Copy from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001/archive/scribe-ga-111201.html
November 12, 2001
Marina del Rey, California
ICANN Public Meetings
DNSO General Assembly November 12, 2001 – Marina del Rey, California
I. Welcome – Danny Younger, Chairman
A. Much work in process.
B. Working on representation and process.
1. Membership of GA does not have voting rights. Concerned about this.
2. Motion passed (by large margin) re concern about representativeness, call for direct ICANN Board intervention, need for balance with NC via a bicameral DNSO, budgetary and secretariat support. Reaffirm GA members’ commitment to DNSO GA as a place of cross-constituency dialogue.
3. Failure to address GA concerns is effectively a response. Names Council has not done its duty in working with the GA. Time is passing.
II. DNSO project to facilitate international outreach
A. Concern from one Internet user that even an Internet café is expensive, and that it is therefore costly to participate. http://www.icannworld.org to serve these users as well as to provide translations. Framework in place for display of translated pages, local ccTLD manager information, localized message boards, etc.
III. Comments from the Secretariat
A. Thanks to Porteneuve, prior secretariat.
B. Milestones of 2001 (http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2001calendardnso.html):
1. Draft Business Plan
3. GA Chair and Alternative Chair selection
5. Reelection of Abril i Abril to ICANN Board
8. Additional mailing lists created
10. Timelines for agendas and accompanying documents:
• must be sent to secretariat three weeks in advance.
IV. Invited Guests
A. David Hernand (CEO, New.net)
B. Ken Hansen (Neustar)
2. ??: Will .us have contract with ICANN? What is Neustar’s view of the redelegation issue with respect to .us?
• Hansen: Dept. of Congress instructed Neustar to work with ICANN to work towards agreement.
3. Harold Feldt (MAP): How will Neustar involve the public in .us?
• Hansen: Neustar will form an advisory council to ensure public participation
4. Rony: 1) Did RFQ include a sunrise provision for trademark owners? 2) Seeks response to concern that .US is a valuable resource which was developed with taxpayer dollars and was given to Neustar.
• Hansen: 1) Yes, RFQ included sunrise provision. Will be able to accept applications if trademarks are not registered with PTO. 2) Neustar will invest millions in management of .us space. Neustar doesn’t own the space, it administers it.
5. ??: How will we ensure that other companies will not enter the new.net space and offer the same TLDs?
• Hernand: Yes, other companies will enter the space. New.net has an established presence for certain TLDs (e.g., .shop); this presence will lead competitors to other TLDs, thereby avoiding collisions in the name space.
C. Bradley Thornton (Pacific Root): “TLDA Position Paper”
1. User should have choice in the event of collision in the name space. Plug-in technologies allow user to determine outcome of collision.
• Younger: What is your community doing to address collisions in the name space? - Thornton: browser plug-ins; still no solution for SMTP-level collisions;
D. Registrar’s Constituency: not present.
E. Peter de Blanc, ccTLD Constituency.
• Internet security. Report forthcoming.
• Internationalized Domain Names.
• CCSO - IP constituency - ISPs - ICANN staff - Noncommercial constituencies
F. Younger – we need to move ahead with at large membership.
G. Dierker – What is the mechanism for approving a GA resolution?
1. Younger – motion of GA has been received by the Board and we are awaiting comments.
H. Younger. Meeting Adjourned.
For additional technical information, please contact:
Ben Edelman and Rebecca Nesson