Barcelona Consultative Meeting on the Formation of the DNSO - Meeting Notes
Day one, 1620
Scribe: Kent Crispin

Amadeu: Welcome

Introductory remarks by (Jordi Masias from Cambra de Comerç (president not
able to attend)

Amadeu: Hotel arrangements etc, time, dinner, materials, facilities.
This building seat of the Consolat del mar (Sea Consulate), one of the places
were the "lex mercatoria" was born. They wrote the "Llibre del Consolat del
Mar", sea laws book for 400 years written by trade association with very
little power.  
Let's not list solutions, but list concerns instead.  Intro for David. 

David Maher: Reading from "scripture" -- the ICANN bylaws.  Review of section
VI 3b.  Proposal tracks the 6 bullets.  Proposal not complete; just a
framework.  There will be only one dnso, so it is to advantage of everyone to
get involved in its formation. 


  Bylaws dictate openness.  Membership of dnso could be very large,
  therefore must be executive committee ("governing committee"), but
  with policy subject to ratification by whole organization. 

  Names council: intended to be open to anyone in the world; function
  is to make recommendation.  Not a governing body. 

  The ICANN directors elected by dnso.  issue of geographic
  constraint, not detailed in draft application. 

  money: ICANN board shall sets fees and charges to established at
  time of recognization by ICANN.  Therefore, application must have a
  mechanism for raising money for ICANN. 


Bill Semich: funding could be from charging of fees by ICANN?  Could there be
alternate mechanisms?
David: didn't think so
[brief discussion]

Session: ccTLD perspective

Kilnam Chon:  Intro to ccTLD

regional TLD groups:

  - aftld africa >15
  - aptld asia pacific >=36
  - centr europe-me-africa >=45
  - lactld latin america >=15
  - natld north american =2

  130 cctlds out of 235 total


  alliance of 5 regional tld groups
    - annual joint meeting
    - mailing lists and web sites
    - secretariat works by regional groups

  - any ccTLD can join any regional tld group
  - each regional tld group has its own objectives and scope
  - most cctlds operations are non-profit or cost-recovery basis
  - 20-30% of cctlds operate like .com/.net/.org, 
    ie sell names internationally
  - larger character sets big deal; secure dns is small deal 

Bernard Turcotte:  (one of co-chairs of wwTLD)

  - ccTLDs still organizing (conference call this morning, meeting this       
  - almost all tlds are ccTLDS  
  - need to protect existing registrant
  - seek "appropriate representation and involvement" -- 
    will not accept marginalization
  - not intending to be DNSO 
  - "this is *one* of the fora"
  - an issue of soveriegnity
  - scripture is not interpreted the same way

Q. Francesco Marconi:  cctld position on intellectual property? (trademark)
A. Bernard: not a uniform policy; if you are acting as an international tld, 
you are under different contstraints

amadeu:  point of order: should not get too much into policy

Q. Jay :  what's this about only tlds in the root being real?
A. Bernard: I really didn't mean it.



Amadeu: intro next section

Christopher Wilkinson:  Thanks to the organizers

  Public policy inputs into this process

  - the internet functions within existing rights and obligations --
  the law and governement
  - public policy -- the unreached people are important, and public
  policy must address
  - European point of view: management of internet must be global,
  private self-regulation is good, but must be withing a framework
  allowing international participation
  - trademark law and competition law must continue to apply in an
  appropriate manner Europe always gives strong support to WIPO
  - internet ways to go before becomes fully multilingual
  - transparency is necessary for taxes, consumer protections etc
  - acknowledged US contribution
  - hope next week us ec and others announce and endorse the new org.
  - we are here to put together an application.  other so's business
  as usual, dnso is a creative leap. 
  - three observations:
    a) very little sympathy if we merely recycle the old debates 
    b) although there are serious policy questions, many of these
    issues are almost incomprehensible to the average bureaucrats,
    need to be clear otherwise you may not get a sympathetic ear
    c) further serious delay would be "undignified"
  - wide range of possible solutions, it is necessary to chose a
  framework -- it can be modified later
  - industry self-governance is supposed to be more efficient than
  government, not proven so far

Jordi Masias from European Chambers of Commerce (Eurochambres): represent
14,000,000 companies; international level; most members not set up for
ecommerce, but is exploring the issues; promotion of internet; importance of
businesses being able to get domain names

Carles Prat (MARQUES): Marques has monitored the dns/trademark issue
for a while. Need to avoid conflicts between tm and domain names.
  1) problems with ICANN board -- lack of people involved in tm
  2) interested in participating in dnso perhaps as a subcommittee
  3) process is important and want to continue involvement from beginning

Amadeu: clear interest by tm interests compels them to participate, but have
specific issues, not everything -- implies subcommittees, advisory bodies for
specific issues in the dnso

Q. Bill Semich: Is MARQUES going to officially support this meeting?
A. will be involved, but not decided on formal support.

Q. Marcel: easy to say to avoid conflicts.  searching domain names is easy -
are there plans to have an easily searchable database for trademarks?

-- next session

amadeu: intro

Ken Stubbs (CORE): 84 companies, 23 countries, 

explosive growth of internet over the past 5 years 35,000,000$ worth
in 1995; expect 1-2 trillion dollars. 

  - things are subsidized heavily
  - almost all support for growth of internet is coming from commercial use
  - lack of good domain names is constraining growth of business
  - concerned about delays as a businessman; delays by perfectionist --
    don't make the "best the enemy of the good"
  - need to impose some burden of trust on Board

Q.  Bill Semich: appreciate your concern, OTOH maybe names aren't in as short
a supply as you say, especially outside US. 
A: 1) more names from outside us  in NSI domains last 6 months
   2) growth in .nom thousands of requests from pacific rim family names

Glenn K:  slds, not tlds

jonathan robinson: must move forward quickly because other directory systems
are competing within any cc area there is equal demand for generic names (ie
cc_demand/gtld_demand is constant per cc area)

Jay : representing private free market registry .per, and ORSC

ORSC composed of prospective registries and some old-timers (steff and brian reide)

ORSC priorities:
  - need to get moving
  - segment for policy questions: forprofit/non-profit; gtld/cctld
  - gtld expansion 60 million -> 1000 million, expansion must occur
  - taxes(fees) 
  - trademark issues

ORSC Concerns:
  - DNSO mtg organized from a particular point of view (POC).  Happy
    to report it doesn't seem to be a problem
  - prospective registries not included
  - representation will be unbalanced between cctlds -- gtld's few
    now, number will grow
  - cctlds may specify rules that won't apply (capture control)
  - protection of minority interests

Glenn K: quick action is a good thing, but openness for evolution is very
important -- things change

Q. Bill Semich: what does "capture" mean?

A. Jay: eg: there are 230 ccTLDs; they could "capture" the dnso if they were
given 230 votes, and other organizations were given 1 each. 

Ken Stubbs: need to embrace responsible perspectives -- avoid "fait acompli";
shoved down peoples throats

Q.  Marcel: be careful not to make fools out ourselves -- fenello.per only
works for one fenello family. 
A. Jay: make the pie bigger

Ken: first come first serve is an issue -- argument for more domain names.

amadeu: transparency of this process -- is Jay ok with this?
Jay: OK

Telecom interests:  Neil Gibbs, and Olivier Muron

Neil: European public Telephone Network Organizations (ETNO) much wider than
just EU.  Number of "former monopolies" 44 companies, 33 countries; these
companies are all major ISPs. 

ETNO position on dnso: 
  1) fair geographic balance 
  2) registries shared resource 
  3) registrars should be competitive 
  4) tm interests must be respected

Olivier: France Telecom: an old company transforming itself into a "net
company" an ISP under the "nice name" 400000 subscribers by end of year. 
backbone services; 2/3 ofa french IP backbone traffic (work for lots of ISPs);
number of other services; relationships with other ISPs are very complex. 

  - very concerned about names and protocols
  - consensus was easy in europe


  - appropriate application of international law ICANN must be
  insulated from us law 
  - geographic balance of board -- this applies even more to dnso but
  ICANN proposal is a reasonable way to start.  ECPoP will speak on
  the dnso. 

Q. Bill Semich:  Are some of the telecoms involved in CORE as well
A. Amadeu: European telcos within CORE are:
        -Telia, PTT Telecom, Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom
        Plus some who are membrs thorugh subsidiaries:  Telefonica/Interdomain,
Telecom Italia/Saritel and      Retevision/RedesTB
        - Some telcos outisde Europe are also members

Amadeu:  comments on agenda?  structure, finance etc.

Henning: Deutsche Telecom: thanks.  Role of names council should
be clarified

Bernard: need to clarify structure.  spend time identifying issues the dnso
will address. 

amadeu: your assignment, should you chose to accept it, is to come up
with a list

Bernard: OK

Nii: clarification geographic regions defintions need to be reconciled

Amadeu: non-OECD groups are underrepresented

Amadeu: closing remarks, choice of moderator for tomorrow -- suggests
Tadao Takahashi and Nii Quaynor, needs one more...

Scribe: Kent Crispin

Session Chair: Nii Quaynor.

Bernard :what is a dnso for?
        Ie what is the  business        
1) contracts for existing TLDs
2) framework for creating and administering a system of registrars, 
dispute resolution
3) new gTLDs
4) intellectual property questions, dispute resolution
5) funding
6) elect members of the board

Session : Structural issues:
  What is the "names council" vs dnso (diagram on screen; See slide 1).
  Willie B goes to screen and presents: much discussion
  D Kaplan: creating a complex monster -- too much structure
  Ken: paralysis the inevitable result of too many constraints
  Bernard: need a process for adding and deleting constituencies
  Amadeu: need for structure is a fact
                Floor, do various classes exist?
  Jay: agree with Bernard

Representation classes:
  Amadeu: don´t know all possible groups, not practical to find them.
  Bernard: don´t need to settle groups.
    There are three for sure.
    Concentrate on forming rules.
  Willie B: need to get down to earth
    Registries, registrars/isps, trademark, at-large
  Michael S: ISPs a major constituency
  Bernard: need individual users class
  Liman: ISPs very variable
  Ken: should define by function
  Jonathan: ISPs in fact don´t care, function is important
  Bill Semich: need to factor in funding
  Amadeu: how to channel power to excom
    Use functional designation to make that determination
  Roberto: hard to put organizations in boxes, some are registries/registrars
    Three large categories front office,back, and users
  Ken: people being impacted should be included (users)
    Need to allow new groups
  Bernard: about 4 groups
  Marcel: 2 distinct classes    
    Registry; users of registry functions
  Siegfried: ??
  Kent presents his pet scheme: no rigid membership classes -- "class" applies
to excomm members and voting structure
  Jonathan: registries, registrars, trademark
  Javier: three functions
  Willie: registrar really is a separate function
  Michael S: ??

Rough Consensus that registrars, registries, "users" are a class

Jonathan: proposes a fifth class: network providers
Kent: harps on his pet idea: classes are defined by representation in excom
Francesco: 3 major classes dns infrastructure users
Bill Semich: four classes, from the bylaws; prefers fixed constituency model


More on classes:

Javier: wider question - do we agree that we define class by function?

Neil Gibbs: classes for excom, not membership
Willie: need categories for voting, as well
Michael S: separate user/industry

[general discussion free-for-all]

Amadeu proposal:
        15 member board
        Registries: 5 [6]
        Registrars: 2 [3]
        Network connectivity etc: 4
        Commercial users: 3
        Trademark interests: 1
        At large: 3 [2]

[Amadeu later revises his own numbers. He has underrepresented registrars 
seats, as this is the group he represents here. He necourages everyone to
similarly slef-restraint the seats of their own groups.;-) His final numbers
are the ones within brackets]
7 votes for each member

Advisory committee on trademarks is necessary
Advisory committees in general are an important component

Membership criteria possibilities
1) structural criteria
2) pure fee 
3) internet related income

Amadeu prefers #1

Bill Semich: problem with voting procedures

Kent: registries are a trade group, anti-trust concern with them setting their
own policy or having veto power in any group

Daniel Kaplan: need simple rules - structural criteria is not practical
Need broad classes
David M: names council is mandated

Review Appendix A:
[much discussion]
Willie: Section 5 should be rewritten
Daniel: should have individual members of dnso

Consensus: excom should exist!!! 10-20 members, odd number


Session Chair: Tadao Takahashi

Morning summary:
Concentrated on classes, several views
Consensus on classes:
  registries, registrars, connectivity providers, commercial entities, 
  trademark, plus at-large
Consensus on excomm: 10<members_of_excomm<20, odd
Consensus on constituency based rigid structure


Tadao: Quick review of Bylaws

Ken S: There will be administrative costs for the dnso It is incumbent on us
to propose an equitable method of supporting IANA ICANN must be run as a
business; common sense is so necessary for success that we might as well
assume it.

Javier: administrative fees should be paid by all; ICANN fees should come from
domain registrations
Willie:  few revenue sources is better than many revenue sources
Bernard:  ICANN shouldn´t care where the dnso money comes from Dnso should
figure it out
Per Koelle: what is a domain name for charging purposes
David: straightforward to define
Willie: we are rushing ahead, getting to detailed for this stage
Oscar: care is required-don´t want to push ccTLDs to charging or for-profit
models that are inappropriate
Bernard: agree - we are too detailed at this point
Michael S: SOs should decide; favors transaction charge

Javier Proposal:
  - 2 revenue streams
  - money for ICANN comes from domain registrations
  - dnso will set membership fees on its own
  - measures such that the dnso should not be able to hijack the board
  by not paying

amadeu: The following are consensus points?

  - similar members should pay similar amounts
  - should be a membership fee
  - should be transaction fees of some sort

There was general agreement

Ken: must be run on a "going concern" concept. We are  wasting our time in
adversarial things that won´t realistically exist

Willie:  Yes, no fighting please.

Willie proposes:
Split ICANN support strictly in proportion to representation in excom

Michael S: 2 sources of revenue: 1) transaction fees 2) per seat member fees

Tadao: general question about possible sources of revenue

[discussion of transaction charges - diagram]

Tadao: basic member charges? Yes (consensus)
Members pay fees to get representation  (consensus)
At large members pay a fee, but much reduced (consensus)

[vigorous extended debate on transaction cost model]

Budget should come top down (consensus)
Should be some cost related revenue stream (consensus)

Registries expect to pay majority of the domain name 
related costs of ICANN (consensus)

member fees will support internal dnso operations (consensus)

will be cost recovery based (consensus)

There will be membership categories (consensus)
There may be varied charges for different categories (consensus)


We received word just before the evening break that humble, gentle,
shy Dr Jon Postel, friend to many and respected by all, had died. 
After the announcement an impromptu moment of silence was held.


Scribe: Kent Crispin

Session Chair: Fay Howard

Bernard. (representing ccTLD interests) proposed alternate excomm 
allocation to constituencies:

        19 member board
        Registries:  8 (regional integrity) 66% funding
        Registrars:  3  (11% funding)
        Network connectivity etc:  3  (11% funding)
        Commercial users:  2 (11% funding)
        Trademark interests:  0 (ex officio standing committee)
        At large:  3  (users and at large)

[heated discussion followed]

Kent C. later presented a more balanced proposal for contrast:

        19 member board
        Registries: 3 (fund ICANN costs related to dns administration)
        Registrars: 2
        Network connectivity etc: 2
        Commercial users: 2 
        Trademark interests: 2
        At large: 8

Moratorium on heated discussion called.  New Topic: Decision processes

Fay: some issues should fall back from excomm to membership?
Willie: start with a weak excomm, all policy decisions ratified  by 
Glenn: There is some merit to IETF "talk 'til you drop" rough 
    consensus approach
Amadeu: Trust will build with practice
Daniel: matter of minorities wishing veto power over decisions that 
    may affect them negatively [ie avoid tyranny of majority -- kc]
Michael: more on minorities, veto powers, and related issues
Kent: supermajority votes for structural issues [avoid tyranny of minority 
    -- kc] clarity about  decision procedures simplifies  allocation 
Javier: proportional representation in excomm is same as in dnso -- 
    how could a membership vote give a different result than an 
    excomm vote?
Glenn: a membership class may have more influence over "their" area

Limited power for excomm to begin with (consensus)

Up to each constituency to determine themselves mechanisms for consultation by
reps with the constituency within the framework of guidelines to be set by
dnso (consensus)

[That is, a constituency determines the relationship between itself and its
excomm reps, perhaps within guidelines set by the dnso -- kc]

Roberto: how do we do a membership vote, anyway?
Willie: a number of ways to do this
    1) members get a weighted vote (weighted by proportion of rep in excomm)
    2) members get one vote
think of votes as currency, each constituency gets a stake in 
proportion to their seats on the board

Jonathan: Yes weighted voting

Voting weighted by representation on excomm is the mechanism (consensus)

Term of office: 
Agree on proposal as worded (consensus)


Discussion about process.  Mailing list logistics.  Possible lists: (open list) (participants -- those likely to become members, and
others with direct interest) (list for credentials committee that determine who
participants might be) 

Credentials committee a tricky issue

Discussion of follow on.

The DNSO should be formed as quickly as possible -- nobody gains by 
delay, should finish in 1998 (strong consensus)

Follow on -- decided there should be one more meeting; there would be
a secretarial group to produce a draft for discussion on discuss/participants
lists; as much will be done on the lists as possible, there will be a wrap-up meeting.

[Extensive discussion about meeting logistics, several venues (SF, LA,
Vancouver, Mexico, Australia, Hawaii; and times were considered in detail]

Final meeting Nov 14-16 Mexico (Guadalajara/Monterrey) [decided by 
vote on vancouver vs mexico -- clear majority favored Mexico]

Discussion: Should we draft a statement to USG that we need to "maintain 
momentum"? No clear conclusion.

Back to Decision procedures - definition of majority
Glenn: suggests bicameral approach - 1 vote per constituency vs 
proportional vote for some issues

Will defer for list/wrapup

Chairperson of excom is a non-issue (consensus)

Bill S: Roberts rules of order, at least at first (consensus)

Selection of ICANN reps
Bernard: excomm membership vs board membership
Board members are ex officio members of the excomm (consensus)
No a priori restriction on who dnso may select for a board rep (consensus)
[not even necessary that the board member be from the dnso!! -- kc]

Reps recalled by a supermajority of dnso?

Ken: Should be a consistent recall procedure throughout ICANN
Glenn: this would imply a consistent voting procedure, which is unlikely.

Representation on excom should have some mechanism which will meet the
requirements for international and diverse representation specified in
the ICANN bylaws.  (consensus)

Drafting committee: Amadeu, Fay, Michael S., David Maher, Kent, Nii 

Organizing committee: Oscar, Kilnam, Nii, Tadao, Fay,
Javier, Rosa, Jay

Credentials for participants list a very tough problem: Registries,
registrars, ISPs, legally recognized associations, legally recognized
organizations, corporations. 

We will start the participants list, and discuss how to expand it.


Thanks to Amadeu for the stellar job in setting up the meeting.


Bill Semich asked that the following be put in the minutes, copied
from an email from Dr Eberhard Lisse:

    "1) Africa must have at least one representative on the Board of
    the new company, elected by all country TLD administrators of

    2) The current technical RFCs, in particular 1591, must remain the
    basis of the DNS

    3) The DNSO must be formed by all TLD administrators, or at least
    all TLDAs must be full members of the DNSO. 

    4) Only those TLDs that operate on a commercial basis will have to
    contribute financially.  In other words a percentage of revenue,
    but if the TLD chooses not to generate revenue, no penalty must

    5) The new company ust support development of the Internet in
    developing countries, eg assist fledgeling Registries in
    developing countries."

However, none of this was discussed.