would not extend their
terms. http://www.law.tm. The Board members should resign immediately
and be replaced by a slate elected by the current directors.
2. Davidson: CDT
on the record disagreeing with tone of the debate. Disagrees with personally
attacking Board members for complying with decision of the Board and
one that was designed to be responsive to the wishes of the community.
Anyone asking people to step down must have an alternative more legitimate
way to fill the seats. Not clear that a more legitimate way to fill
the seats exists. Having the 9 seats filled is essential. Propose a
resolution that calls on the Board to fill the spots as quickly as possible.
3. Aguilar: CA corporations
code does allow boards to replace board members who depart early.
D. Alvestrand: Two motions suggested.
4 members should step down and should be replaced with people selected
by the elected members. Board should expedite the process of replacing
the four remaining members ASAP and at the latest by November 2001.
1. Simons: candidate
for election in North America. In favor of 1 and against 2. There is
no one who is completely qualified, but those with the most qualifications
are the 5 elected At Large directors. Inappropriate to have the 4 remaining
directors replaced by the whole board.
2. Lindsey: A large
group of this meeting left the room and may not know that there were
resolutions on which to vote still remaining.
E. Alvestrand: Vote first on the
first resolution. Resolution 1 votes: 25 to 41 to 23. Room does not
carry the resolution (w/ many gone for lunch). Resolution 2 votes: 63
to 2 to 13. Motion carried by the room.
F. Gaetano: Meeting is closed.
I will bring forward the motions. Thanks to all for attending.
G. Weinberg: Thanks to the co-chairs
for running the meeting. Audience: Be aware that this meeting is on
closed-circuit television throughout the hotel – channel 17 in all hotel
rooms, the bar, etc. Also, there’s more space in the back corner of
the room; please try to step away from the door.
For additional technical information, please contact:
Ben Edelman and Rebecca Nesson
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School