June 4, 2001
ICANN Public Meetings
I. Agenda - Cerf
A. At Large Study Committee
B. Open Mic
C. Board Meeting
II. At Large Study Committee - Bildt
A. Document presented [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/bildt-statusreport.html] – results so far
B. One major working meeting so far – New York (May)
C. Outreach via mailing lists, web, in-person events. But debate still somewhat limited – a concern. Though this reflects that things are basically working.
D. Issued a call for studies. Some received already (NAIS). Appreciate this kind of input.
E. Outreach meeting tomorrow (room K11).
F. Working meeting in San Francisco in August.
G. Preliminary report to be available in Montevideo in August. Final report to be available by November.
H. Decisions not yet made. Still taking in input.
I. Comments & questions?
1. Kleinwachter: ALSC discusses At Large only, or overall ICANN process.
• Bildt: So far, At Large. But can’t really discuss those issues without understanding what ICANN is and is supposed to be. Will have to take ICANN structure into account. No decisions yet; input still appreciated.
2. Klein: Schedule of report? Board needs to make a decision in LA. So report needs to be done by then?
• Bildt: Preliminary report will be available in September. Receive comments on it, then revise to make final report. Will try to use the 60 days in between to work on improvements in the final draft.
• Cerf: Perhaps Board need not make final decisions in November. By November 2002, need to have an outcome reflecting decision here. But maybe no need for a final decision this November.
III. Open Microphone
A. Hoffman: Introduce NAIS, formed in LA in response to call for a clean-sheet study. Twelve members. Discussing selection of board members, number of board seats, form of representation, etc. Study to be complete by Montevideo. Participation in ICANN has not yet reached optimal form. Encourage review of our findings, in particular Executive Summary. [http://www.naisproject.org]
B. Izumi Aizu (Asia Network Research and GLOCOM): Support universal participation in ICANN process. “dot force” for digital opportunity. Representatives of governments (including developing countries) and private sector concerned about digital divide. Considered ICANN in its role as a forum for decision-making that affects the entire world. Should increase participation from all parts of the world. May need to work on language issues or travel grants. Contact me (email@example.com) or Adam Peake (firstname.lastname@example.org) for more information. [http://www.glocom.ac.jp/dotforce]
C. Teernstra (IDNO) (#1298): Concern about Individual Domain Name Holders’ constituency. Board previously deferred this question. Can Individuals Constituency expect to be recognized?
1. Mueller-Maguhn: Discussed informally, especially questions about Bylaws. Could have a page on ICANN web site explaining how to create new constituencies.
2. Kraaijenbrink: See also #1316 re question of how individuals can be incorporated into At Large. Refer to ALSC.
D. Younger: See [http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-2motions-IndConstituency-DNSOfund-vote.html] re GA vote in favor of Individuals Constituency.
1. Mueller-Maguhn: Was that an official request in accordance with ICANN Bylaws? (See Article 6 B.3.d) http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI
2. Younger: Motion passed by GA mentioned ICANN Bylaws specifically. I believe it is in order for the Board to consider the creation of such a constituency.
E. Theo Vachovsky (Abacus): People want lower prices and higher prices for domain names. It’s important also to add those new TLDs that people want.
F. Sotiris Sotiropoulos (#1301): Are domain names property?
G. Hans Klein (CPSR): Studies coming in. Need for high-level thinking here. Then make specific recommendations. Bildt says ALSC mailing list helpful. At Large might appreciate a public forum to discuss among themselves. Request the creation of a general Public Forum for the At Large Membership. ICC could help.
1. Cerf: Will consider it. Have made note of this.
H. Werner Staub (CORE): Was told that ICANN Board could not address the multilingual domain name problem because there was no legal instrument with which to do so. Email forwarding implicit in the .NAME proposal is troubling – requires mail server, not just DNS. Might cause problems in case of redelegation of .NAME at some point in the future. Troubling to see a company get a monopoly in this area.
1. Cerf: Many different ways to build services of that kind with or without a TLD. This could be done in a SLD rather than a TLD, and then ICANN would have no role here.
2. Staub: But there’s only one provider of this registry. Millions of users will have to use this registry. Seems bound to be a problem.
3. Mueller-Maguhn: Is this compatible with the .NAME proposal?
I. Conant (#1297): Is ccTLD group sufficiently diverse for its own SO? Then a Registry SO? A gTLD SO? A group applying for SO status should have to be as diverse as the DNSO itself.
IV. ICANN Board Meeting
A. Cohen: Motion to accept the minutes of the previous meeting (last teleconference).
1. Mueller-Maguhn abstains. Others in favor.
2. Cerf: Sorry. Minutes not here yet. Scratch this. Nullified.
B. Budget Resolution
1. Mueller-Maguhn: Confirmation that Board will be able to fund an At Large election (with a “serious” amount of money) even though that’s not in this budget plan right now.
• Lynn: Depends on what “large amount” is. But Board has previously been able to take reasonable steps if it decides those are required.
2. Kraaijenbrink: Move to accept the motion.
3. Auerbach: Concerned that we are growing too large. Staff is beyond what is required to meet our obligations under Articles of Incorporation.
• Cerf: Ideas about how to not be too large.
4. Cohen: Concerned that budget is too small.
5. Wilson: Finance Committee formally recommended the approval of this budget.
6. Katoh: Agree that budget is very modest.
7. Vote: Auerbach opposed, Mueller-Maguhn abstains, rest in favor.
C. Cohen: Appropriate to bring a motion not on the agenda?
1. Cerf: After finishing the agenda.
D. Proposed Registrar Accreditation Fee Revisions:
2. Mueller-Maguhn: Able to change this at some point? For .ORG, for example?
• Touton: Changing of fees requires the process of posting for public comment, forum, vote. Within that constraint, Board is free to change fees.
3. Kraaijenbrink: “On or after July 1” rather than just “after.”
• Touton: Correct.
4. Auerbach: Anyone unable to pay this? Actual impact?
• Lynn: With respect to application fee, no one is a registrar until they pay it, so no. With respect to current registrars, this only has effect for those that want to add register domains in new TLDs.
5. Vote: All in favor.
E. Emerging Regional Internet Registries
2. Wilson: “Sufficient resources within the authorized & approved budget.”
• Cerf: Can’t break the budget.
3. Fockler: Put this on the table.
4. Campos: Request a change to language of second resolution. If we have a set of standards for new RIRs, that should be it. Should be clear that president is not authorized to modify rules on the fly.
• Lynn: Difficult subject. Want to clarify language. Language is intended to apply (only) to transition process, not to RIRs’ ongoing operations (which is governed by MoU and their internal processes). Everyone wants a transition that works well.
• Cerf: Note that language says “for receipt” and “for evaluation.”
• Campos: There is a different document that talk about criteria for establishing new RIRs. Understand the need for clarity here. But this text suggests that the president and staff might add new criteria as a result of this resolution.
• McLaughlin: Emerging RIR document is not a simple checklist. This is the first time we’ve added new RIRs in this way. Some modifications along the way may be necessary. Agree with principle that new requirements can’t be added midway through the process.
• Abril i Abril: Understand the concern here. Need clarity here.
• Pisanty: Only problem here is clarity in language.
• Fockler: Agree with Pisanty. Not giving staff the ability to create new criteria.
• Touton: Removing ability to have articulated standards would make it impossible to approve RIRs. Criteria are detailed, but judgment required to decide whether or not criteria were met. ICANN should be able to state, in a transparent way, what will meet the criteria.
• Auerbach: We should do what we can to move forward with new RIRs. Need to give staff flexibility here.
• Blokzijl: Just language. Read it differently today than yesterday. Says standards for procedures – what sort of paperwork to use.
• Campos: Board should be concerned about the message here. No criteria used for creation of initial RIRs. New RIRs needed in Latin America and Africa. Now, rules & criteria. Intention is good. Let’s say that this applies to transition only.
• Cerf: Want to avoid (actually or apparently) putting new barriers in front of RIRs’ introduction.
• Lynn: Strike the word “minimum.”
• Wilson: Should be careful and culturally competent here. It’s unusual to authorize the president to do something like this. But we can modify the language to be more clear to others.
• Touton: In every case where the Board has put in place an application process, we’ve always had this kind of authority. Registrar accreditation, TLD program (procedures and standards for receipt of applications), etc. These are public standards.
• Lynn: Words are interpreted in different ways.
• Auerbach: Hope Lynn will tell us what’s going on. Few of us really understand how address registration works.
• McLaughlin: This is a good & cooperative process so far. Don’t want to impose new requirements on Latin America and Africa. But requirements so far are things that RIRs knew they had to do anyway. When applications come to the Board, it should be clear that regional ISPs support the new RIR.
• Campos: Might add new requirements (notaries, etc.) until this takes forever. Understand what staff wants to do. But have to avoid unfair treatment. Agree that process is going well so far. But devil is in the details.
• Auerbach: Have been avoiding discussing the criteria in the MoU. Note that consumers should get involved in the system.
• Abril i Abril: All agree that process is going well so far. Concern is only about the language. Current language OK, with explanations in the minutes that this is not to be discriminatory in any way? Specific change? “Public, objective, and nondiscriminatory”?
• Campos: Satisfied with document plus the discussion in the minutes.
• Pisanty: Inconsistency in the resolution. Language could be tightened up.
5. Vote: All in favor.
F. Referral of .ORG Issues to DNSO
2. Motions placed on table.
3. Abril i Abril: Resolution section (a) considers whether to designate an existing entity or create a new one, then (b) discusses characteristics of that entity.
• Cerf: Seems OK. First, decide whether an existing entity or a new one. Then, talk about characteristics.
4. Abril i Abril: Should not change .ORG policies in an interruptive way.
• Touton: See the last recital.
5. Mueller-Maguhn: “Third annual meeting”?
• Meaning the third yearly meeting.
6. Auerbach: “Not non-commercial” is tough to read. Suggest: “Whereas the Board notes that persons or entities, non-commercial or otherwise, have been permitted to register domain names …”
• Lynn: “All existing registrants.”
7. Pisanty: “Non-commercial” or “non-profit”?
• Touton: Language in the last recital is from the statement of the purpose of .ORG in RFC 1591.
8. Lynn: Simplify language to “… all present registrants.”
9. Fockler: Resolution (a) – what does “designate” mean? Includes “selection”?
• Touton: Yes. And make wording parallel – standardize on “select” and “establish.”
10. Vote: Mueller-Maguhn abstains, others in favor.
G. Monitoring and Evaluation of New TLD Program
2. Resolution on the table.
3. Kraaijenbrink: Note President’s report re timetable for operation of new TLDs. Note that we’d like to see the plan executed as speedily as possible. Would like to have a plan for new TLDs by November.
• Wilson: President is going to evaluate new TLDs that are going to be introduced shortly. How can we do that evaluation so quickly and figure out what to do about new TLDs by November 2001? Some of these new TLDs will barely have started by that time.
• Kraaijenbrink: Asking for the impossible.
4. Blokzijl: First few months are the crucial ones. If the new TLDs survive the first few weeks, we could prepare a good report on that basis. Needn’t delay too long.
5. Lynn: Blokzijl may be right, but we would want the Task Force members to come to that conclusion. Understand Kraaijenbrink’s sense of urgency. Minutes should reflect that we share his sense.
6. Auerbach: Want new TLDs yesterday. Some reporting requirements have delays and confidentiality periods. Don’t see how this group will be able to get the material it wants.
7. Campos: Evaluating the impact on the stability of the DNS, not just the success of business.
• Blokzijl: Don’t care whether their business is successful. Just care about stability.
• Campos: Can’t observe stability in two weeks.
8. Pisanty: Plan will have two stages. Expect an initial report on what went wrong (or could have gone wrong), then a subsequent report about market and competition effects.
9. Schink: This process applies only to new gTLDs. Wording should reflect that.
• Touton: Practice in ICANN documentation has been to call these “new TLDs.” Because Board will someday need to discuss what is a ccTLD and what is a gTLD. Clearly it’s not the intent to apply this to new ccTLDs should there be any.
10. Mueller-Maguhn: Explicitly avoid that any registries be a part of this group? Concerned about a conflict.
• Lynn: Do not propose to accept any members for the task force from registries.
11. Vote: All in favor.
H. Pisanty: Discussion of DNSO Public Forum.
1. Abril i Abril: Confused.
2. Cerf: “DNSO Directions – discussion of Public Forum presentations” on the agenda. No action to be taken, I think; just discussion.
I. Cerf: Other questions. Number of meetings per year. How to take public comments. Ask Meetings Committee for more time for public comments, and perhaps fewer meetings per year.
1. Cohen: Will look into this.
2. Kraaijenbrink: Number of meetings is a difficult issue. Business could make do with three meetings per year, while outreach favors four. Outreach is important, so I favor four meetings per year.
3. Abril i Abril: Advocate three meetings per year. Make the meetings longer (more hours) if needed. Should investigate another outreach tool, because there is too little time between meetings to make proposals, publish them for public comment, etc. Wastes time and energy.
4. Abril i Abril: Should also discuss what other business we want to discuss.
5. Cohen: Meetings Committee has discussed the question of three versus four meetings per year. Some on each side. No clear consensus. Could reduce the number of meetings down to two or even one at some point. But we already approved four meetings, and unless the Board wants to reverse its decision, we should proceed as scheduled. Do favor restructuring meetings for more public comments. Meetings Committee will come up with recommendation promptly.
6. Katoh: Prefer three meetings per year. But there are other issues to be considered here.
7. Lynn: Room for improvement in quality of meetings even if we have fewer meetings per year. Suggest three meetings per year, of five days each. Too little time for discussion in meetings. Should avoid shortchanging public comment periods. Much work to be done between meetings. Perhaps go to MDR less frequently so that we continue to do as much outreach.
8. Wilson: Add to Meetings Committee consideration the possibility of education of Board and community about these topics. Bring in experts with multiple perspectives. Improve the quality of what we do. Also, perhaps Meetings Committee should take comments from the public – email@example.com.
9. Auerbach: Should change “public comment” to “public discussion.” Limited time encourages soundbytes, while longer time might encourage more thoughtful comments.
10. Cerf: Suggest additional preparation by public before making comments.
J. Cerf: Break? Resume in fifteen minutes.
K. Other Business
1. Abril i Abril: Reports from staff about contracts with new TLDs, contracts with ccTLDs, NC resolution about IDNs, ccTLD withdrawal from DNSO and formation of ccSO.
2. Cerf: Use of At Large mailing list. GA request for Individuals Domain Name Holders Constituency.
3. Mueller-Maguhn: Alternative root questions that affect ICANN DNS.
L. ccTLD Communique and prospect of ccSO
1. Abril i Abril: Where to go from here? Received a communiqué. But still need to discuss specific solutions.
2. Cerf: Need a more detailed proposal.
3. Wilson: Many ccTLDs absent from the meeting that led to yesterday’s report. Can think about the report we heard, but should not make assumptions.
• Cerf: Should still think about what we will want to do if they ultimately favor restructuring.
4. Abril i Abril: Will get a proposal for a ccSO. Other changes also under discussion. Need to consider all changes as a whole. Further dialogue needed.
5. Auerbach: Concerned that other entities shortly want their own SOs. Need an organized approach to this that avoids ad hoc decision-making.
M. Use of At Large Study List to foster At Large Discussion
1. Cerf: See http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml . Could remind people that this forum exists by sending a further email to the entire At Large group.
2. Lynn: Consider also the ALSC Announce list – http://www.atlargestudy.org.
3. Cerf: Propose using the At Large 100,000+ list to publicize the At Large Study Forum and remind them of how to sign up.
4. Kraaijenbrink: List has been used before for this purpose. List should be closed now, not used again. Can’t keep using that list.
5. Auerbach: The At Large list reflects people who went to some effort to join. And little cost to sending an email.
6. Lynn: It’s serious to send out mail using this system. Ties up our mail server for about a day, preventing other mail operations. More seriously, it’s important to use a list only for the purpose for which it was initially intended.
7. Auerbach: Agreed that we shouldn’t spam this list. Should use this list once, at most twice.
8. Wilson: We previously made a commitment to use this list only once. Suggest that we review what we said at that time, and that we stand by it. If we didn’t commit never to do this again, we might do it again. But if we said we wouldn’t, then we should not.
9. Cerf: What commitment did we make?
• Touton: Don’t recall a hard commitment that we wouldn’t ever use the list again. But we shouldn’t use it many times; that would be beyond the spirit of what was said. Note also that addresses are stale.
10. Cerf: Perhaps people signed up to vote because someone told them they should, but these people don’t desire an ongoing relationship with ICANN. Initial limited response might indicate that these people just aren’t interested.
11. Cerf: What to do? One strong opposition to using the list again. Others have some concerns.
12. Abril i Abril: Discussing sending another email to tell people about the ALSC. Already did this. Repeat it? Tend to think not. Also, concern that we previously promised to use this list only for purposes of coordinating election.
13. Kraaijenbrink: There are places where discussion of At Large issues can take place. Our work here should be on hold until Bildt presents the results of the ALSC study.
14. Mueller-Maguhn: Should have a “participation page” on the ICANN site reminding people of the ALSC process. Do this instead of sending message to all registrants.
15. Auerbach: It’s a waste of resources to let At Large fade away. Would be saddened to see that work go to waste.
16. Cerf: Suggest posting information about ALSC on the At Large site.
N. General Assembly request re Independent Domain Name Holders Constituency
1. Cohen: Recall deal in Cairo that ALSC would examine structure of ICANN as a whole. Recommend that we consider this in Montevideo. Look for legitimacy and reasonableness.
2. Auerbach: There are many individuals joining the DNSO for the purpose of considering domain name policy. At Large considers general ICANN policy (protocols and addresses also). Two concepts shouldn’t be mixed.
3. Mueller-Maguhn: Ask the Board to agree that this request goes to the Public Comment Forum. Should discuss results in Montevideo.
4. McLaughlin: Procedure in Bylaws. See Article VI. Not clear whether Board has a petition as contemplated by Bylaws. Previously, have seen concern that proposals don’t have enough support.
5. Abril i Abril: Uncomfortable receiving motions from GA or constituencies, but never getting anything from the DNSO as such. DNSO should try to work as an SO, or suggest another structure that they think would work better. Recall also that GA was not supposed to vote.
6. Lynn: Would have thought that a proposal like this would come through NC, which would make sure that proper background work was done. Many questions about what makes an individual domain name holder. Much work to be done. Also need an impact statement in terms of staff work. Some homework to be done.
7. Mueller-Maguhn: Nothing wrong with discussion here. But individuals are disorganized by their nature. Similar to problem that non-commercial organizations face in raising funds.
8. Cerf: Possible to note that we received the GA’s communication, that there is a procedure here, but that Bylaws must be followed. Proposal should come through the NC. We would entertain any reasonable proposal in accordance with Bylaws.
O. International Domain Names
1. Recall NC motion – [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/scribe-nc-060201.html] (section X – Kane Motion).
2. Cerf: Unsure that such an outcome will in fact come out of the August IETF meeting. Even if so, implementation will take time. So postponement would have to be for a longer period of time.
3. Blokzijl: Various groups are doing experiments on varying scales. Some commercial, some not. Should call on everyone to follow the IETF’s proposed standards when available.
4. Auerbach: Encourage people not only to follow IETF, but to participate in IETF.
5. Cerf: Likelihood of an IDN agreement at August IETF meeting?
• Falstrom: There are multiple groups of opponents to proposal on the table. DNS designed for identifiers, not words and phrases. If words and phrases must be supported, then will need a system other than DNS. So if we go forward with the system we have considered to date, we might be done in August. If require words and phrases, then not done.
• Cerf: How long until implementation? Delay is probably six months to a year. Can’t ask our accredited organizations in the foot while others move forward.
6. Lynn: Agree. Don’t want to penalize those who work within our system. When standard appears, we should encourage conformity with standards.
7. Fockler: We’re tempted to give people advice on how to run their businesses. But that’s not our role. Encourage businesses to delay their activities? We should stay out of being specific on this. Also, concerned about precedent of asking an expert to participate in our Board Meeting on a specific topic. We’ll need to decide when we do this and when we don’t. We get the information we need on other days.
• Cerf: Hope that the Board will feel free to get advice if and when it needs it.
8. Abril i Abril: Never seen a Board that can’t request information needed. Confused by resolution. It doesn’t ask us to enforce contracts; rather it asks us to make a request of others. We should be conscious of the special benefits that those working within the ICANN process receive.
9. Auerbach: Glad that we asked Falstrom the question. Note similarities between this discussion and competing roots. Be conscious of other issues in DNS with respect to IDN – WHOIS, escrow, etc.
10. Katoh: Discussed this yesterday, especially fact-finding aspects. Testbeds are moving forward, and we need to keep this in mind. It would be preferable to ask for Internet community to wait for a standard. Need to consider what we can do for users. And how can ICANN actually encourage anyone to do anything in this regard? What actual powers?
• Touton: We can encourage gTLDs. Mostly moral means of encouragement for ccTLDs.
11. Cerf: IDN issues arise from encoding, when other software cannot accept the encoded names. But we have no way to prevent this problem since it could show up at any level, and we have no direct control over most levels.
12. Auerbach: WHOIS information may be in international scripts.
13. Lynn: Don’t want to attempt to exercise too much control. Shouldn’t prevent experimentation. Should require conformance once standard is in place.
14. Katoh: May have some legal power with gTLDs but only moral power with ccTLDs. Is that a problem?
• Cerf: What about deeper levels? Could put non-ASCII registrants in higher levels of DNS.
• Auerbach: Users may not be aware that they’re using internationalized scripts.
15. Cerf: We have a limited scope here, and cannot dictate policy in this respect.
16. Wilson: Who is or feels responsible to inform the community about the complexities here? It’s beyond us to exert control, and it’s difficult to issue encouragements. Who can help with this?
• Cerf: IAB, IETF. We can help too.
17. Auerbach: Concern by ISPs about uncompensated support costs. ISPs will tend to have an interest in informing their customers.
18. Katoh: We did fact-finding to help in this respect. It would be helpful for the community to understand better.
19. Davidson: NC asks for a delay until August. Not convinced that this would achieve anything. Support Lynn’s suggestion of focusing on ultimate standard.
20. McLaughlin: Refer this proposal from NC to other SOs? Email this to IDN WG at IETF?
21. Cerf: Concern is that current IDNs may not be sustainable when standard is available. Possibility of conflicts between standards. But delay until August would not solve this problem.
22. Abril i Abril: Need someone from IETF/IAB to help us with these issues. Uncomfortable with some of Cerf statements. Note the difference between comments here versus with alternative roots.
23. Auerbach: Worst worry is of an IDN system failing, leaving an escrow in an indecipherable format that can’t readily be recovered.
24. Touton: Seek guidance about NC resolution. Have been monitoring Verisign testbed. Note their promise to follow IETF standard, and to follow IETF WG standard as it evolves. Report to Board that Verisign had scheduled deployment of resolution to begin six days ago, but agreed to delay it for three weeks. Question of whether Verisign should deploy 900,000 names that the IETF WG will apparently say use an obsolete encoding. Verisign feels pressure to move forward with deployment. What to do?
• Cerf: Someone will always be running old standard.
• Auerbach: Note that more changes are possible.
25. Kraaijenbrink: Discussion is going around and around. We have been asked to endorse the NC’s resolution. Note GAC’s concern at “islands” (and government intervention if such islands arise). It might be helpful for us to address consumer issues in testbeds.
26. Pisanty: Time to close the circles. Should ask for conformance with standards. Should warn users properly. Should intensify outreach programs of standards bodies. Web pages about this.
27. Lynn: Abril i Abril questioned consistency with alternate root discussion. I believe we are being consistent.
28. Abril i Abril: Request that Touton prepare a report for Board re impact of preregistrants in testbed on first-come-first-served registration policy.
• Touton: OK. Because Verisign committed to follow evolution of IETF standard, including encoding scheme.
V. Alternative Roots
A. Mueller-Maguhn: How to deal with possible upcoming collisions?
B. Cerf: Problem is complex. Don’t want to say that ICANN can only create new TLDs if there is no such TLD in any alternate root.
C. Cohen: Need to give notice to people running TLDs that their operation of a TLD will not discourage us from choosing that TLD string.
D. Kraaijenbrink: Users should be informed. Our policy is to favor a unique root, and our responsibility is to the Internet community.
E. Auerbach: What to do when we consider a TLD already operated by someone else? Should be done on a case-by-case basis. Extreme policies don’t make sense.
F. Lynn: We already do have a policy, and we’d need to change that policy if we want to operate differently in the future. White Paper obliges us to introduce new TLDs in an orderly fashion. We’d be violating that trust if we said “not include anything that’s out there” or give any kind of precedence to anything other than our orderly consensus process. No further statement on this topic at this time. To set policy, we’d need to go through our formal policy process. Must take care not to bypass our processes.
G. Mueller-Maguhn: Auerbach favored considering the broader Internet community. Board should consider how to coexist with people on the Internet who have other processes for adding TLDs. Cannot and should not ignore them.
H. Cerf: Many ways to associated names with IP addresses. Problem is that building alternate roots using DNS can create serious problems in conflict and confusion.
I. Auerbach: No problems if various roots all have identical contents.
1. Cerf: Theory was that a single root would assure that contents would be identical.
J. Abril i Abril: Must assure stability of Internet. Must facilitate competition to the extent we can. Must be careful in making our decisions, as our decision about .WEB caused confusion about our position and policy here. Policy changes should go through policy process.
K. Cohen: Question here is how TLDs get handed out. A legal and business question, not just a technical question.
L. Pisanty: Subject will stay open for some time.
M. Cerf: Alternate roots are “cyber-squatting at the top level.”
N. Auerbach: Fears about competing roots, etc. exist. Question is who straightens out the problems.
VI. Fockler: Back to comment about taking expert comments. Glad to have taken advice on selected topics as needed. Should just be clear that this is Board seeking advice, with consent of entire Board. Might serve us well in the future.
VII. Cohen: Meetings committee met and will get recommendations to the Board within thirty days.
VIII. Lynn: Will continue to take comments on single root paper and post a revised version. Board consensus.
IX. Abril i Abril: Concerned by .NAME proposal of shared second-level domains. This was not in the initial application. This would be movement in the wrong direction in terms of competition.
For additional technical information, please contact:
Ben Edelman and Rebecca Nesson