ICANN Public Forum
July 15, 2000 - Yokohama, Japan
Welcome – Esther Dyson
A. Thanks to local hosts.
B. Archive of meeting at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive
C. Presenters: Please bring documents
/ notes to scribes. Bring three copies: one for scribes, one for translators,
one for yourself. Copying machine out the main doors to the right.
D. Coffee breaks – on your own,
saves time. Available at 10:30.
E. Lunch break – 12:30-2:00.
F. Full schedule.
1. New gTLDs
• Ken Stubbs - Names
• Touton, Nesson
– ICANN staff
G. 90 seconds per commenter, please.
II. New gTLDs
A. Roberts: Discussed for more
than five years. A major task for ICANN, per Memorandum of Understanding
with US Government.
1. ICANN referred
the question to DNSO of how new gTLDs might be introduced into Domain
Name System. Stubbs will explain process used by DNSO, recommendation
2. Staff has posted
additional background materials.
3. Tomorrow is day
B. Touton: Decision comes to Board
after two recommendations from Names Council.
C. Stubbs (Chair of Names Council):
Series of Working Groups provided input to NC.
1. Working Group
C: Guidelines for rolling out new TLDs if the Board elected to do so.
Submitted report to Council on March 21, posted for public comments,
comments received over the web. NC requested and received a supplemental
report on April 17, then discussed in teleconference, and adopted this
statement by a vote of 16 to 0 (two members missing):
• “Names Council
determines that report of WG-C indicates that there exists consensus
for introduction of new TLDs in measured and responsible manner. Recommend
to Board that it establish a policy for introduction of new TLDs in
measured, responsible manner, giving due regard to … need for order
… minimize use of TLDs for infringements of intellectual property rights
… recognize needs of users for confidence in stability of DNS.”
• Also recommended
that limited number of new TLDs be introduced initially and that future
TLDs be added only after a careful evaluation of initial introduction.
• Noted WG-C’s suggestion
of including several types of TLDs: Fully open TLDs (“generic”), restricted/chartered
TLDs (with limited scope), non-commercial/personal domains.
should promote competition in DNS at both registry and registrar levels.
• Recognized that
rollout of new TLDs must not jeopardize stability of the Internet.
• Coordination with
protocol and standards organizations.
• Recommended that
ICANN staff request expressions of interest from those seeking to operate
new TLDs. Proposals to specify how to satisfy values of WG-C, NC.
2. WG-B asked to
develop approaches for dealing with famous marks and intellectual property
rights in expansion of DNS.
• NC considered
report, and made statement: “Have reached consensus on three points:
Need some mechanism to be determined for protecting connection between
famous marks and domain name system. Does not seem to be a need for
a universally famous marks list. Protection afforded to trademark holders
should depend on type of top-level domain. (Different standards for
personal versus commercial top-level domains.)
• Concluded that
there is a community consensus and that there should be varying degrees
of IP protection during startup phase.
• Concluded that
there’s no consensus that a list of famous marks should be created.
D. Touton: Report on staff’s actions
since receiving Names Council’s recommendations.
1. ICANN staff prepared
and posted two documents. http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm
re history, context, process, principles (drawing from NC recommendations),
schedule, solicitation of statements of interest.
2. Summary of actions
• Calls for posting,
comments, proposals, assessment of applications.
• Applications to
be made by persons wishing to operate a registry or wishing to sponsor
• Two-month period
for responding to call for proposals, deadline of October 1. Public
comment period overlapping the request period and lasting a week longer,
until October 8. Applications to be evaluated, with tentatively selected
applications announced by November 1, 2000. Completion of registry contracts
by December 1.
3. Board to approve
implementation plan including schedule for implementation, general process
for reviewing applications.
4. Principles drawn
from Names Council resolution.
• Introduction of
new TLDs must maintain Internet stability. Measured, responsible manner.
• Due to lack of
experience to guide how to introduce new TLDs, introduction of new TLDs
should be well-controlled and small-scale. Proof of concept for possible
future introductions. Corollary is that introduction of new TLDs should
have experimental values.
• New TLDs should
have a purpose. To enhance competition in registration service, both
at registrar and registry levels. Should enhance the utility of the
DNS as a tool for users. Rather than having full ICANN community deliberate
about policies for particular TLDs (especially those that are limited
use), should appoint other organizations (well-suited to a particular
TLD) to make basic decisions about those TLDs re structure, operations,
• TLDs should enhance
utility of DNS by facilitating new kinds of uses.
• Have to address
“land rush” phenomenon. Sophisticated systems may attempt to register
thousands or tens of thousands of names. Presents challenges to intellectual
property owners. Need to consider how to protect legitimate interests
of intellectual property owners. A criterion for selecting TLDs should
be proposed protections for intellectual property.
5. Extensive public
comment and expressions of interest received.
have also made statements. Hope to hear from designated representatives
during comment period.
2. Present public
comment forum. http://www.icann.org/mbx/newtlds/
• Uses: Long comments,
short comments, frequent posts from some people (as many as five posts
• About a quarter
of comments addressed whether, why, and/or how to introduce new TLDs.
About half were devoted to specific TLDs. About a quarter were off-topic
3. Many favored
adding TLDs. Some advocated adding many TLDs, but most favored adding
ten or fewer. Some opposed adding any new TLDs at all because concerned
about ineffective protections for trademarks, no increase in usefulness
of namespace for users.
• Concern: Wholesale
importation of SLDs from current gTLDs would prevent expansion of DNS
space. Might only benefit registrars, IP lawyers, etc.
4. Restricted vs.
Unrestricted: Most favored adding some of each. No reasons given in
general, but to expand domain name space. Some favored use of restricted
domains as resource locators and to solve trademark problems.
• Some favored adding
only unrestricted TLDs. Difficulty of enforcing charters or of categorizing
• Trademark interests
support adding new TLDs provided sufficient protection for intellectual
property. Want complete Whois, application of UDRP, mechanism for enforcing
rules on new registries. Some intellectual property interests didn’t
want to introduce any new TLDs at all.
5. “Sunrise” (opening
day) policy: Ambivalence. Some worry it’s not feasible to protect the
needs. Difficult to define who should be allowed to register early –
famous mark holders, trademark holders generally, .com domain name holders?
Or no such policy because should be no special privilege for anyone
based on .com status or trademarks?
• Few comments addressing
this specifically. Lottery system, limits on number of registrations
by single person (or entity?), pricing systems to discourage registration
of many domain names.
6. Non-ASCII characters:
Few comments received, not detailed, but most in favor of it.
7. Length of TLD
string: Some confusion. Some wanted to maintain the three-letter string
currently used. Question of whether this presents a technical problem?
Many comments specifically proposed longer TLD strings.
8. Timeframe: Some
favored accelerated adoption because of prior delays. Others said there
needs to be lots of time for public comment because it’s a major undertaking.
9. Registry application
evaluation criteria: Many comments addressed the questions of what needs
to be specified by applicants.
of interested called for. List posted at http://www.icann.org/yokohama/eoi.htm
• Expressions of
interest still arriving.
• Some expressions
of interest don’t seem serious – don’t specify all information suggested
in comment forum, etc.
• Various kinds
of proposals – multiple proposals for some strings, some restricted
F. Dyson: This is proof of concept.
These initial guidelines and processes will not last forever.
G. Comments from DNSO Constituencies
1. Swinehart (Business
Constituency): Update on status of Business Constituency’s position
2. Palage (Registrars):
Reached six resolutions two days ago
• Must be new TLDs.
• Must be generic
TLDs in testbed.
• Must be chartered
TLDs in testbed.
• All ICANN accredited
registrars must be able to provide registration services in any new
• Registrars favor
use of existing RRP protocol for shared registries.
• ICANN must develop
criteria for evaluating registries during testbed period.
3. Klein (Non-Commercial):
Concerned about property rights, speech rights.
4. Crispin (?):
Advantage of restricted TLDs is that they partition the namespace, whereas
a completely open TLD doesn’t put sites into buckets. Open TLDs only
multiply the multiple registration problem.
• Abril i Abril:
Need a gatekeeper?
• Crispin: Sure,
an organization of museums would keep a list of who is and who isn’t
5. Holmes (ISP Constituency):
It’s taken a long time to get this far. ICANN Board should take its
time now ensuring viability of new registries, defining appropriate
relationships between registries and registrars, etc. Current timeframe
• Dyson: Think that
it’s possible to run a robust registry.
• Blokzijl: There’s
a lot more to it than that. Will judge proposals not only based on IP
but on technical specifications.
• Dyson: Should
robustness be determined by ICANN or by marketplace after the fact.
• Holmes: Staggered
schedule for implementation. Implementation needs to reduce liability
6. Love: Working
with non-profit organizations for social services – human rights, etc.
They’re not interested in running the back-end operation. But there
exists a market to run the necessary servers.
7. Wesson: DNS is
not a directory service. Shouldn’t use DNS to find things. And need
to prevent registry lock-in.
• Cerf: Rationale
for bringing in new TLD should not be for the purpose of turning DNS
into a directory service.
8. Ambler: Agree
with Cerf. Technical criteria should be robust and objective. But running
a registry shouldn’t be out of the reach of those who wish to outsource.
.web registry has operated for four years. Volunteer to share experience
with technical criteria.
Crispin: Outsourcing is a good idea. Specialization in DNS registry
hosting will help companies do a better job. Split between substantive
policy decisions and technical operations should be pursued.
• Dyson: Agreed.
Interested in these new business models.
• Roberts: Proposals
to create and operate new registries must be premised on knowledge and
competence in operations, technical, management, and financial areas
as well as value of name being proposed. All are important, and staff
proposed to judge every proposal on every criteria.
• Cerf: The Internet
is run by businesses. No guarantees that particular services will succeed
or last forever. Cannot be all-seeing and all-knowing, nor should we
be. Must allow for risk in the marketplace. Risk is shared by all.
• Roberts: Outsourcing
is fine, so long as every element is satisfied.
10. [Please identify
yourself]: At least one company (an ICANN-accredited registrar) is saying
that ICANN will ratify their TLD in Yokohama, and it’s already collecting
money for registrations for in that TLD. Can this be regulated?
• Dyson: True them
for fraud. No one has been pre-approved. Their statements are untrue.
They may well disqualify themselves. Who is it?
• Wong: ICANN’s
legal staff can have a discussion with representatives of that registrar.
11. Cade: Do need
a sound evaluation of proposals. Can’t leave that to the marketplace.
Detailed comments filed.
12. Dooley: A different
perspective than Cerf. Competition between telephone companies exists,
allowing choice of other telephone companies when customers choose to
do so. But you can’t so readily move to a new TLD.
13. Auerbach (#841,
online): Read in full. Reports that Deutsch ran an actual test with
several million TLDs and it worked. New TLDs will not damage stability
of the Internet. Those who are concerned about “instability” should
specify precisely what they mean.
14. Aguirre: ICANN
should provide a series of tests. Also, cannot deny that each TLD already
serves as a directory service for non-technical users.
• Cerf: Domain names
are tools for creating uniqueness. People use search engines. When they
guess, it only works for well-known domain names. Real utility in Internet
will not come from DNS but from better Internet search engines. Even
in the best case, DNS will be the weakest possible tool for finding
things on the network.
• Cerf: If we create
better search engines, it’s less important to be registered in particular
• Dyson: Directory
services, catalogs, maps, etc.
15. Crocker: Difference
between mapping unique names to unique entries versus surfing. Mnemonics
are good for memory but not for guessing. Also, Dooley and Cerf actually
are not in disagreement.
16. Marcowski: New
six to ten domains are only a small increase in the number of TLDs.
Wondering when the last TLD was introduced?
• Palestine, .ps,
17. Williams: Need
simplicity and ease-of-use of processes for registrations, transfers,
18. Crispin: Need
data escrow to prevent loss of data in case of registry failure. No
conflict between stability in DNS and allowing business failures.
19. Can we justify
restrictions on number of TLDs? Stability of the Internet sounds like
old arguments of universal telephone service, banks. Don’t want to see
the same things happen here.
20. Kornfeld (Non-Commercial
Constituency): Artificial scarcity of domain names. ICANN should not
introduce restrictions on registration of new TLDs. Should not prevent
use of company, product, or service names for legitimate and protected
expressions of concern or criticism. Should adopt rapid expansion of
TLD space. Accommodate multilingual needs. Should not make global trademark
policy. Rights of free speech need to be protected. Names Council improperly
changed recommendations of WG-C to reduce number of TLDs to be added
in initial test. Registries should be controlled by affiliated organizations
- .union by labor organizations.
• Cerf: Weird to
discuss freedom of speech in context of domain names. Domain names primarily
to provide unique identifiers. Weird to work hard to create freedom
of speech. Only 63 characters to work with, anyway.
21. Palage: Registrars
met in Reston with representatives of FBI, Department of Justice. NSI
Registry described SRS to law enforcement. We know about the problem
and are working on it. Working also on a code of conduct to increase
consumer confidence in registration authorities.
• Cerf: Escrow data
may need to be transferred into another database. Working on that?
• Touton: Yes, task
force is working on that and related points.
22. Kirk (Intellectual
Property Constituency): Favor measured and controlled rollout of new
TLDs. Need complete and current contact data. Cross-registry Whois needs
to be developed for free use. Registrars should adhere to UDRP. Protection
of trademarks should be included in new TLD rollout (limited to registered
trademarks for one year or longer; some favor including domain names
and common-law trademarks). Verification of compliance.
• Abril i Abril:
Data from registrars should be standardized.
• Wong: New TLDs
require reconsideration of UDRP process.
23. YangWoo (Peacenet):
.Com is overpopulated. If ICANN wants to solve this problem, it should
add .biz or .web to compete with .com.
• Blokzijl: Internet
community continues to expand .com by about a million names a month.
24. Love: It’s not
that you can’t get a domain. It’s that you can’t get the domain you
want. Clearly names have purposes other than providing unique identifiers.
Less a question of what it should be than what it is. Shouldn’t use
technical rationalizations to make the world do what you want it to
do. Don’t impose own view about how the world should work.
25. Teernstra: Adding
value is economic purpose of Internet. No question top of DNS must become
26. Schneider: ISP
concerns: exposure, stability. ISPs suffer in case of failure. Reduce
liability, one at a time, reasonable timetable. Consider stability,
27. Carey: Users
in some countries will be left out if special policies don’t look out
for their interests.
• Dyson: Don’t have
the staff or budget to sponsor development of the Internet worldwide.
We just can’t solve those problems. But we’re glad he’s here.
• Blokzijl: INET
has these issues on its agenda.
• Carey: Companies
make millions of dollars on their registrations. Maybe use some of that
• Dyson: No taxing
28. Heltzer (Intellectual
Property Constituency): Four principles: Available on Constituency web
site. Outreach, Whois, Daybreak, modifications UDRP. http://ipc.songbird.com/TLD_Guidelines3.htm
29. Walter: Need
competitive model. Pioneer’s preference. Avoid lock-in during a time
of exponential growth.
30. Chiu: Domain
names are well-known. Can’t ignore that “.com” is effectively part of
the English language. Domain names have gone beyond uniqueness to a
way to find things. Need to consider this.
31. Metalix: Support
comments of Intellectual Property Constituency. Agree that Whois needs
to be improved.
32. Gaetano: DNS
as resource locator is ridiculous. Try different business models for
new registries. Thick/thin, unrestricted, chartered, geographic diversity.
UDRP is enough.
33. Dyson: geographic
(and other) diversity will be one of our criteria.
34. ?: Names are
very powerful. Unions want to organize. Board can’t decide who are good
and bad unions.
35. Gibson: UDRP
has worked well for three.. UDRP capacity: committed to keeping it up.
36. Pindar: 10X
increase is o.k.?
37. Gibson: committed
38. Dyson: Panels
will rise to meet the need.
39. Gibson: Increasing
40. online comment:
ICANN going to gain financially?
41. Dyson: ICANN
has no vested financial interest
42. Roberts: TFF
considered this, posted recommendations. Board will apply TFF process.
43. Davidson: Access
to new gTLD namespace affects free expression. Support new TLDs, diversity
a touchstone, possible fee waiver for non-commercial applicants.
44. Sims: Who should
pay expense of processing applications?
• Davidson: Diversity
isn’t possible if there’s a prohibitive barrier to entry.
• Dyson: Don’t wan
to be in the business of deciding who’s a charity.
37. Tsuru (Mexican
Association for the Protection of Industrial Property): Agree with concern
about TLDs in developing countries. Even without resources to do a massive
campaign, need to work to help entrepreneurs in developing countries.
• Cerf: Internet
Society focuses on these concerns. Must be careful not to overload ICANN.
• Dyson: Investors
may be the best source of assistance.
38. Chun: ICANN
doesn’t reflect the interests of developing countries. Consider justice
39. Markovich: Fees
seem large for emerging countries. Propose keeping expenses at lowest
40. Tatham: Panelist
for UDRP. Pay is bad, but it seems to be working as designed. Majority
(or fewer than at outset) of complainants are unable to prove bad faith.
UDRP should be used in new TLDs.
• Improvement: Loser
in a complaint should be obliged to pay costs.
41. Luque: Not everyone
speaks English natively. Speak more slowly and clearly. Also work on
translation of important documents.
• Dyson: Still requesting
assistance with translations. (But hard to translate more while lowering
fees as requested!)
Translation needs to be done professionally, not by volunteers.
• Dyson: Request
contributions to help us do good translations.
43. Chun: Online
environments should follow rules of real space. May need a new system
44. Ambler: Yesterday,
asked NC why they reversed consensus of WG-C. Question was met with
silence. So ask Board: Why accept recommendation of NC if perhaps it
doesn’t reflect consensus of WG?
• Abril i Abril:
Question is “6 to 10” being changed to “limited number”?
• Ambler: Yes.
• Abril i Abril:
Just a rephrasing, not a reversal. And we haven’t accepted it yet. Board
is ultimately responsible for the whole policy. Will take into account
everything, including the WG-C report and the problems that WG had.
• Ambler: Disagree
that it’s just a rephrasal, and the chair of WG-C agrees with me.
• Dyson: We have
45. Simons: Developing
countries were unable to pay ACM’s fees for developed countries. Lowest
tier is subsidized. This is a possible model for ICANN.
• Dyson: First need
fees from top two tiers.
46. Torii: Support
DNSO and thank it for its efforts. Request for the protection of globally
famous trademarks. Important not just for the holder of the marks but
for society, because these marks are valuable to everyone. Must establish
a mechanism to prevent damage or infringement of these trademarks. I
believe there’s a consensus for doing so. Difficult to prepare a list
of globally famous trademarks, so we shouldn’t use such a mechanism,
rather use the UDRP. But using the UDRP so much will be an enormous
waste of resources. Need to solve the problem in advance.
47. Raju: New registrars
should be chosen on a country basis rather than on a regional basis.
48. Fockler: Process
is exceptional. Lots of ways to participate.
49. Abril i Abril:
We’re currently contemplating a test. Will not be able to address all
diversity goals in initial batch. Maybe in the long run.
A. President’s Report
• Much of work done
2. Periodic challenges
to authority of ICANN and to US Government actions to implement White
Paper. General Accounting Office did an investigation – report is about
50 pages. http://www.icann.org/general/gao-report-07jul00.pdf
3. ICANN provides
department with status reports under terms of transition agreement with
US Government. Nine tasks specified in MoU with DoC: http://www.icann.org/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm
section V.C. Three quarters to eighty percent of the work has been done.
In discussions with DoC about how to proceed.
4. Budget. Recommendations
adopted re budget process. Task Force, public comment in Cairo and thereafter.
Budget adopted in June telephone meeting. Budget posted online. http://www.icann.org/financials/budget-fy00-01-06jun00.htm
B. Audit Committee – Linda
1. ICANN has engaged
local accountants to support financial affairs and statements.
2. Searching for
external audit firm. Audit Committee recommends that one of the “big
five” international auditing firm. Recommend KPMG. Ask firm to report
on ICANN’s balance sheet, activities, and cash flows, using Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles for Not-For-Profit organizations. Committee
found KPMG’s fees reasonable.
3. Verify that checks
and balances are in place to limit what staff can do without approval
• Dengate Thrush:
GAO states that it’s unclear whether DoC can transfer control of root
to ICANN. Board’s thoughts?
• Touton: See status
report to DoC. http://www.icann.org/general/statusreport-30jun00.htm
(Item 3, bottom of file)
• Burr: GAO was
unclear about transfer of ultimate policy control. DoC can definitely
transfer control of operation and management of root server system to
• Abril i Abril:
GAO says DoC has no present intention to transfer policy control of
• Burr: Do intend
to transfer it to ICANN when we receive an operational plans that makes
necessary assurances for stability. Have not looked at ability of administration
to transfer ultimate policy authority over root. A legal question of
how to do it. Will address the question when we need to.
C. Murai – presentation delivered
D. ASO Status Report – Takashi
2. Cerf: Will RIRs
assign large number of IPs to organizations that need many?
• Arano: IANA assigns
address blocks to RIRs.
• Cerf: Procedures
and practices for those allocations?
• Arano: Yes.
E. Becky Burr – US Department
of Commerce Update
1. DoC’s report
to Second Status Report from ICANN. (http://www.icann.org/general/statusreport-30jun00.htm
2. Impressive. Congratulations
to community and ICANN staff.
3. Expect to extend
a revised MoU only for the tasks not yet completed. Don’t expect to
add new tasks. Expect that length of agreement will be only that necessary
to complete the outstanding tasks.
4. Consider ccTLD
issues fundamental and hope agreement can be reached.
F. Report from Government Advisory
Committee - Twomey
1. Open sessions
• Briefing from
• Dialogue with
ICANN Board re ccTLD administration and delegation
• Meeting with ccTLD
Constituency of DNSO
2. Communique presented – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/GACmtg6_communique.html
3. Cerf: What does
“communication-based regime” mean?
• Use the word “communication-based”
because these communications could vary among jurisdictions. These messages
need to be writing, but otherwise they may vary.
Did you discuss membership?
• Brief discussion,
5. McClurg: Supply
and demand-side representation?
• Exaggerating and
simplifying: Two paths to ICANN’s growth. ICANN becomes either an international
association of system administrators (supply-side) or of Internet users.
6. Dyson: You’ve
changed your job? Explain?
• Resigned effective
the end of next week. Will remain special Australian representative
to ICANN/GAC and will remain responsible for Australian domain name
space. Rest of time will go to other pursuits.
7. Cerf: Ambassador
to Internet? So Internet is a country?
• “Call me his excellency.”
8. McLaughlin: GAC
will not provide specific advice re definition of geographic region?
• Happy to refer
you to several of these lists.
• McLaughlin: Those
lists are helpful, but they don’t use a five-cluster structure.
• One list splits
countries into twelve, then those twelve Fitzsimmons into five pretty
9. Love: Consumer
protection and monopoly issues in the context of the existing mission
of ICANN (domain name system)? Or in a broader context (e-commerce generally)?
• GAC wouldn’t support
an expansion of ICANN’s mission. Interested in consumer protection and
public policy only as they relate to domain name policy.
10. ?: Clarifications
on process for dealing with ccTLDs not in good standing?
• Twomey: GAC asks
ICANN to write to relevant governments or public authorities to get
views re issues for their ccTLDs.
• Cerf: Communique
says ICANN shouldn’t attempt to enter into a contract with a ccTLD administrator
for which a redelegation request is pending.
• Twomey: Right.
Asks ICANN to consult with governments before entering into a contract
with a ccTLD administrator who’s
G. DNSO Report
– Ken Stubbs
1. GA supports establishment
of an additional constituency of individual domain name holders. Suggest
establishment of working group plus a task force with one member of
each constituency. Hope for rapid resolution of the issue.
2. Review of DNSO
– need to work closely with Executive Committee of the Board.
3. Grateful for
Cohen’s work representing the NC on the Board. Working on election of
his replacement. Nominations to be open soon – within the next 10-14
days. Announcement on DNSO and ICANN sites.
4. Discussions about
increasing efficiency of the NC and improving its support via the secretariat.
Hope for contributions to help support the secretariat.
5. Discussed expansion
of the namespace.
6. Cohen: Think
it’s important to build bridges between constituencies. Status?
• Stubbs: Working
on it. Some bumps, but generally on track. After long deliberations,
many (most?) votes are unanimous.
7. Dyson: Committee
to look at individuals constituency needs to be open-minded.
• Stubbs: Will include
Gaetano for that reason.
8. Wong: Working
group to address the DNSO Review process should be helpful. Thank you.
IV. At-Large Membership:
A. Presentation delivered: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/presentations/membership
B. Structure of elections: One
member elected from each of five regions.
C. Public membership statistics
D. Membership application process:
1. Application received
2. Duplicates (name,
address, etc.) removed by ICANN staff
3. Email verification
4. PIN letter mailed
E. Nomination - Wilson
1. Nominating committee
has seven members
2. All nominations
for Nominating Committee candidates are now received. Reviewing the
167 individual names received. (Good distribution across geographic
regions.) Now developing slate to be presented on the ballot.
F. Member nominations - http://www.icann.org/at-large/self-nomination.htm
1. Crew: Nominations
Committee considers reducing the 10% threshold of member nominations
for addition to the Member-nomination section of the ballot. Still need
to keep number of candidates small to reduce burden on staff, and some
voting systems under consideration don’t scale well to large numbers
of candidates. Instead of percentages, could accept for inclusion on
the ballot the top x number of member-nominated candidates in each region.
2. Cerf: A person
can only endorse candidates within the region in which he will vote?
G. McLaughlin: Outstanding questions:
Can one person express support for more than one candidate? Also, suggest
requiring expressions of support from outside of home country. Should
list of supporters be public?
H. Dyson: Provide more of this
information via email? Very helpful for some.
1. Klein: What if
candidates want to withdraw after being nominated? Could happen if candidates
have similar positions.
• Dyson: Don’t plan
on having too many stages of this process. Let’s keep it simpler.
• Cerf: Maybe not
so many people will want the job.
Groups with similar interests should find single candidates. Don’t go
through the intermediate step of nominating too many people.
2. Klein: It should
be possible to participate using nothing but email so as not to exclude
those with only email access.
3. Davidson: We’re
in uncharted territory. Time of year is difficult – many people aren’t
around in August, and that makes it harder to get nominated. Saying
“top two” helps deal with this problem.
• Dyson: OK. What’s
a reasonable cap for number of candidates per region?
4. Teernstra: Concerned
about issue of regional representation and citizenship. Propose that
candidates be assigned to regions based on residence.
• McLaughlin: this
causes other problems elsewhere in ICANN’s structure.
• Dyson: A small
but nagging problem.
5. Kornfeld: Advocate
lowering thresholds. 10% is too high. Supporting only one candidate
turns the process into a de facto election. Don’t want to deter people
from supporting candidates. Lists of supporters shouldn’t be public.
• McLaughlin: It’s
true that we said we’d never publicize member names. Publishing supporter
names would break that promise. Hadn’t thought about that.
6. Fockler: Capping
size of ballot?
• Election Committee
Recommendations - http://www.icann.org/elcom/recs-07jul00.htm#V
• Fockler: Perhaps
limit Member-Nominated portion of ballot to twice the size of the Nominating
• Kornfeld: Anyone
with 2% should be allowed on the ballot.
from Fausett (#860)
8. Cerf: What does
the staff think it can manage in terms of numbers of candidates?
• McLaughlin: Have
42000 verified membership applications. Getting about 1500 more per
day. Will have about 75000 by the end of the month. Membership staff
will be fully occupied by members and their activation problems. Leaves
me and one other person to be hired to deal with candidates. I’d get
nervous with more than about 35 candidates, say seven per ballot.
• Cerf: How many
candidates do we need in order to select one? (Assume that Nominating
Committee selects good candidates, as does the Member-Nomination process.)
• Cohen: Seems fair.
• Hotta: Have used
outreach efforts and corporate channels to raise membership rolls. Have
translated membership registration site. Have learned that millions
of Japanese users use only the email on their mobile phones. Need to
take them into account. Support Klein’s suggestion of using email for
• McLaughlin: Thought
about this. Decided we would require people to go to an Internet café,
business, friend’s computer, etc. But we have limited money, limited
staff, etc. and couldn’t build a system that worked for everyone. At
least to cast votes, and maybe for other parts of the process, have
to use the web.
• Roberts: It’s
common in the United States to “spoof” email addresses. ICANN has been
the target of this several times. Our advisors said we should be extra
careful about security and fraud. That you have to have a secure web
browser to participate may change in subsequent elections.
• Murai: Local people
can and should work on interfaces to specific devices. It’s unreasonable
to expect a central authority to support all.
9. Aizu: Breakdowns
• McLaughlin: Haven’t
defined the regions yet.
• Aizu: Concerned
about a nationalistic competition. If one country registers far more
people than other countries in the region, then it is difficult for
candidates from other countries in that region to get elected. Japan
and Asia in particular.
• Fockler: Just
reaching the threshold doesn’t mean you’re on the ballot if there’s
a cap on the size of the ballot.
• McLaughlin: This
is a problem. But we’d be discouraged if members voted by nation rather
than by candidate.
10. Yumi: The application
process will be complete by July 31. But what if you aren’t a member
by then? Many more people will still be interested. And how to continue
free-of-charge membership in the future?
• McLaughlin: July
31 deadline is not arbitrary; that’s what’s needed to make the vote
take place in October. Independent outside monitor has to review the
data for attempted fraud or capture. And want members to interact with
the candidates. Leaving time for all this requires closing membership
registrations on July 31. Re cost, the number of registrations currently
received is putting huge strains on ICANN’s budget and staff. Markle
Foundation grant is not sufficient. Anxious but optimistic that we’ll
be able to keep registration open through July 31. In future years,
if there are future elections, we will have to figure out a way to fund
11. Baker: Enough
time for member nominations?
• McLaughlin: NomCom
announces nominations on July 25. In first two weeks of August, member
nominations let us know. There should be enough time, even for those
who want to think about it a bit first.
• Dyson: Put lots
of content in the email messages we send to potential Member Nominations?
12. Concerned about
10% threshold. If non-Japanese want to run, they will find it difficult
because the Asian membership roster is so large but dominated by Japanese.
Similarly with gender imbalance.
13. Kim: Korean
Internet Forum was an effective means of conducting outreach. Surprised
by statistics previously displayed – didn’t realize Japanese representation
was so huge. Concerned that candidates only get votes from members from
the same region.
14. Love: How many
sponsors needed to get on the ballot of the Internet Society?
• Cerf: 50, I believe.
• Love: Anyone who
can get 50 supporters should get to be on the ballot.
• Roberts: This
seems like a US-centric view. And in the US we solve this problem with
primaries. Only one election here, so it’s just not possible to have
dozens of people competing for a single seat.
15. Simon: Need
to lower percentage from 10% to 2%. Problem will not be too many people
getting petitioned on. A cap is reasonable – perhaps eight to ten candidates
(per region). Finally, NomCom should nominate more than one candidate
(in each region).
16. Williams: Should
not have any limitations on the number of candidates on the ballot.
ICANN must be inclusive.
• Cerf: Oklahoma
City has the power to tax. We’re not in that position. Please be careful
about the resources required to carry on the procedure that you’re suggesting.
Directors are obliged to assure the financial stability of ICANN.
versus residency? Also, favor use of email interface, despite problem.
• McLaughlin: Need
to be a citizen to be elected to represent a particular region. Residency
not relevant for this purpose.
18. Danginu: System
chosen does not work for Africa. Want perhaps fifty members from each
country. Also, would favor email participation. MITF has a mission but
not resources which makes its work hard.
19. Abril i Abril:
Board Members do not represent individual countries or regions, but
the global Internet community. Thinking of the election this way prevents
the nationalistic competition.
20. Who pays for
Directors to attend meetings? What languages do they need to speak?
• Dyson: Have to
trust the people who do the voting to address specific requirements
for candidates. Want to leave much of these questions up to the electorate.
• McLaughlin: Must
be at least 16 years old. NomCom has posted some guidelines – English
fluency, time availability, basic technical knowledge assumed. Expenses
reimbursed, but that’s all.
21. Nelson: Do want
to have a manageable number of candidates. Somewhere between 2 and 4%
should be about right. But what about serious database problems with
receiving applications? How to deal with this problem? Should I send
• McLaughlin: Don’t
have a magic amount of money waiting to buy new machines. Nor to move
from one system to another while keeping systems reliable. We’re just
not equipped for the kind of load we’re getting. We designed a system
for certain specifications, which have been exceeded.
22. Bailyn (Markle
Foundation): How much more money might you need? (To pay for mailing
of PIN numbers or other expenses that can be paid at this point?)
• McLaughlin: Can’t
give you a good answer to that. We can use money from just about any
source. We can use more machines, translators. But we only have two
weeks – so it’s not clear that throwing money at the problem will fix
• Bailyn: Markle
will match funds to maintain this system.
23. Maruyama: Why
not poll the membership? Have to encourage those who can make contributions
to become members. It would be odd if members could participate in no
way other than voting in elections. If ICANN needs more support, it
should solicit membership fees.
• McLaughlin: Question
is what At-Large Members do other than voting. Membership for the purpose
of voting does need a cutoff point. But no cutoff for general participation
in the ICANN process. We’ll want to give interested people the information
they need to participate in the ICANN process.
• Cerf: Expanding
ICANN’s charter may not be a good idea.
24. Connelly: Other
countries should consider the Japanese model for registration. Used
a high-profile newspaper to announce Japan ICANN Forum. This attracts
public participation and interest.
25. Gaetano: OK
to hire additional staff for a few months if needed. We have 50,000
people registered and maybe 100,000 more coming. Have to organize them.
This isn’t the priority now, but it needs to be on the agenda in the
Transfer the ICANN At-Large list to ISOC and its chapters? These people
have shown an interest in the further development of the Internet.
27. Online comments
• Leah Gallegos
(#863) re publication of member lists.
• Bret Fausett (#864)
re setting a date for election of subsequent At-Large Board Members.
• Teri Powell (#865)
re importance of inclusiveness.
• Roger Antao (#868)
re fundamental principles.
28. Delays in receiving
mail in some countries. May need to adjust the process accordingly.
Also, should translate more.
• McLaughlin: Are
translating already into Chinese, French, German, Japanese, Korean,
Portuguese, Spanish. Done professionally.
29. Kornfeld: Capping
number of nominees would be OK if cap were 8 to 10.
30. Aizu: Two votes
for each member. Vote for your region with one vote, in any region with
the other. Also, Japanese link on membership page is broken.
J. Campaign: Don’t want to unduly
advantage rich or technically advanced candidates.
K. Online voting: Election Committee
recommends preferential voting. Least-preferred candidate gets knocked
off the list, then votes for them shuffled down according to voter preferences,
then recount until someone gets a majority.
L. Online voting system: Four
(and a half?) proposals received. Intention is to outsource to a commercial
M. Bylaws revisions - http://www.icann.org/yokohama/atlargebylaws-topic.htm
1. Sims: Have struggled
to figure out how to adjust structure created at start of ICANN to form
an effective mechanism for obtaining those At-Large directors. Temporarily
suggested a jerry-rigged At-Large Council. In Cairo, dumped the process
previously used and moved to the current process to elect five (not
nine) At-Large Directors. Ask four initial Directors to stay for another
year. After the election of the initial five, will conduct a study to
consider how to proceed.
• Bylaws drafted
to reflect as much caused some confusion. Some worry that Bylaws revision
are prejudging the outcome of the study. Suggest a new revision to Bylaws
to give the Board a free hand after the study to decide the subsequent
makeup of the Board.
• Don’t intend to
suggest that there will be five, nine, or any other number. Is intended
to leave the Board free to study the issue and make some determination
N. Monitoring & Oversight
6 - http://www.icann.org/elcom/recs-07jul00.htm
2. To assure that
system adopted works as expected. Might seek the services of an organization
dedicated to the task of overseeing elections.
• Offer from Carter
3. Study timing:
Begin after elections, end no later than second quarterly meeting (June)
of next year. Study, public comments, and reactions would be done by
Annual Meeting next fall. So that new At-Large Directors could take
office in the Annual Meeting in 2002.
Five newly-elected directors should participate.
• Leader: Not everyone
is a native English speaker. What does “soup to nuts” mean. Re size
of Board, the nine At Large Board members were supposed to balance the
nine SO members. Changing this changes the status quo.
• Sims: Key conceptual
point of confusion/misunderstanding/disagreement. Board’s actions in
Cairo were intended to respond to concerns expressed by the community.
Wanted to respond to what the Board thought were inherent difficulties
in electing half of the Board. Hence, the Board said they’d solve the
problem by reducing the number to be elected from half to a third (5
of 15), then reconsider the question.
• McLaughlin: Want
to write accurate bylaws that don’t prejudge the questions. Note that
Board will have to take action one way or the other.
• Sims: Current
bylaws provide for At Large Council and indirect elections. If we don’t
do this, we have indirect elections.
• Dyson: There really
is no status quo anyway.
6. Davidson: Thanks
to staff for working on this hard problem. Hard to work in real-time
with complicated language. We think changes go beyond the community
understanding of Cairo resolution. The “provided that…” paragraph is
the difficult one.
• Sims: Four extensions
are for one year, not more. We need to address the question one way
or the other.
• Davidson: This
changes the presumption. This is a change in that. The Board should
recognize as much. Current language is simple and straightforward.
• Dyson: I perceive
this language as a warning that if we don’t do anything, we’ll end up
with five directors.
• Sims: Time period
on the study was not ambiguous in the Cairo resolution. Said “in time
for elected directors to be seated in 2002.” Have struggled with this
for a long time with much public input, etc.
7. Cerf: Seems that
some people if the revised language said that our target was nine directors
until the study is complete. We can fill the four slots by appointment
if needed, as done by ISOC when no election cycle available.
8. Abril i Abril:
There has not been a change. Also, this influence from public interest
groups from Washington DC does not reflect the entire community.
9. Simons: Not in
Cairo, don’t know precisely what the Bylaws say. But the community’s
view is that there will be nine At Large Directors. Appreciate the problems.
Need to leave nine in the Bylaws to keep public confidence.
10. Sims: It’s conceivable
that the Board might decide that nine At Large Directors is the wrong
Should retain flexibility to keep number at nine if Board wants to later.
Or change the number later.
Confirm Sims’s recollection. Cairo decision was clear – a compromise
between views. Thanks to counsel for expressing this so clearly in the
13. Abril i Abril:
Criticism of ICANN seems inconsistent. First, complaint that Initial
Board wasn’t elected. Now, that we can’t let number of Board members
14. Wilson: Plenty
of time for Board and community to consider the outcome of the study
before we have to design the subsequent election.
15. Nickelt: Many
At Large members from Germany because some people worry that ICANN might
be very powerful or not reflect their interests. These will be difficult
worries to resolve. The more vague the Board is, the more radical the
elected At Large director from Europe will be.
16. Blokzijl: Object
to being called “non-democratically elected.”
Cairo was not nine versus five elections but direct versus indirect
elections. “Five versus nine” questions came up only after Cairo meeting.
• McLaughlin: We’re
arguing about timing. Want to make decisions after the six-month study.
Make the decision now, in November? We want to make the decision when
it makes sense.
18. Markovich: Board
should reiterate ICANN’s commitment to strong public voice and to nine
At Large seats set aside directly for that voice on the ICANN Board.
19. Wilkinson: Tone
of this debate and implication of Bylaws changes tend to lean towards
the corporate goals. Public policy interests lie elsewhere.
• McLaughlin: How
does the resolution do that?
• Wilkinson: Shouldn’t
be so cavalier in changing Bylaws. Some clauses of Bylaws should have
been in Articles (which are harder to change). Should not have vacancies
on the Board.
20. Simon: Review
ICANN’s minutes from Cairo. Revisions to Bylaws suggest reduction of
At Large directors from nine to zero. That’s what causes the problem
and concern. To keep the principle of having nine At Large Directors
until the study is complete, keep the existing Article V language but
saying “nine initial members of the Initial Board or their successors.”
This is desirable because it doesn’t prejudice how the Directors will
21. Gaetano: Concerned
about reduction in numbers of At Large Directors. More urgently: This
tilts the balance of power towards the SOs.
• Roberts: Agree.
Unanimous resolution of the Board in LA. Concerns expressed in Cairo,
hence the current compromise.
• Cohen: Constituencies
were challenged to self-form. Membership should do the same.
• Cerf: Sympathetic
to these issues. But don’t want to think too much about how constituencies
elected Board Members. Represent what everyone needs, not just the particular
entity that elected particular directors.
22. Kornfeld: Shouldn’t
stop the process before it has even started. We’ve been told that there
will be nine At Large Directors. Can’t change that now.
23. Markovski: Need
to make process more accessible to non-native speakers. Even with nine
At Large Directors, that’s not a majority.
24. Crispin: Serious
problems with process. Not clear that At Large election will really
be democratic. Study is very serious – need to give it due time.
25. Dyson: Hard
to prevent all fraud. But study is serious – not a delaying tactic,
but something real.
V. Geographic Regions - McLaughlin
A. Five regions according to Bylaws.
B. Two regions of the world are
hard to deal with. Middle East – Asia or Africa? Also, Caucasus.
C. Dzidonu: If Middle East is
grouped with Africa, then Continental African users will have no representation
on the ICANN Board.
D. Abril i Abril: Agreed that
Africa is currently missing from the Board. We can fix this.
E. Found United Nations list of
regional divisions with five lists. Africa, Asia & Pacific, Europe &
North America, South America & Caribbean, Western Asia.
F. Are hoping to represent Africa
as a continent. Our representation should not be diluted.
G. Simons: Suppose we increased
number of geographic regions to nine? Solves two problems at once.
H. Merren: Favor self-selection,
as used in ccTLD Constituency. Some countries would prefer to be grouped
with those with whom they share a language or culture rather than based
I. Love: Consider nine regions. To solve the
problem that some countries dominate a region, perhaps require that
the next representative from a region come from a different country
within the region? WHO does this.
J. Twomey: Shouldn’t get into
politics. Use someone else’s lists.
K. Lay: ICANN shouldn’t make decisions
about identifying regions. Besides, regions don’t matter anyway.
L. Are working on AfriNIC which
has well-defined membership. Use this to delineate ICANN’s African region.
VI. ccTLD and Administration
Policies - Touton
B. Stable contractual relationships
with country code registries are part of requirements of Memorandum
of Understanding with Department of Commerce.
C. Working on a flexible contract.
Draft posted at http://www.icann.org/yokohama/draft-cctld-status-quo-agreement-05jul00.htm
1. Van Couvering:
Slides referred – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/presentations/cctld
• Progress is being
• Some difficulty
coming to consensus within the ccTLD group, so it’s hard to provide
status reports to community.
• GAC proposals
think of governments as a hub communicating with governments and ccTLDs.
ccTLD Manager is to serve Local Internet Community, which includes the
• Have a best practices
document specifying expectations for fairness, non-discrimination, etc.
Redelegation in case of non-performance by ccTLD manager. Encourage
mediation (because communication is often the problem), then (if needed)
a board to make a determination.
• Procedure should
feature openness, due process.
2. De Blanc (ccTLD
Funding Group Chair): Hesitant to get into funding discussions without
discussing whether there’s a contract for services. ccTLDs are hesitant
to respond to an invoice because paying would imply consent to a contract.
Commitments reach $750,000. Hope to continue decoupling of funding from
3. Markovski: Need
a body to make rules for ccTLDs. Otherwise, governments will want to
make their own rules. ccTLD administrators should work with local Internet
users. ccTLDs should move towards competition in registration services
to reduce registration cost.
4. Decoupling of
funding from contracts will help facilitate competition.
5. Van Couvering:
Resolution is in sight.
6. Gambian government
made a request for redelegation of ccTLD. No response received. Gambian
administrator has neither technical nor administrative contact within
the country. At least tell us that investigations are being made.
• Dyson: Talk to
• Roberts: There
are a number of pending redelegation requests, and staff is limited.
They require investigation and are time-consuming. We want to see some
attempts at mediation.
• McLaughlin: Need
new policies. We don’t like this either. Hope to improve it.
• Burr: Redelegations
are difficult. Need an easy objective procedure that doesn’t expose
ICANN to liability that it can’t bear.
VII. General Comments
A. Olson: Support Wilkinson and
Cerf’s suggestions. We perceive that the “provided that” clause amends
the main texts.
1. Dyson: What to
do with the four seats?
2. Olson: Not sure
3. Dyson: That’s
the point. Need to do the study. Concreted suggestions for what to do
4. Cerf: Don’t know
how long study will take, don’t know what it will say. Could provide
a default (“in the absence of any other plan”) to suggest “the board
shall appoint four Members to replace the four who are leaving.” This
guarantees that there will still be nine.
5. Dyson: Big difference
between “we want nine Members” and “we want the Board to appoint four
6. Olson: Didn’t
say they’d have to be appointed, but otherwise agree with Cerf.
B. Question of what it means for
the Bylaws to be amended. Shouldn’t rush this important issue.
C. A few points: Registrars Constituency
should be called “ICANN-Accredited Registrars Constituency.” Re funding,
ccTLDs shouldn’t have to come up with so much money.
For additional technical information, please contact:
Ben Edelman and John
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School