March 13, 2001
ICANN Public Meetings
ICANN Board Meeting March 13, 2001 – Melbourne, Australia
I. Cerf: Should begin by discussing resolutions but not officially approving them since audience has not arrived.
II. Reconsideration Committee – Kraaijenbrink
A. Fockler indicated interest in discussing the topic.
B. Enforcement of fee – RC00-6 – http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-6.htm
C. Request to remove staff report – RC00-7 - http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-7.htm - evaluations made public consistent with ICANN’s policy of openness.
1. Cerf: Applicants free to comment?
2. Kraaijenbrink: Public comment forum.
3. Touton: Permanently archived.
4. Auerbach: Corrections to matters of fact should be prominent?
D. McLaughlin: Reconsideration committee looks for errors of fact or of procedure, but in a fairly narrow way. Review of staff or management actions, to give Board direct access to complaints. But not to reevaluate Board decisions made in public, in which case a somewhat narrower standard has been used.
1. Cerf: Need to provide someplace for those who are unhappy to go.
2. Fockler: So there’s a common pattern to the responses to these requests. Could deny each reconsideration request for a general set of reasons, or for request-specific reasons. See test in http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-8.htm . Still think we did the job here. Responses to IOD, Sarnoff forthcoming.
E. Kraaijenbrink: 10-11 pending reconsideration requests.
1. Cerf: Hope to move forward on this.
F. Auerbach: “Reconsider” means “consider again.” Need not be so limited in our reconsideration standards.
1. Cerf: But must not produce a never-ending system. Have to have final closure in these matters.
2. McLaughlin: As Karl says, Reconsideration Committee can make any recommendation it wants. But Reconsideration Committee does not consider itself a “mini-Board” to review all actions of Board. Prefers to focus on procedure and fact.
3. Kraaijenbrink: Reconsideration process is not suited to rearguments on the merits or to evaluating subjective judgements.
4. Cerf: But if new facts come to our attention, can consider those.
5. McLaughlin: Absolutely.
III. Approval of minutes
A. Resolution displayed.
IV. Ad Hoc Group on Numbering and Addressing – Kraaijenbrink
A. Received report from McFadden & Holmes. Should note report and conclude the editorial group’s activities with thanks to participants.
B. Resolution shown.
1. Refer work product to ASO.
2. Declare work of Ad Hoc Group complete.
3. Archive of substantive postings.
4. Thanks to participants.
5. Cerf: Entire Ad Hoc group was unable to comment on document. Language should reflect that.
6. Blokzijl: Little material resulted from WG. Much discussion on mailing list (public comment forum), but not so much substantive.
V. Finance Committee resolutions on budget for At Large Study Committee
A. Wilson: Membership of committee has not yet been ratified. Have a proposal from vice-chair and executive director, but from entire committee.
1. Cerf: The committee may be expanded, but there is a committee.
B. Mueller-Maguhn: Budget first, then structure?
1. Cerf: Yes.
C. Touton: Authorization of funds remains with President. Appropriate?
1. Wilson: Yes.
VI. Proposed Composition on At Large Study Committee
A. McLaughlin: Proposal displayed.
B. Blokzijl: Committee may be biased on the question of “Do we need an at large?”
1. Cerf: Some of these folks worked hard on creation of At Large.
2. Blokzijl: Yes, they’re too biased towards At Large. Some of us on the Board are not convinced that there is a need here.
3. Mueller-Maguhn: “Clean sheet study” was thought to raise exactly this question, whether or not At Large should exist. Should not raise this question again.
4. Blokzijl: The Board made the “clean sheet” decision several meetings ago. Question number one for this committee should be “Do we need At Large?” Read the minutes to see.
5. Cerf: Committee needs an open field. That some participants may be in favor of At Large may be helpful if ultimate recommendation is against an At Large.
6. Auerbach: Of course believe there should be an At Large. Don’t know credentials of participants. Issue is that ICANN may not look credible to public. Need to be sure that report will be accepted by everyone involved. Need participation from At Large in order to have credibility.
7. Cerf: Must decide whether existing proposed membership is acceptable.
8. Kraaijenbrink: Have been critical of At Large process. Might expect me to be uneasy with committee. But quality of committee members is so high that I would be ready to accept its recommendation.
9. Davidson: Respect the judgement of the individuals. Concern is that we must not fill the committee with members who too closely align with the Board.
10. Blokzijl: Should not start work of committee around the table this morning. Composition is good enough. Remind Board that Board will make final decision based on recommendation of Committee.
11. Campos: Favor At Large process. But there’s a danger in what Karl proposed: Most people who claim to represent At Large community are US lawyers. There are others in the world. So self-nominated representation is troubling. Need due process here. Should add members to Committee as needed to fill specific skill needs.
12. Fockler: Resolution before us covers this. (“Committee may … consider submitting one or more additional individuals …”)
13. Auerbach: Expansion of Committee should include those not a part of this process – non-Americans.
VII. Brief Public Comments (15 minutes)
A. Already have plenty of North Americans. Should look further afield.
B. Gomes (Verisign Registry): Allegations yesterday of discriminatory practices in multilingual testbed. Would like to deny that and to be granted the opportunity to investigate. There are no such practices.
C. Teernstra (Individuals Constituency): Vice-chair of Committee said he saw a lack of specific skills on the Committee. Board should allow Chair of committee to add skill set that is lacking.
D. Park: Thank Board for providing forum for discussion. Many people yesterday seemed to forget “open-minded experiment” nature of Internet. Such experimentation will bring international domain names to the Internet. Question is how to coordinate such efforts. Board should pay more attention to process for multilingual testbed, particularly regarding China, Russia, elsewhere. Too hard to search for things on the Internet if you don’t speak English.
E. Blokzijl: The Verisign testbed is only a testbed.
F. Chon: Increasing participation in Internet use. Have to move forward with internationalization names. Technical aspect is just one of the elements to consider here. Should have a workshop or BoF about what can and should be done here. Domain names are just one issue in a series of connecting issues. Keyword is another issue. Directory may be the best approach.
1. Auerbach: Want to encourage experimentation. But ICANN has limited mandate, and some questions being discussed here go well beyond what ICANN is intended to cover.
2. Blokzijl: Issues are important, but are far outside scope of ICANN.
3. Cohen: Don’t want to debate ICANN’s proper role. But Chon’s point is important, and we should try to be sensitive and helpful to cultural, linguistic, historical issues here. Would appreciate opportunity to learn more about this.
4. Kyong: Not right for ICANN or the Board to dismiss outright the issues just raised, even if they don’t strictly fit within the charter. ICANN should reach out and see what we can do. If totally outside the charter, let’s reach that conclusion very carefully.
5. Cerf: Now into philosophy. Each speaker has two minutes.
G. Teernstra: Chon’s message is important. ICANN ignores his comment at its peril.
H. Nico Popp (Realnames): Internet is for geeks and grandmothers. Risk of breaking entire infrastructure by making DNS too complex. And Internet design is to create new layers, not to attempt to change existing layers. Proposed solutions won’t solve the problem.
I. Charles Shaban (TAGI): Working on Multilingual Internet Names Consortium. Everyone interested is welcome to join.
VIII. Approval of minutes.
A. Proposal shown, seconded. All in favor.
IX. Reconsideration Committee Recommendations
A. Proposal shown, seconded. Mueller-Maguhn & Kyong abstain, others in favor.
X. Ad Hoc Group on Numbering and Addressing
A. Proposal shown, seconded. Auerbach opposed, Mueller-Maguhn and Kyong abstained, others in favor.
XI. Membership Resolution for At Large Committee
A. Proposal shown, seconded.
B. Mueller-Maguhn: Need more geographic diversity.
1. Cerf: Propose specific changes?
2. Mueller-Maguhn: “Missing skills … geographic diversity … subject to constraints.”
3. Cerf: Objection?
4. Blokzijl: What’s the change?
5. Cerf: Extend the grounds on which the Committee might wish to expand membership to include geographic diversity.
6. Blokzijl: Upset about putting more blank space on the check.
7. Touton: Proposed amendments make this amendment false.
8. Cerf: Undo the change.
C. Fitzsimmons: Want to be clear that Committee submits proposed additions to Board for approval.
D. Abril i Abril: Problems with modified language?
1. Cerf: It’s fixed.
E. Touton: “Approval” -> “ratification”
F. Fockler: Mueller-Maguhn wanted what Auerbach said – “cultural” not “geographic” diversity.
1. Cerf: We’re reciting what chair and vice chairs told us. “Notified that the chair and vice chair may …” Would need to add a new paragraph to say so.
2. Fockler: Happy with the original wording. But want to give Mueller-Maguhn and Auerbach the opportunity to suggest a change.
3. McLaughlin: Wong said “looking for missing skill sets … among them familiarity with different parts of the world.” Intended to be included here.
4. Cohen: Amendment need not be added. Wong and all are capable of deciding whether someone is a good candidate to be added. No need to micromanage.
5. Cerf: Can vote on the phrase, or its proposer can remove it voluntarily.
6. Davidson: Pass resolution as is? And add a note to minutes saying “consider cultural diversity as a skill set.”
7. Mueller-Maguhn: Acceptable.
G. Cerf: Vote?
1. All in favor.
XII. Budget for At Large Study Committee
A. Motion shown.
B. Mueller-Maguhn: What happens if Committee runs out of funding? Possible flexibility by Board?
1. Wilson: Proposal shows restraint. We don’t have any way to spend additional funds. Would listen to a follow-up proposal, but would have limited capacity to respond.
C. Vote: All in favor.
XIII. Proposed revisions to Verisign com/net/org agreements
A. Cerf: Are not taking resolutions on this, except to schedule a conference call and to request public comments.
B. Cohen: Have not previously heard so much rhetoric, emotion, lobbying, implicit threats. Understand that history is long and complex, but think history is not (or ought not to be) relevant to current discussions. Need to focus on current substance – consequences of accepting “B” versus original alternative. We must be sensitive to Verisign’s constraints – requirements of capital markets for predictability. Don’t want to hurt the industry by imposing excessive uncertainty. Benefits to quality and investment of providing long-term licenses.
C. Mueller-Maguhn: Board should obtain an independent review and comparison of these agreements. Need to investigate robustness, and should use a lawyer different than the one who negotiated the agreements. Policy of separating registry and registrar – asking whether or not Board has established such a policy in previous meetings. If not already in existence, ask for such a policy.
D. Abril i Abril: Presentation shown <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/presentations/abriliabril-verisign-bod.html>..
1. Propose changes to agreement. Have to reflect community consensus. Need to be aware of public perception.
2. Difference between contract and policy confuses the point.
3. Don’t enhance ICANN fatalism.
4. Need to hear from ICANN constituents – not just complaints about schedule, but comments about substance.
5. If it wasn’t a policy to require separation of registry and registrar, it was close to it.
6. Has real concerns about the market analysis.
E. Auerbach: Cohen’s argument is sophisticated and valid. But failing to strengthen Verisign might help its competitors, also to the benefit of the community. Not clear which argument is stronger on balance. Verisign has had this role since 1993, and already gets to keep it until 2007, all this during prime Internet growth. Should we turn this over to the DNSO? Or would that be a kiss of death?
F. Cerf: Ultimately, the Board’s decision, not DNSO.
G. Cohen: Should send this to DNSO on a fast track. But not convinced that this is a policy decision. Concerned that it was thought of that way by the DNSO. This really is a contractual decision to be made by the Board. But it would be unhealthy to suggest that Board does not respect DNSO and process. So should send proposal to DNSO for fast-track comments.
1. Note that my prior comments are not a reason to do “B.” Just have to understand how capital markets work, to inform our decision.
2. Need to do the right thing, whichever is objectively better for the Internet. Others feel that a successful Verisign represents a significant backstop for Internet in case of failure of others. Do recognized that competition is important as well.
3. Cerf: Want to make sure there’s at least one successful player, or the whole thing doesn’t work.
H. Katoh: Must make the best of this even though we didn’t have much time. But have to make this decision on the merits. Concerns about competition are well-founded.
I. Fockler: Have grown to appreciate Abril i Abril’s analysis of these issues and would like to hear what he has to say. Input from DNSO is needed and appreciated.
J. Kraaijenbrink: Katoh said what I wanted to say.
K. Wilson: We have already asked SOs to comment and advise. No question about that. Question of whether there’s a policy about separating registrar and registry. If there is such a policy, we would have written it down somewhere. Should be able to find out the answer, one way or the other.
L. Schink: Modify version “B” or just adopt “A” or “B.”
1. Cerf: Practically, we probably do not. Cannot assume that there is any option to modify “B.” Time constraint for adopting A binds us also.
M. Campos: Agree that we should send this to DNSO, but note that we already did, as Wilson said. Also, note that ICANN staff has given us another option here beyond what we otherwise would have had. Comments on the order of “How dare you give me an option?!” are not helpful. Should be thankful to staff for having given us this option. Were it not for this option, there would certainly have been a renewal without us taking any action.
N. Cohen: Could possibly change option B that “if circumstances work out in a way that’s unanticipated, might be willing to renegotiate if marketplace changes.”
1. Cerf: Keep in mind the May 10 deadline. Changes would require DoC and Verisign’s agreement also. Not impossible, but impractical at the moment.
2. Cohen: Agree to renegotiate in a year if circumstances change.
3. Cerf: Not too hopeful. But current decision is between A and B. Have the option to separate contracts for three registries, early divestiture of .org and later for .net, contract language that is closer to what we seek in general, significant contribution to support .org. This could be a valuable opportunity. Some think B is not better, some think it is, but that’s what this discussion is for. Should schedule a conference call to discuss further. Recommend a conference call on April 2. Will provide time for DNSO to comment, and we encourage them to do so.
• 5AM US Pacific time, 8AM Eastern time. Error on printed agenda.
• Touton: Comments requested by March 31.
• Touton: Public Comment Forum is available. Also email@example.com for those who prefer that.
O. Resolution moved, seconded, approved by all.
XIV. Thanks to Mike Roberts. Look forward to working with Stuart Lynn. Pass Chair to Pisanty.
XV. Continued discussion of Verisign agreements
A. Pisanty: Continuation of Abril i Abril presentation?
1. Abril i Abril: On mailing list.
B. Pisanty: Need to discuss possibilities here – if under “B” Verisign divests registry to a larger company, to a country outside the United States, etc. Serious concerns here. Comments?
C. Auerbach: Chance for DNSO to shine if they want to.
D. Kraaijenbrink: Which proposal will be better in three years? My experience with privatization is that complete separations may not make sense. When complete separations are promised, sometimes they no longer are necessary (or even beneficial) by the time they are to take place. In my experience, such complete separations can be and are withdrawn in other contexts. No complaints about Verisign’s performance to date. And no competition authority worldwide has express discomfort with the proposed modifications.
E. Auerbach: Hadn’t expected to discuss substance today. Contract began as cost-plus-fees for three years, and we’re talking about extending it to twenty-one years. Seems excessive. Agreement only makes sense in conjunction with dramatic expansion of TLDs.
F. Quaynor: Concern about separation between registry and registrar. Either allow registries and registrars to be joined, or have arrangements for sharing a registry.
G. Kyong: Have spent many hours on this discussion. Should move on to other items?
H. Fitzsimmons: Have to think about the problem we want to solve. Should encourage DNSO to contribute, but need to assure that they do so promptly. Need to determine whether this is a policy decision. Must separate facts from feelings, based on input from staff and community. But even if not a policy decision, should solicit opinions. Also, need some education for the portion of the Board that wasn’t around when the Nov 99 agreements were originally approved.
I. Roberts: Need to make agreement attractive to Verisign and its shareholders, and to Internet community and ICANN Board. In intensive discussions, Verisign asked themselves if they were giving away too much, and we asked ourselves if we were getting enough. Wanted to give Board an option, primarily.
J. Pisanty: Encourage comments from community.
XVI. New TLD Agreements
A. Motion presented – Touton
1. “… complete negotiation of remaining unsponsored top-level domain appendices, and post to web site … notify Board … President authorized to sign after seven days of additional comment … send reports to US DoC”
B. Pisanty: Comments or clarifications?
1. Kraaijenbrink moved, Kyong seconded.
C. Abril i Abril: Not in favor of agreement that do not contain clear ownership separation between registry and registrar. Also, should separate standard agreement from special appendices for each domain (naming conventions, etc.) and use separate votes on the two.
D. Auerbach: Agreements are imperfect. Staff has overstepped its authority to some extent. But overwhelming interest is to get new TLDs running, especially if we try to correct deficiencies in the future.
E. Mueller-Maguhn: Also uncomfortable with lack of registry-registrar separation. Should be address by a DNSO motion. Don’t know if we should discuss details. 5.2.3 is troubling (re future registry paying a former registry, for example). Maybe this isn’t the right place to discuss such details.
F. Cohen: Experience in drafting agreements is that perfection takes an infinitely long time. Sense is that the Board wants this work done as quickly as possible.
G. Auerbach: Ought to have the DNSO involved. But if we delegated the process to the DNSO at this point, doubt that we would get any comments in a timely fashion.
H. Cohen: DNSO in its wisdom was aware of this policy matter. But avoided getting involved in order to help this move forward more rapidly.
I. Pisanty: Question is whether policies are properly embodied in the contracts. That’s what we’re looking for now.
J. Vote: Mueller-Maguhn abstains, others in favor.
XVII. DNSO Review
A. Pisanty: Identify proposals with immediate feasible operational consequences. Later, look at possible improvements requiring structural change.
B. McLaughlin: Resolution presented: “… Asks Names Council to separate proposals into those that improve operations of DNSO as constituted today versus those with may result in changes in structure and function. …encourages comment.”
C. Mueller-Maguhn: Pursuant to Bylaws Article VI.B.3.d, propose introduction of an individuals constituency within DNSO.
D. Kyong: Article gives Board …?
E. Mueller-Maguhn: Board may introduce new constituencies at any time.
1. Kyong: So propose that Board exercise this provision?
2. Mueller-Maguhn: Yes.
F. Touton: Language requires Board to explain why such action is necessary, accept public comment, etc.
1. Kyong: Procedures should be followed, as Touton suggests. But preferable if DNSO itself can conclude whether they need such an individuals’ constituency. Board shouldn’t just jump in here. Need to consult with DNSO.
G. Pisanty: Motion before the Board calls for making quick and easy improvements to the DNSO. This motion is more substantial than the contemplated operational improvements.
H. Kraaijenbrink: Ready to vote on motion as clarified by McLaughlin. Seconded by Cohen. Auerbach against, all others in favor.
I. Mueller-Maguhn: My motion is not from within the DNSO, because individual name-holders feel unrepresented in the DNSO. So it wouldn’t make sense to ask the DNSO about this – that’s the point.
J. Auerbach: Procedure? Motion to discuss the individuals’ constituency?
K. Cohen: Don’t have a strong feeling about individuals’ constituency. Issue has been debated at great length, and can reopen this. But we just approved $450,000 for an At Large study. While that’s not exactly the same thing, it’s related. Would hate to presume the result of that study.
L. Kraaijenbrink: Bylaws give a clear procedure for discussing this issue. We should table this until our next Board Meeting.
M. Auerbach: A constituency for individuals is quite different than the At Large. Would only cover domain name owners. Should not mix these two subjects, as they’re very different. And note that ICANN Board created the existing constituencies.
XVIII. Audit Committee - Davidson
A. Motion re Disbursement Authority presented
1. Touton and McLaughlin to sign checks up to $10,000.
2. Lynn to sign checks up to $50,000, more with approval of Board, Finance Committee, or Executive Committee.
3. Auerbach: Payroll might require payments above these limits if implemented via a service?
• Roberts: Not a problem.
4. Campos: Authority?
• Roberts: Annual budget authorizes spending money. Some special allocations, as for the At Large Study Committee.
B. All in favor.
C. Appointment of auditors – Davidson
1. Motion displayed
2. Request audit of specific topics as well as of general operations.
3. Auerbach: Are we bouncing auditors?
• Roberts: Midyear statements are prepared by accountants, not auditors.
4. Vote: Fockler moves, Blokzijl seconds. All in favor.
D. Handling of DNSO funds
1. To formalize word-of-mouth agreement
2. Motion displayed
3. Auerbach: There’s talk about moving funds to another entity. Want to make sure we don’t leave “dangling references” in the course of such a transfer. And possibility of questionable payment?
4. Touton: Officers would use their judgement. Would not break the law, risk tax-exempt status, etc.
5. Vote: All in favor.
XIX. Independent Review – Touton
A. To consider alleged violations of bylaws. To determine whether Board’s finding of consensus is well supported.
B. SOs invited to make appointments to nominating committee. Five of six appointments made. One outstanding from PSO, but about to be complete. Need to fill nine vacancies on independent review panel.
C. Wilson: Will we be know the names of the panelists at the Stockholm meeting? Had expected the Board to move more quickly here. Want to be in a position to be responsive on this.
D. Touton: Received two from DNSO. Had received some others before that. Very close. But some guidance from the Board might help the PSO respond more quickly.
E. Auerbach: I have a request for independent review pending, so I will abstain from this discussion.
F. Touton: No motion. Will try to move forward quickly.
XX. Discussion of UDRP Review
A. Pisanty: Have wanted to discuss this before.
B. Katoh: What’s the process here? DNSO is now conducting a review of the UDRP? What’s the next Board action?
1. Touton: Wait for DNSO. Or ask DNSO to provide a recommendation.
C. Abril i Abril: Timeframe for review?
1. Touton: Timetable is posted.
D. Cohen: UDRP is so successful that it’s hard to review it. Nonetheless, should address concerns of community re how it’s working.
E. Mueller-Maguhn: Disagree with Cohen. Quantity of decisions not indicative of success, and also concerns about quality. Have received complaints.
F. Fockler: Should ask what process is being used by DNSO in their review.
G. Katoh: Success in dealing with thousands of cases quickly and cheaply. But community is concerned that process could be more fair and open. Need to evaluate whether current procedures are working fairly. Have heard that some provisions may need to be adjusted. In particular: Determination of “bad faith” in “registration and use” but some suggestion of change in light of ccTLD policies. Also, too English-centric. Should be more accommodating of non-English disputes, via non-English panelists.
H. Pisanty: Should not rehash UDRP decision.
XXI. ccTLD Agreements
A. McLaughlin: Motion presented
1. ICANN management to press forward.
2. Draft legacy agreements and triangular agreements as needed.
B. Fockler: Need to get into diplomacy and negotiation mode. Pleased that we’re there, especially after having been critical in the past. Hope that “vigor” means “diplomacy.”
C. Vote: Mueller-Maguhn, Auerbach abstain. Others in favor.
XXII. Internationalized Domain Names
A. Pisanty: Complex issues, active discussion in person and online.
B. Kyong: Resolution prepared by McLaughlin is sufficiently detailed that he should read it.
C. McLaughlin: Motion presented.
1. Public comment requested and received on related issues.
2. Note DNSO NC task force, GAC, RSSAC working group on this issue.
3. “Board expresses concern re likely confusion … urge wide education & dialogue … designates an internal working group to promote better understanding of technical & policy issues, to make appropriate recommendations to Board.”
4. Kyong: Participants on working group to include: Katoh (chair), Auerbach, Cerf, Campos.
• Add paragraph: Initial (interim) report findings to Board in Stockholm.
• Katoh: Only initial report in Stockholm.
5. Abril i Abril: Submitted a polite petition to internationalized domain name players to consider stopping testbed until we better understand the implications of their work. June may be too late. Concerned about possible legal implications. Don’t want to delay until the problem gets more serious and urgent.
6. Auerbach: Concerned that testbeds are more than that, really market “forays” (explorations). Should make sure all participants understand what they’re getting into.
7. Murai: Support the motion. Serious requirements for implementation, and substantial technical difficulty. It takes a while to learn everything here – technical concerns, cultural diversity, etc. Agree that June might be too late.
8. Fockler: Support resolution. But discussion has gone beyond it. ICANN is not an Internet user protection organization. Have established no policy that would either deny or guarantee any particular registrations.
9. Cohen: Agree with Auerbach. Must find a balance. Need to find out what’s going on.
10. Auerbach: This should not (and does not) preempt DNSO activity. Complementary, not a substitute.
11. Campos: Expectation for work of this group? Issue could go on forever.
12. Katoh: Will try to investigate and coordinate. No more than that, really.
13. Wilson: Shouldn’t ask staff to do more than they’re already doing.
14. Mueller-Maguhn: Keeping stability in mind. Users of testbed should be aware that they’re participating in a test, not a final system.
15. Touton: See resolution text re efforts elsewhere in community, re actual charge to working group (“identify issues, initiate dialogue, make recommendations,” ultimately “coordinating”).
16. Blokzijl: Some companies call this a testbed, others do not.
17. Pisanty: Resolution as it stands reflects most of these comments.
18. Davidson: This is an information-gathering working group.
19. Mueller-Maguhn: Support information-gathering. But separately want a public statement saying “Be aware of participating in a test.”
20. Murai: Need more understanding from Board’s point of view. Perhaps an initial report at a teleconference.
21. Auerbach: Understand this to contemplate information-gathering, not any substantive decision-making.
22. Abril i Abril: Should strike “non-roman” because many non-English languages use the roman character set.
23. Touton: No public for a here, right?
• Campos: “Engage in dialogue” rather than “initiate”?
24. Kyong: Move to vote. All in favor.
D. Mueller-Maguhn: Should issue a public statement about the use of testbed internationalized domain names.
1. Pisanty: Don’t need any further action after the resolution just passed?
2. Davidson: Thought the first resolved addressed that concern? Maybe it’s not as sharp as some would like, but we’ve covered this.
XXIII. Future ICANN Meetings
A. First Meetings Committee meeting held.
B. Committee may recommend the use of a Meetings Director in time.
C. Will hold a meeting in Montevideo, Uruguay – September 6-10, 2001. Thanks to Raúl Echeberria.
D. Discussed whether three or four meetings next year. Lively discussion. Andrew and Vint preferred three. Many of us might prefer to have only three trips, but think the work facing the Board and to make statements in other communities calls for four meetings in 2002.
E. Possibility of additional revenue-raising to reduce costs.
F. Recommend a meeting in Africa from Feb 28- March 3-4, 2002. Will encourage proposals from sub-Saharan African. Detailed specifications to be posted.
G. June 13-17, 2002 in Eastern or Central Europe.
H. September 5-9, 2002 in Asia/Pacific (Hong Kong, Korea, or China).
I. December 5-9, 2002 in Marina del Rey, Canada, or Central America.
J. No necessity of these specific places.
K. Abril i Abril: When we had only three meetings a year rather than four, preparations were available further in advance. Efficiency of ICANN work might be enhanced by more time between meetings.
L. Kraaijenbrink: Outreach via meetings is important. Annual meeting this year? First Stockholm, then Montevideo. After that?
M. McLaughlin: In Marina del Rey in November. Dates TBA.
1. Roberts: Tentatively, November 12-15.
N. Auerbach: Legally required to hold a meeting in California once a year?
O. Kyong: Melbourne meeting was scheduled to be March 10-13, four days inclusive.
1. Roberts: Board’s obligations are for two days (the last two). Other days are for convenience of ancillary organizations.
2. Kyong: Montevideo is for 6-10. Which four days?
3. Touton: Melbourne meetings started on the 9th.
4. Cohen: Anticipated need for extra meetings. Committee meetings now take three days before the two days of Board Meetings.
5. Wilson: Board Committee work complicates this also. And Board Members have work of their own.
6. Kraaijenbrink: GAC also makes this more complicated. Five days are likely required for the foreseeable future.
7. Pisanty: So meetings in September are the 6-10th.
8. McLaughlin: Board should set dates for Public Forum and Board Meeting. Other sessions will work around that. Just have to tell local hosts when they’ll need to have facilities available.
XXIV. Thanks to Local Hosts & Sponsors
A. Thanks for enormous efforts. Resolutions from Board.
B. Motion presented.
C. All in favor.
XXV. Thanks to Mike Roberts
A. Suggested resolution from staff
B. Roberts abstains, rest in favor.
XXVI. Meeting adjourned
For additional technical information, please contact:
Ben Edelman and Rebecca Nesson