1. DNSO Management/Administration
2. Update from the ICANN Board – Mike Roberts, CEO
1. Funding issues - $800,000 in debt after first year, $200,000 more than expected. Loans received from some corporations,
2. Plan for these meetings – staff analysis posted (more than 100 pages), lots of discussion already. Will explain what the board is coming from and take comment on all subjects.
3. Q&A
1. Anthony Van Couvering: Please elaborate re funding and membership.
• Staff report identifies a series of actions required to get membership working, expected to cost at least $100,000. This figure anticipates a significant amount of volunteer assistance.
3. Update from the Provisional Names Council
1. No chair available to present.
4. Report from Recognized and Emerging DNSO Constituency meetings
1. Business Constituency: Jon Englund
1. Meeting today to discuss input from constituency into the process, in particular to working groups.
2. gTLD Constituency: Don Telage
1. Six participants in this morning’s meeting, a 300% increase from Berlin – a number of observers came and asked questions. Hoping for more members of constituency soon.
3. ISPCP Constituency: Michael Schneider
1. Procedural questions – admitting new members.
4. ccTLD Constituency:
1. Used IANA database to make contacts. Database out of date, but have managed to reach all but five ccTLDs.
2. Voting: Announced, then conducted a week later. Independent oversight of election process. Electronic voting with security based on contact email address and confirmation email. Single transferable vote. Selected: Jennings, Poblete, Roberts.
3. Jennings: Consensus that concern should be expressed re speed at which ICANN wanted directors chosen by DNSO because the accelerated process might result in less representative directors. Suggests term for these directors should be one year rather than three for sooner review, if necessary. Agreed that there should be no tax on domain names.
5. Non-Commercial Constituency: (not audible near computers perhaps due to interference?)
1. Trying to organize more effective participation of members in working group, especially Working Group A.
6. Registrars:
1. Increase in attendees.
2. Adopted parliamentary rules to allow everyone to participate.
3. Voting: Public or private?
4. Intend to have permanent representatives elected before LA meeting.
5. Need to harmonize WGA policies with the work of various registrars along with WIPO and ICANN.
7. IDNO Constituency: Joop Teernstra
1. Began IDNO after Singapore when it seemed that the seven chosen constituencies did not include individual domain name holders. Want to represent the unrepresented.
2. Those who will be regulated should be represented in the decision-making process.
3. History of petitions – have asked ICANN for recognition three times but have not received recognition. Recently received notice that ICANN will not accept this constituency.
4. Open to hearing concerns of ICANN board in order to address them. Think the structure will represent the interests of all domain name holders. Since at-large membership not yet established, individuals can’t get their voice heard through at-large directors. Participation in working groups is not effective.
5. Are trying to be fully and globally representative.
6. Q&A
• Esther Dyson: Did not reject IDNO petition, rather prioritized creation of the seven other constituencies. Personally feel uncomfortable with this decision – think it’s important that the voices of individual domain name holders be heard. At-large membership will have nine board members and will represent all individuals including those with domains. This is a "more powerful" way to be heard than with a constituency in the DNSO.
• Online comments read (in their entirety): from Dinesh Nair, Bret Fausett, Dennis Schaefer.
• Teernstra: Response to "good enough to participate in working groups for now."
• Sola: Consider holding vote on GA support for IDNO after all the constituency reports are in.
8. IP Constituency: Jonathan Cohen
1. Today’s meeting had attendees from South America which was new.
2. Suggested revised bylaws for constituency: Expanded executive committee with regional vice presidents from around the world to assure geographic diversity. Want structural policies to create a pool of talent with wide range of experiences, geography.
3. Constituency is healthy, moving forward, welcomes additional participants to participate fully.
9. Consensus that ICANN board consider the IDNO application?
1. Strong support with strong opposition… is that consensus? "Not quite there" – Nii. A second vote, about the same. Declared rough consensus by Nii.
2. Confusion about what was agreed.
• Nii: A request was made to ICANN board that they consider IDNO, but they’re free to accept or reject the request?
3. Cohen: What about other constituencies?
10. Questions on presentations
1. Chicoine: Hand vote indicates consensus?
2. Heltzer: Formal determination of consensus needed?
3. ?: Consensus is not about exact counts, rather something like a 2/3 majority. So what we saw was consensus.
11. Motions
1. Motion for new constituencies to be considered tomorrow on the.
2. Motion to withdraw the request for the IDNO to be included in tomorrow’s agenda, and to [propose that the NC] create a working group to discuss these issues. Or perhaps take these two clauses separately.
• Request to withdraw fails, by consensus.
• Request for a working group to go to NC, by consensus.
5. Report from the Provisional Names Council: Swinehart
1. Established working groups A through E. A had a unique timetable. Constituency outreach efforts. Discussion of how to handle co-chair issues – to have evenness between co-chairs while still getting work done.
2. Q&A
1. Abril i Abril: Only feedback that Names Council gets is "don’t do anything." Lacks a chair, structure, etc. Archives of council mailing list
• ?: Concern that archives do not include some list messages.
6. Working Group Reports
1. Working Group A: Cohen
1. To consider WIPO recommendation re Dispute Resolution.
2. Despite short time and lack of formal process, job done: Reached out in terms of geography, background.
3. Questions posted for comments for three weeks, then final report up for some time. And this comes after WIPO report which
4. Q&A
• Bush: Process not sufficiently open. Emails document as much.
• Cohen: Little time to run the process. I divided the people between the questions.
• Kleinman: Report didn’t come from consensus of subgroups. Definition of cybersquatting in the report is too broad. (US Senate agrees.) NSI’s policies allow reverse domain name hijacking, and the report seems likely to allow further worsening of the problem. Suggested policies: Registrars and registries should not be liable for contributory infringement for the mere act of registering. No forum-shopping should be allowed.
• Cohen: Not my decision, rather for ICANN board. Expect changes from the further comment period. But note that drafting committee will have to be smaller in order to do its job.
• ?: Understand logistical problem of getting the job done during the American summer, the problem of doing sufficient outreach. Hard to determine whether consensus exists for a working group.
• ?: Concern that too few people from Latin America were involved.
• Abril i Abril: Anyone who wanted to participate could do so. But relatively few people came.
• ?: Concern that report is too hurried. Some procedures missing. For example, no grievance procedure. No need to hurry this process so much, for the Internet works as it is.
• Dyson: Board wants to make the right decisions on substance. Be specific re, for example, the definition of cybersquatting. Agreed that process could be improved, and we don’t want to be sloppy, but we do want to get this work done. Let’s talk about the specifics, not who was or wasn’t at a particular meeting.
• Remote comment from Srikanth Narra read in its entirety
• Cohen: Called Froomkin and asked him to participate. Wanted his participation because he is experienced and has considerable respect in the academic community. He participated, and his comments were considered in the report.
5. Bush: Propose a motion – urgent, these issues to be resolved before LA. That the General Assembly report that the overall process towards Uniform Dispute Resolution is necessary and should be pursued. In particular, should prevent forum shopping and to make registrars and registries not liable for their acts as registrars and registries. Specific issues of details such as reverse hijacking, cybersquatting definition, and how and by whom disputes are arbitrated. Need to resolve these issues before implementation.
• Zittrain (helping with legal language as requested by Bush): needed, a second, then general debate.
• ?, Register.com: Lots of attention focussed on dispute resolution issues. Registrar community has spent a significant amount of time & effort on same. Spending too much time in search of perfect solution will result in never getting any solution. Should continue to discuss the subject, but need to move forward.
• Sola, business constituency: Problems exist and need to be dealt with immediately.
• Bush: Want to move forward, except in the specific areas specified by the motion. Need help from lawyers re how to write language reflecting as much.
• Cohen: Said earlier that should make improvements as possible. But don’t support the motion.
• Roberts: Where did the timeframe for this report come from?
• Cohen: Timetable suggested by ICANN board given the need for a policy soon with new registrars coming online, requiring a uniform dispute resolution policy.
• Zittrain: Online comment from Froomkin read in its entirety. Also, comments that perhaps GA should allow Bush to refine his motion and to formalize wording.
• Cohen (responding to Froomkin’s comment): Perhaps should amend motion. I’d support the motion if it allowed the approval of a uniform dispute policy as soon as one can be agreed on.
• Bush: Do not accept the amendment. Not willing to accept a uniform policy in these areas.
• ?: If we don’t decide on a definition, we can’t move forwards. This committee didn’t produce a sufficiently precise document.
• ?: Recommend that Bush’s motion be tabled. Much work already put into the document. Registrars have to live with the rules agreed on, so if they’re happy with it, that should be good enough.
2. Working Group B: Famous Marks
1. Meeting tomorrow morning at 8:00 in hotel
3. Working Group C: Sola
1. Addition to the root of new gTLDs.
2. Created June 24-25 with ~30 people. Now has more than 70. Discussion started with charter.
3. Trying to divide the work to get consensus on small issues
4. Working Group D: Swinehart
1. Business plan and internal procedures of DNSO and working groups.
2. Schedule: Charter posted on July 23. Election of co-chair (Bret Fausett) on August 2-3.
3. Responsibilities to be divided between process & procedure, and business plan (website, translation, outreach).
4. Discussion has come to focus on procedural aspects.
5. Have to make sure that process is open & transparent, but work must be done. These seem to be in conflict.
6. About twenty members on the list. Some constituencies are still not represented.
5. Working Group E:
1. Have about ten people, need more. Hereby request participation.
2. Meeting tomorrow at lunch in the adjacent cafeteria.
6. McLaughlin: DNSO constituencies were given provisional recognition with the understanding that they’d get final recognition by November.
1. May 27: Initial provisional recognition of six of seven constituencies until November 4.
2. August 26: Provisional recognition for non-commercial constituency to be considered.
3. September 15: Amended constituency proposals to be submitted to board. Shortly thereafter, a special meeting of board to approve & grant final recognition to the constituency groups that meet September 16 deadline.
4. October 8: Constituencies to elect permanent (non-provisional) names council members.
5. October 16: Fully-Constituted Names Council to select ICANN board members.
6. Q&A:
• Remote comments displayed on screen and described by Zittrain from Narra, Langston.
• How can constituencies interact with board? Agreed that improvement is possible.
• Jennings: Consensus among those present in prior ccTLD meeting that ICANN’s accelerated timetable was risky & dangerous. If board sticks with current schedule, term of the newly-elected board members should be only one year.
• There may be a six-month period during which the Non-Commercial constituency does significant outreach to get its final representatives to NC. But sense of the board’s position on this is that election of ICANN directors shouldn’t and won’t be held up by this sort of delay.
7. Proposed wording of motion: That the general assembly recommend that ICANN should move forward with a uniform dispute resolution policy for the gTLD registrars to be adopted at the same time as a small committee is created (extremely small, to be selected by ICANN staff) to define how providers will be accredited; clarify the definition of cybersquatting; prevent reverse domain name hijacking; and establish fair rules to govern the details of the mandatory arbitration process.
• Cohen: Motion is becoming more reasonable. But realize that changing the dispute resolution process means modifying literally millions of contracts.
• Stubbs: Need to act, need to show that we’re capable of moving forward. The people responsible for implementing a policy like this need to be involved, also those who will be affected. This issue can’t be deferred any longer.
• Gallup: Is this motion to apply to gTLDs or all TLDs? Consensus is gTLDs only; amendment made to text.
8. Post-GAC session
9. Jennings: Reiterate suggestion motion: that we ask the board to consider the suggestion that the DNSO’s, ASO’s, and PSO’s newly-elected board members hold office for only one year.
1. ?: Supports the proposal.
2. Abril i Abril: What is the underlying reason for this proposal? We are stuck in procedure.
3. Schneider: Would this require amendment of the bylaws? Would the board do so if necessary?
• Response from McLaughlin: Bylaws would have to be amended.
4. Cohen: Question of how long directors will serve is a very serious matter. Requires significant discussion.
5. Jennings: Concern that process isn’t as representative as it should be and needs to be. Don’t want to make the mistake of seating board members for long terms that the community later regrets.
6. Schneider: Some constituencies are far-along in the formation process. Others not making such fast progress.
7. Langenbach: If we delay the process further, only those people who have enough money to continue to follow get to be involved.
8. Abril i Abril: If we accepted this proposal, some weirdness might result – thinking the board was "still" not permanent for another year.
9. Almato: What about membership? How can we make substantive policy with the board not yet elected?
10. One online participant (fmenard) agrees that Jennings’ proposal makes sense.
11. Vote on the motion: More in favor than against. Carried, says Nii.
12. Zittrain: Should go to both board and NC.
10. Amendment proposed: That ICANN should immediately adopt a uniform dispute resolution policy for gTLD registrars; simultaneously a small drafting committee will be created by the names council and ICANN staff. [link in text of amendment in HTML]
1. Bush: Objects to clauses re Names Council and re reps from each constituency. Too big and slow if done that way. Should be faster, and therefore smaller.
2. Room agrees to vote. Consensus that the amendment proposed is passed.

Translate with Altavista Babelfish:

Deutsch, Francais, Espanol, Italiano, Portugues

For additional technical information, please contact: