Domain Name Handbook


Contents | Special Features | News | Order | Glossary | Opinions | Acknowledgments | Contacts


AUGUST 25, 1999
Notes by Ellen Rony, who is not responsible for misspelled words and names or other inaccuracies.
These notes were made by remote participation using the Real Audio connection
generously supplied by the
Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School

11:30 Santiago time - Wednesday 8.25.99   Discussion is currently dealing with DNSO and acceptance of the constituencies.   Staff (Andrew McLaughlin) proposes: if one of the constituenjcies wants to extend its time to organize itself (not his words) the board should go ahead and accept the provisional NC and formed, with the current six.   Randy Bush: How to resolve exclusivity of participation, i.e., eligibility for more than one constituency. "I personally qaualify for about five of them, but would prefer to be on none."   Jonathan Cohen: Would it be allowable for a constituency to elect three alternate members to work within the terms of office, to assist, to show up at a meeting when it makes sense for them to, and it would build more talent on the Names Council ready to step in for a subsequent te term?   Spanish speaker: ICANN website is difficult to navigate.   McLaughlin: One of our projects is to make substantial improvements to] the website, which is nothing more than a product of my evolving understanding of Dreamweaver 2. I am confident that we will be able to establish a threaded comments list. we are investigating translating documdents into spanish, Arabic. Until our bylaws are widely available in many languages, we are not properly fulfilling our requirements.   12:04 p.m.   GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION RESOLUTION:   Dennis Jennings: Geographic diversity approach is based on the outcome. By having open and global nomination process and then having open and global election process, then ipso facto, the outcome is representative of the geographic region. It may be appropriate to take a geographic representation view rather than focus on the outcome.   Heltzer, INTA: Clarify resolution on geographic diversity. We held an election in New York; we elected two representatives from one region and a third from another. What if that were to occur again. As a result of the election, this is what happens after nominations debate. Will the ICANN board say, sorry, go back to the drawing board.   Esther: I believe so. Counsel is checking. Unfortunately, the results of your election are not valid according to the bylaws, unless you come up with a reason that is not possible.   Fitzsimmons: There will be a requirement that you have worked hard at diversity. Waivers will not be granted easily. Recognize the speed at which we are moving and need to get the board in place as required to do so by governments. Prove that you have done your homework.   Heltzer: I was referring to the Names Council. Within the intellectual property constituency, you're telling me that we need to go back and elect on geographic diversity.   McLaughlin: Constituencies, unless they have obtained a waiver "ahead of time", will have to adhere to bylaws requirement for geographic diversity.   ?: I'd like to hear from constituencies that feel that passing over qualified members to achieve diversity is an unreasonable outcome.   McLaughlin: We won't retroactively apply this provision. The idea is to apply this progressively. Until your constituency receives final approval, you can have any provisional representation you want.   Dyson: Keep comments brief. We don't want to short shrift next two proposals. The board has strong feelings for having geographic diversity.   Jennings: It would be inappropriate not to have a mechanism for reanalyzing the election that would result in not having the outcome you want. One could see us going around for loops forever.   Dyson: We are suggestion that you build it into your own procedures.   McLaughlin: Include any application for a waiver at the time you apply for final approval of the constituency.   ? - (Spanish speaker) with applause.   Dyson - Instead of having an omnibudsman represent you, we are trying to let you represent yourself.   Swinehart: No reason that geographic diversity cannot be achieved and there should be no exceptions.   Sola - Only one constituency that ......{remainder in Spanish}   Jennings: We have already built into our processes but just wanted to know whether board is looking at outcome or representation,.   Dyson: Outcome   Online: R. Lindsay: It would not be a terrible thing if a constituency had two repre;sentatives if they could not find geographic representation.   McLaughlin: If you are looking for a waiver, find me earlier rather than later. /we haven't done this yet, so we need to look at it sooner in the process.   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ EXCLUSION PROVISION:   Randy Bush: NCDNH proposes anyone can be a member but if you are in another constituency, you can't be a voting member.   McLaughlin: Points out a vagueness in bylaws. Reads "no individual shall be excluded in a constituency merely because of participation in another constituency." Each can define its own membership. Should be okay to participate in both if they have overlapping criteria. That was original ICANN thought of how they can compliment each other. But there are some organizations that should be required to make the choice of whether they are commercial or non-commercial.   Bush: We are suggesting that you decide where you vote. You can only vote in one but can visit others.   Dyson: This is a complicated topic. We might ask staff how to feel we should deal with this, should talk to NCDNH constituency.   McLaughlin: Joe advises me that this is an issue for the bylaws. Requires a bylaws amendment.   Kleiman: Trying to bring in organizations that haven't been part of our framework before. If we allow the field to be monopolized by people who have been players, there won't be room for the others.   Sola: In business constituency, we recognize are two types of constituencies. There are companies that work for the Internet and there are users. We have not excluded people from other constituencies. We are trying to have companies that develop business on the Internet. For Non-commercial, same thing. It doesn't have to exclude others.   Amadeu: More and more constituencies try to restrict entry. I urge vote not to change bylaws. Should be open to all those qualifying.   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++   NON-COMMERCIAL DOMAIN NAME HOLDERS CONSTITUENCY 12:30 p.m.     Dyson - Fortunately, doesn't seem to be controversial.   ? (Spanish) a long presentation followed by applause.   Christopher Wilkinson: Member of the GAC. I was responsible of the original text of this constituency. It is an important sector. I am speaking for the importance of outreach. Aiming toward the whole spectrum of information , local authorities, academic and educational sector. They don';t have lots of time and money to cover their interests. (applause)   Dyson: Any objections to this constituency.   Andrew Shapiro, Markle Foundation: Recommends approval of NCDNH. Our aim is to broaden the involvement of the .ORGs and .EDUs in this constituency. We like to get input of international players here to expand participation of NCDNH in this constituency.   Dyson - Any questions from board about this proposal?   {None given}   Joop T: With regards to outreach, so far individuals will have great trouble funding outreach programs. Our press coverage achieved on and off line due to rejections have been the best outreach. Must thank Esther for her last rejection letter, which is helping us receive wider global outreach. One of the reason the board did not want to receive IDNO constituency, there were concerns that we did not adequately represent individual. I must ask board to clarify where this originated. Is this in our charter or in our procedures of open discussion or of new members voicing their concerns. This has not been asked of the other constituencies, e.g., business constituency does not represent the world's business interest. Board, please clarify.   Dyson: I've given our reasons.   Hans: At the start of the forming constituencies, we have to define the representatives as either commercial or non-commercial. We still have the question of would we like to see individual domain name holders. For me, there is a formal reason, not to discuss at this time, which is judicial. We have agreed to go on in a provisional DNSO, after the final DNSO, the process is open to new constituencies and IDNO would be first on the list for consideration at that time.   Joop T: There is a disadvantage in postponing the decision because then the people who join will be angry. I would rather have balanced membership. We also would like to get feedback from on board on additional changes they would like on our charter. We have very straight-forward membership criteria. If you show ownership, color of title to domain name, ;you can be a member. key is you are not an organization.   Dyson: One of the big problems of IDNO is actually getting large membership. It would be better to put all the firepower behind one outreach project, which we hope to get funding for. "120 members is a small number in the grand scheme of things."   Joop: I don't think it will stay there. Our outreach hasn't started. People have found me and agreed there were very specific individual concerns. At large members of ICANN must be individuals that have different concerns from domain name holders. There will be Internet users, dealing with ISPs, Telcos. have concerns with intellectual property issues, Domain name holders contracts, etc.   Dyson: AT large membership is not about bandwidth, dealing with ISPs.   Online comments: (darn--interrupted here at home, sorry)   Mikki Berry: Mikki Barry (DNRC) Given that individuals are the single largest group of Internet users, it is remarkable that substantive issues that speak directly to the rights of domain name holders are being resolved with neither individuals, nor non commercial organizational users being represented. The very idea that the individual constituency is being questioned sends a very strong message to the general public that they are "not welcomed" at the ICANN table.   ? - Can we publicly hear other board members views on petition of this constituency?   Jim Higgins, NZ - Strongly supports this petition.   Fitzsimmons - It is difficult to say no at any particular time, especially this early in the process. Feel confident that {individual} voices will be heard in the short term.   Crew - Board wanted initially recognized constituencies before going on with new ones. Question of Esther, At large membership, where is that coming from. I have to take note of that comment as well.   Dyson - Not to see it established but to see it CONSIDERED to be established. Second point that we should form a committee to consider new constituencies, but I'm not sure that is necessary if we consider them slowly as they come up.   ? - We are still in middle of organizing efforts in At Large and DNSO and would be comfortable to see it come back in November.   Online (Schaeffer): Got involved because trademark owner launched dispute challenge for my son's domain name. Cast him as a cybersquatter.   Froomkin: Other constituencies have small numbers. This concern is met through representation through trade associations, e.g., EFF.   Dyson: Those concerns would be met by NCDNH   Siegfried: If you look at numbers, at large membership is for individuals, will have 9 people on the board. Can't understand that someone says individuals aren't represented. Fear we will having as many constituencies as persons.   Dyson: Kind of like having millions (?) of TLDs.   Eileen Kent, individual DNHO. I support Joop;s proposition. At large is not a constituency. Board members not chosen by peers but by another body. There is a momentum here to consider individual domain name holders.   ?   Dyson: It seems that the sense of the board is to defer this proposal at least until Los Angeles.   Break for lunch. 1:07 p.m.

The Domain Name Handbook: High Stakes and Strategies in Cyberspace
Copyright© 1998 Ellen Rony and Peter Rony

Website created and maintained by Ellen Rony - Alexander Works, Tiburon, CA