[ncdnhc-discuss] draft Montevideo meeting notes
Chris Chiu
CCHIU at aclu.org
Mon Sep 24 16:45:03 CEST 2001
-----------------------------------------------
Draft Non Commercial Constituency meeting notes
(Sept. 7, 2001)
-----------------------------------------------
Discussion with Paul Kane (DNSO candidate for ICANN Board)
-works for UK software company
-products used to empower ICANN-accredited registrars
-has been in the computer networking business for 14 years, especially small
companies
-one such company is Japanese and employs 48 people
-another company employs 3 people
-was Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) Names Council (NC) member
-DNSO only becoming effective more recently
-used to be top-down
-Board didn't act as trustee
-constituencies have bigger role to play
-Eung Hwi Chun: do you have any comments to At-Large Study Committee (ALSC)
report?
-Kane:
-draft report
-subject to analysis and review
-constituencies should review report
-proposal to create 6 regions instead of 5 is a "significant
deviation"
-thus, in a given region, some countries may be predominantly
Muslim, others not
-should send comments to ICANN, not question candidate
-it would be "wrong of me to have" an opinion on an underdeveloped
report
-Donald Telage (Verisign):
-encouraging to hear your words about consensus
-I was away for 1 year
-few seem to have inkling on how ICANN works
-are you on written record on this position?
-need to educate staff, Board and NC that this is the way process
should be done
-Kane:
-my position is in writing
-in 1995, tried to further competition
-consulted with Jon Postel (along with Donald Telage)
-people must be aware of political implications
-have more outreach
-big goals ahead
-ICANN staff "have done a very good job so far"
-however, no real vision
-5 lawyers on staff
-still need business plan
-YJ Park:
-wants to add to Don's comments
-ICANN not supposed to make policies
-dangerous for ICANN to touch such matters
-what's your word on this?
-Kane
-ICANN still in its early days
-need to be efficient in small task
-concern over function creep
-if community wants regulation, ICANN should be encouraged to do it
-problem: community not very effective in conveying ideas
-look for benchmark
-check raison detre
-Milton Mueller-what's the difference between you and fellow candidate
Amadeu Abril I Abril?
-Kane:
-I'm not a lawyer
-significant number of lawyers already in the organization
-Chris Chiu
-Some wonder whether there will ever be more top-level domains
(beyond the 7 approved in Nov. 2000)
-what is your position on this?
-Kane:
-I drafted resolution in NC on new TLDs
-resolution was not adopted by ICANN community
-need to have peer review
-focus on desirable ones
-if it's a TLD, check "technical competency"
-check on stability-make sure it will work
-need some screening process
-frustrated with speed of process
-also frustrated with claims made
-received 14 applications for back-end support
-feared conflicts of interest, so he and his company
withheld support
-in Sept. 2000, received a request for support for .one
-would have communicated with many items, such as
-car
-burglar alarm
-"whacko idea"
-many devices to be installed with Ford
-concerns with ICANN and ITU
-ICANN then issued "learned" report with "questionable"
input and no peer review
-felt disenfranchised
-on rollout of TLDs, by "end of next year"
-solicit bids
-let Task Force sift through these bids
-should be more TLDs
-current TLDs should be rolled out
-frustrating to wait for 7 contracts
-start on next phase
NCC in the DNSO
-Milton:
-still big issue with fees
-NCC may still lose vote within DNSO
-I sent message
-essentially said, "We're not deadbeats."
-got positive responses from some (e.g. Marilyn Cade of
AT&T)
-country code TLDs not happy
-Milton: constituency structure to be restructured based on approved ALSC
report
-Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales: expenses are piling up
-Milton: we are voting on membership dues structure online-vote for it!
DNSO review report-Milton
-DNSO review has been a drawn-out, somewhat complicated process
-big issues
-individuals' constituency
-working groups
-language translation
-Phil Sheppard and intellectual property constituency representative
involved
-questions:
-is new IDNO duplicate?
-resolution will pass, but questions remain
-entire process may take another year more
UDRP review Task Force on terms of reference-Milton
-Caroline Ciccoine (from Intellectual Property constituency) is the chair
-fair minded
-but I was the only person to give her feedback
-she unilaterally made me code chair
-Phil Sheppard objected
-brought in more members more views
-most members (14) of the Task Force are from North America (they were given
to us)
-experts were more diverse (chosen by co-chairs)
-issue: do we feel geographic representation more important than issue
representation
-could lead to more delays (months)
-Vany: when is the deadline for this review
-Milton: Nov. 2001 annual meeting
-YJ: prefer geographical diversity, but how do other members feel?
-Milton:
-DNSO doesn't want open working groups any more
-now, there are representation problems
-open working groups would help, but there is a practicality problem
-Vany: however, document that results from this process would come from 1
type of expertise
-right now, public can comment
-solution: begin work, but allow extra week for constituencies to
send more people
-Milton: we are already 2-3 weeks behind schedule
-problems: politics between constituencies
-doesn't care about where people come from (e.g. Professor Froomkin)
-Vany: what about Free Trade Americas Agreement-UDRP situation
-will happen in 2004
-Latin American countries must adopt UDRP
-YJ: solicit views from each region
-do we prefer European with expertise, who might be better able to
protect our interests
-or do we prefer person with less expertise
-Milton: could allow 2 more weeks to add people
-YJ: ask people here who are attending the conference
-Milton: the microphone is open
-YJ: many people will not step up to the microphone
-Milton: YJ, you're responsible for collecting input
-YJ: what do the Asians here feel about this issue
-Eung: what about China?
-YJ: how to phrase question?
-Milton: that's a problem.
-what about Froomkin?
-YJ: don't make question so personal
-Beng Seng Chan: forced questions
-it's not an either/or matter!
-YJ: to put it another way, would you take it as a good argument that a
person who does not have technical expertise is not qualified?
-Milton: I don't understand
-Gilbert Lumantao: working group issue?
-Milton: it's not a working group
-Gilbert: then it's not an either/or matter
-don't have many problems with expertise
-important that they be representative of region to be effective
-Milton: it's an ICANN internal matter
-concern: "brass knuckle" confrontation against powerful
intellectual property lawyers
-we're only constituency that is scrutinized in terms of
geographical responsibility
-e.g. Froomkin
-Vany: we have Latin American lawyers who are skilled
-Milton: skilled in ICANN matters?
-Vany: no, but skilled in Latin American law
-Milton: ICANN does not just involve Latin American law
-Vany: precisely
-need representatives from other regions
-Froomkin is not an expert on Latin American law
-Theresa Swinehart at least understands other
nations' laws
-Manon Ress:
-UDRP not a way to harmonize trademark laws
-concerned more on views rather than expertise
-supports Froomkin: he can fight for all of us
-Milton: we can add more people to the UDRP review effort
-YJ: misunderstanding
-I agree with Froomkin
-problem: this geographical issue will persist as other task forces
are created
-need principles
-Milton: promote open working groups
-Chiu and Manon agree with this idea
-YJ: I've been fighting over this, but have received no support from
the Names Council
-Chiu and Manon: worth asking for anyway
-Milton: will again ask
-don't object to adding more people
-in other words, adding more people doesn't mean we have to
subtract others from this effort
Whois study report: YJ
-have received about 3000 responses to Whois survey
-responses were sent to ICANN staff
-task force members have no access to this raw data
-hopefully, task force will be able to access this information by
end of Sept. 2001
-report to be presented by March 2002 or even July 2002
-Milton: never got response from ICANN staff about this
-YJ: we didn't get any messages either!
-Eung: why no access?
-YJ: unclear; indeed, better to have direct access to data
-Eung: is such access fundamentally impossible? If not, why no response?
-YJ: don't know!
-fears being used
-Paul Kane is writing the report
-Eung: we should ask Paul Kane about this
New TLD evaluation Task Force
-kicked up with support of ICANN President M. Stuart Lynn
-develop list of questions
-had committee meeting yesterday
-9 questions developed, but didn't cover legal or policy matters
-need to develop time schedule
-2 weeks after Montevideo meetings, there will be another session to discuss
-fiscal issues
-legal/policy issues
-representative from Intellectual Property Constituency said if not report
is issued, who will take responsibility
-multilingual issues will not be simple issue
-also sponsored vs. unsponsored TLD issues
-Milton: why are they dealing with multilingual domain name issues at all?
-YJ: different TLD issues were combined
-YJ: this process may take another 3-4 years
.org report-Milton
-I'm chair of this task force
-American groups mostly on board
-.org should be delegated to a non-profit organization
-reliable
-low cost
-unrestricted
-don't throw out current .org domain name holders unless UDRP
violation
-comply with ICANN regulations
-business and intellectual property constituencies initially were against
our stances on .org restrictions
-business groups soon pulled back
-intellectual property groups have now been convinced on leaving out
restrictions
-difficult to come up with global definition for global non-
commercial organization
-example: what if a business puts computers in
schools
-other examples come from public/private initiatives
-difficult to monitor registrants
-last night's discussion
-.org=unsponsored TLD
-Cary Karp mentioned marketing issues
-spoke out about reluctance to enforce restrictions
-intellectual property groups now feel better
-better, clearer definition of what .org should be
-don't need to worry about defensive registrations
-consider: Coke.org is owned by Coca-Cola company
-if Coke.org is released and registered by
protestors, what then?
-intellectual property representative: defensive
restrictions should be retained
-big problem if only non-commercial groups are allowed in.org:
legacy registrations
-possibly evict thousands for registrants
-might undermine support in ICANN
-Telage: pre-screening registrants would raise costs by a factor of 10
-need good legal standing in particular region on this
-would make cost and management situation untenable
-Norbert Klein: that's "very obvious"
-Milton:
-Washington D.C. public interest groups are not bidding on .org
-this despite of possible US $5 million payment from ICANN
-US $6 million stream of revenue also likely
-one organization in the United States is interested in making a bid, but
there is concern over support
-Vany: will .org committee suggest specific bidders?
-Milton: no
-wait for bids first
-only supposed to determine policy
-Alejandro Pisanty: next move will come from Names Council?
-Milton: yes
-Rob Courtney: the 2 processes that are going on here are important
-one other track is important: what criteria are in place for a
specific bidder?
-encourage development of such principles, which may occur by early
2002
-Milton: consider model of Internet Society of New Zealand
-members elect council
-funding from registry operation
ccTLD proposal for ccSO
-Eung: concern over financial support via ccTLD to ICANN
-ccTLD concern: no representation
-part of bigger issue: ICANN restructuring
-especially At-Large directors
-will 6 directors be given ccSO?
-possible conflict with aspirations of At-Large members
-Milton: nicely put
-talked with Peter Dengate-Thrush
-possible ICANN Board structure compromise:
-6 At-Large Directors
-3 DNSO Directors
-3 ccSO Directors
-1 Protocol Supporting Organization Director
-1 Address Supporting Organization Director
-adopt this arrangement quickly?
-could be changed later
-compromise could be seen as a net gain for At-Large members
-Andy Duff (New.net)-earlier meeting report
-see if other organizations feed into At-Large
-outreach via ccTLDs
-however, questions over whether ccTLDs can handle protocol
issue
-to be "brutally realistic," ccTLDs want more direct input on the
Board
-Chiu: hesitant to adopt quick arrangement with only small number of
publicly elected officials
-arrangement may become permanent!
-we may not get another opportunity for input
-Milton: also, ccSOs not necessarily democratic
-4 ccSO seats-can't support it
-such seats cannot be considered equivalent to At-Large seats
-why do ccTLDs deserve more seats than the other SOs?
-what do we think of this?
-Chiu: you mean our opinions about just the ccSO idea?
-Milton: could link these ideas together
-Alejandro: I'm still very open minded at this point
-ccTLDs are a mixed lot
-some independent of government
-some willingly dependent on government
-Telage: I was also in ccTLD meeting
-has ccTLD given financial support?
-ccTLDs are demanding extra representation
-key: remember ICANN's charter
-bottom up process
-Board to review process
-seek greatest good
-take least damage
-ICANN is an evolutionary organization
-the Internet won't fall apart if ICANN doesn't meet
-Milton: I see things differently
-Telage: read by-laws again
-Milton:
-not a realistic foundation
-ICANN is a political body
-allocates resources
-always a voting process
-non-commercial interests always outvoted
-impolite to say representation is not important
-people fight and compete over these issues
-we have to worry about representation; otherwise we just get
bypassed
-no strong feelings on ccSO
-Vany: I have more general opinion
-don't make soup with apples and oranges
-ccSO may not fit within ICANN
-don't fit in technical part of domain name issue
-Eung: fears interference of gov't
-less than legitimate reasons for ccSO push
-expansion of ccTLD into ccSO cannot be resolved properly with
At-Large members
-last year's At-Large elections were important for ccTLDs
-need at least 50% board members to be publicly elected
-Vany:
-I'm not necessarily against a new SO
-concerned whether ccTLD fits current sector
Resolution on At-Large Board members
-Milton: we will meet with Carl Bildt (chairman of ALSC) at 1 p.m. today
-Chiu: whatever decision is made, we should have at least half of the ICANN
Board publicly elected
-Milton: agrees
-6 At-Large Board members may happen
-but don't jeopardize Half Principle
-Y.J.: agrees; have personal reaction
-Chiu: proposed NCC resolution speaks to this point
-has been amended to state "publicly elected At-Large Board Members"
-Milton: defer voting on this resolution until after hearing from Carl
Bildt?
-Milton's motion passes
-Alan Davidson and Adam Peake: we did NAIS study on At-Large, will explain
more after Bildt meeting
Discussion with Carl Bildt/ALSC
-appointed by ICANN
-Clean Sheet study
-thoroughly looked at all options
-public input is important-helps acceptance
-some philosophical differences from past
-previously looked at public/private segments
-now, don't see such a difference
-not impressed by these arguments
-ended up with each group getting roughly 1/3 of the Board
-ensure ongoing debate
-not feasible to only have online system
-significant, even "fatal" problems
-also, cost issue
-use domain name holdership
-clearly shows stake in domain name system
-invite comments
-Milton: division of world into providers and developers doesn't make sense
-Carl: it does
-some provide domain name space
-other use domain system
-there is overlap
-but still best way of looking at it
-Milton: I have a different view of ICANN-it is a policy making organization
-Carl: ICANN is an agglomeration
-SOs are technical
-IETF also works on it
-have to clearly develop technical aspects of domain names
-still need to define
-Milton: consider history
-technical community has tried to prevent democratization
-sees ALSC proposal as attempt to reduce public role
-Carl: development of 9-9 balance of At-Large and non-At-Large Board members
as an "interesting exercise" that "did not impress me"
-YJ: ICANN Board resolutions often don't deal with technical issues
-specific concerns already mentioned
-"unbalanced" situation with SOs
-Carl: developed structures like SOs not really looked at
-e.g. IPv6-some public policy impact
-need link to wider public process
-fear carrying off of issues by certain parties (e.g. ITU)
-this is just my "personal reflection" on this issue
-Question: should 50% of ICANN's Board be publicly elected?
-Carl: no
-Question: why not?
-Carl: we didn't phrase the question like this
-we don't believe in 9-9 ideas of global democracy
-such ideas are "dangerous"
-Internet is important infrastructure for the world
-fears government takeover
-fears folding ICANN into United Nations or ITU
-ICANN started in United States political system
-Milton: government takeover of ICANN? Such arguments aren't convincing
-if just domain name holders can vote, what happens with
corporations that don't let certain domain name holders vote?
-e.g. shareholders
-concern over accountability
-Carl: need logical point of view
-don't focus on democracy
-ICANN is a technical organization, not a democracy
-when arguing for At-Large, not so much for representation
-merely a check-and-balance
-logical coherence suggests we should have 100% of the ICANN Board
publicly elected
-Pindar Wong (ALSC): what if we don't achieve balance
-e.g. ccSO
-what should be 50/50?
-what about gender equality?
-Milton: we never talked about gender balance
-many of us willing to make 50/50 compromise
-what is domain name system about?
-gerrymandered constituencies
-we've been "brutalized" by this
-now carving up indistinguishable groups
-developers and providers given 2 groups and 2/3 of ICANN
Board votes
-why don't you trust stakeholders to make the right decisions?
-Carl: risk of capture
-prefer situation where ICANN can still operate even in worst case
capture situations
-Pindar: election every 3 years
-study technology that could help
-currently don't see such a system that could work
-comment: fail safe is not the issue
-larger issue: half of Board member publicly elected
-capture can be done with any system
-Carl: one of the lessons we have learned is interest in stability
-governance of ICANN to create stability
-capture problem
-more diverse=more difficult to capture
-don't leave this problem to technology to solve
-Karl Auerbach's view represents only that of a distinct minority
-prefer large At-Large Support Organization
-Pindar: interesting to have clean sheet approach
-open question whether mailing lists have been captured
-Carl: mailing list is an example of capture
-comment: if you want to ensure informed participation
-no input? Then difficult to encourage participation
-issue is representation, not balance
-Pindar: perhaps. I disagree
-cannot force people to participate
-can make it easier to participate
-At-Large SO
-~top-down approach, but try to avoid this problem
-Milton: users/developers grouping is improvement from DNSO
-is there an equivalent to the General Assembly in the new ALSC
approach?
-Carl: no, but there's supposed to be
-election to regional committee
-participation
-need some preparation next year
-hold election less than a year from now
-Milton: timetable?
-Carl:
-"Consensus is an ICANN word."
-final ALSC report before November 2001
-Board takes position
-some technical issues still need to be worked out by March
-election by August/September 2002
-new Board a year from now
-3 years from next year, review
-check new technology
NAIS Study-Alan Davidson
-email and web access with postal return is a very fair system
-rejected domain name holdership as a voting prerequisite
-commercial interests dominate
-do domain name warehouses, AT&T or cybersquatters get votes? Big
problem
-no membership fee
-such fees are not fair
-tough on developing countries
-no provisions for sliding scale
-endorse At-Large membership structure with regional
-SOs are not equivalent to At-Large
-need half of the ICANN Board to be publicly elected
-2/3 of board needed to make Bylaw changes
-could be done entirely by non-publicly elected Board members under
ALSC plan
-need to limit ICANN mission creep
-Adam Peake: need equality on Board
-if you look at history (e.g. White Paper), there is a strong
pattern for industry organization, which switched towards user
representation
-fear of ICANN becoming a monopoly
-social methods to define or refine membership
-idea: join ICANN to make it better
-to avoid postal hassle, could pay voluntary fee
-At-Large legitimizes ICANN
-Milton: "6-6-6 is evil and go postal."
-Alan Davidson: "Bildt committee doing a very good job in explaining
everything."
-however, support our ideas
Vote on resolution regarding At-Large Board structure
-resolution passes
-22 for
-1 oppose
Resolution on Non-commercial SO-YJ
-resolution has been tentatively withdrawn (tabled) for further
consideration and possible resubmission
Resolution on trademarks and new Top-Level domains-Chiu
-Milton: don't know if ICANN will listen
-Chiu:
-avoid expansion of trademark law
-fears further imposition of fees (e.g. US $50 000 proposal fee)
-Eung
-agree
-fears private corporate interests will impose more intellectual
property rules
-Milton: e.g. Network Solutions dispute policy
-suspend domain name
-most applications for new top-level domains had sunrise provisions
-resolution should be complemented with additional language
-resolution passes
-18 for
-1 oppose
-2 abstain
------------------------------------------
APPENDIX: resolutions approved by attendees at Montevideo NCC meeting
1. Non-Commercial Constituency Resolution
on At-Large Study Committee proposals
Montevideo- September 7, 2001
Whereas:
The existence of nine publicly elected At-Large Directors on the Board of
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a
fundamental element of ICANN's structural balance, and a valuable avenue for
input from a wide range of stakeholders in ICANN's decisions; and
Various proposals being considered by the ICANN At-Large Study Committee may
alter or even eliminate the guarantee of nine At-Large Directors and ICANN
public elections,
Resolved,
ICANN should ensure that at least 50% of its At-Large Board seats are
publicly elected, non-ex-officio.
2. Non-Commercial Constituency Resolution
on Intellectual Property and New Top-Level Domains
Montevideo- September 7, 2000
Whereas:
ICANN does not have the Authority to regulate intellectual property rights,
and has neither the mandate nor the expertise to do so;
Past attempts to impose intellectual property-based restrictions (both
through advance trademark claims within new TLDs and the Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy) have contributed to corporate domination of the
domain space at the expense of private Internet users and non-profit groups;
and
These problems have been exacerbated by ICANN's approval of only 7 new TLDs
to date;
Resolved:
ICANN should not introduce any further restrictions on the registration of
new TLDs based on their connection with trademarks; and
ICANN should approve all new Top-Level Domain applications that can meet
fair and reasonable technical criteria.
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list