Scribe's Notes
ICANN Board Meeting
July 16, 2000 - Yokohama, Japan

I.   Welcome - Dyson
   A.   Meeting open to observation, not participation
II.   Agenda - Roberts
   A.   Proposed Top-Level Domains
   B.   At Large Elections
   C.   Root Servers
   D.   Other Matters
   E.   Cerf: Suggest moving forward and making additions later.
III.   Top Level Domains - Touton
   A.   Resolution posted – based on DNSO WG, NC process, NC recommendations, public comments received, public forum. Resolves that new TLDs be introduced in a measured and responsible manner.
   B.   Schedule (to be adjusted if necessary):
       1.   Proposals requested (August 1)
       2.   Deadline for receipt of applications (October 1)
       3.   Close of public comment period (October 15)
       4.   ICANN announces selections (November 20)
       5.   Target for completion of negotiations (Dec 1)
   C.   Fees – non-refundable $50,000 per application to become a sponsor or operator of a registry
   D.   President should seek information from proposers
       1.   Technical, business, and management plans
       2.   Policies to promote orderly registration during introduction of TLD
       3.   Protection for consumers in case of registry failure
       4.   Minimizing use of TLD for infringements of intellectual property rights
   E.   Choice should consider:
       1.   Protections for stability
       2.   Extent to which it leads to “proof of concept”
       3.   Enhancement of competition of registration services
       4.   Enhancement of utility of DNS
       5.   Evaluation of delegation of policy functions for special-purpose TLDs
       6.   Whether proposal meets previously-unmet needs
   F.   Clarification?
       1.   Wong: Ordering of principles implies priority of importance?
           • Touton: No. Other principles may also be important.
       2.   Cerf: Who decides what is to be published? Applicant?
           • Touton: Intend not to specify it in the language here. Follow procedure used for registrar accreditation. Have to discuss details with particular applicants.
           • Dyson: Let’s give the President guidance that this should be an open process. If anyone’s idea is worth something only because they kept it a secret, maybe the idea is not worth so much in the first place.
           • Touton: Procedure for registrar accreditation: Anyone who thinks part of application is confidential says so with application. Staff reviews. Either registrar concurs with staff recommendation re whether or not confidential, or removes that portion of application.
       3.   Wilson: Policy is too vague? Language is not clear.
           • Touton: “Measured and responsible” per Names Council’s recommendation. Intend the wording to reflect that this is a new endeavor.
       4.   Triana: Consider financial capabilities also?
           • Touton: Yes, add that.
       5.   Abril i Abril: Should say “protect users” not “protect consumers” because more general?
           • Touton: “Consumers” is not the right word. OK to make the change to “users”?
       6.   Dyson: Costs section should reflect costs of “launch” also?
       7.   Cohen: There are other kinds of intellectual property abuses than infringements.
           • Change made.
       8.   Fockler: Note that ASOs and PSOs had the opportunity to review also, and no negative comment received from either. Add additional “Whereas” clauses.
       9.   Kraaijenbrink: Specify some particular kinds of TLDs that might be added: Fully open, restricted/chartered with limited scope, non-commercial, personal.
       10.   Wilson: Troubled by delegation of policy formulation. Don’t want to delegate too much from the Board to the President and staff.
           • Touton: Want to retain flexibility to design a proposal – but with the Board’s approval.
           • Dyson: Want diversity. Try delegating policy for some domains some way, some domains another way. Need diversity on all fronts, including geography.
           • Roberts: Note that President is not authorized to execute an agreement with a registry until the Board approves.
           • Touton: Note that schedule has been adjusted to accommodate the tentative Board meeting schedule. Make this clear by adding “After approval by the Board” to November 20 line.
       11.   Dyson: Add “variety of business models and variety of geographic locations” to diversity specifications.
           • Cerf: Can’t list all dimensions of variation. And can’t exercise all dimensions of variation.
       12.   Fockler: Would like to help President in the evaluation process?
           • Roberts: President is authorized to seek technical advice as appropriate.
       13.   Wong: Specify US dollars?
       14.   Cerf: Expect to receive proposals in English?
           • Touton: That was the anticipation. Could specify as much in the resolution. Or could leave it to the President’s discretion?
           • Roberts: Look forward to a multilingual environment. .COM registration applications have come from all over the world, and English requirement does not seem to have presented a significant burden.
       15.   Cerf: Develop a Q&A document? Web only? How about an email autoresponder?
       16.   Dyson: Anticipated number? What if not enough good applications? Hope for ~10 applications, not ~3.
           • Touton: Staff thinks it’s important to be careful in introduction of new TLDs. Ten would be a significant strain on our ability to perform.
       17.   Abril i Abril: Frustrated about low quality of debate. Registrars, ccTLD registries, etc. all agree. Being unclear about what we expect raises the cost of participation by applicants and others.
       18.   Kraaijenbrink: Hope to select one to two good proposals in each category. Add from three to eight at the most, probably really more like six at most.
       19.   Dyson: Want to be clear that we’re working on diversity. Want to prove that market regulation will work – put in place rules to make sure the market works (i.e. Whois, escrow, etc.). Willing to raise application charge if we need to.
       20.   Fockler: Support Dyson’s diversity comments. Hope to get to the upper part of the six-to-eight-to-ten range. But disagree that it’s a negative factor for proposers to want to keep aspects of their applications private.
       21.   Cerf: This is a proof of concept. Let’s not limit our ability to conduct the experiment by expanding it too much. Don’t want to prejudice opportunities in the future.
       22.   Abril i Abril: Don’t agree with Kraaijenbrink that we want one or two of each category. Don’t want to force the selection to satisfy diversity requirements. More important to select robust proposals for TLDs.
       23.   Wilson: Calendar must suit the numbers we are hoping for. Shouldn’t mislead ourselves or the public. The current calendar can’t handle six to ten TLDs. The current timetable constrains us to a smaller number.
           • Roberts: Staff and Board will have to discuss this on our monthly calls.
       24.   Fitzsimmons: Have added language to proposal to reflect goals of diversity. Diversity may not be most important point.
       25.   Conrades: Shoot for quality not quantity. Make sure we can fulfill our promises to the community.
       26.   Murai: Important efforts. Need to move forward.
       27.   Triana: Agree on quality over quantity. Emphasize “measured and responsible.” Shouldn’t try to exceed our means.
       28.   Wong: Concern that schedule is too aggressive. But have great faith in the marketplace.
   G.   Voting on resolution as amended
       1.   All in favor, no abstentions
IV.   At-Large Elections
   A.   Resolution presented - McLaughlin
       1.   Concern expressed that there will be only five At Large Members from 2001 to 2002. Have a solution to clarify that the Board expects that there will be nine At Large Directors at all times.
       2.   Also, want to clarify that Study will consider all aspects of membership.
       3.   Wording is simple, stripped-down.
   B.   Wording - Sims
       1.   Suggest: “Remaining four members of Initial Board shall serve until end of Annual Meeting of the Corporation of 2002.” (Rather than 2001, as previously contemplated.)
           • If any of the four resigns and is replaced, the extension applies to their replacements too.
       2.   Re study, specification of issues to be considered (others also, perhaps):
           • Whether Board should include At Large Directors
           • How many
           • How to select them (At Large Membership, appointment by Board, selection by some other entity, combination)
           • Proper role of At Large Directors, processes and procedures for selection by Membership
           • Proper structure and role of Membership
       3.   Roberts: Note that Board will charter the Study in LA. Plenty of time to discuss in more detail later.
 4.   Wilson: Definition of vacancy?
           • Touton: Yes, and only for the duration of the original term.
       5.   Abril i Abril: Are we increasing or decreasing confusion? And we’re extending terms of the Initial Directors against previous promises.
           • Wilson: It may be the only alternative.
           • Crew: Must take notice of public comment. We’re adjusting our approach and Bylaws according to public comments. This is what we should do.
           • McLaughlin: If the Board can act quickly enough to solve the problem after the study, we could solve the problem faster.
           • Wong: Don’t focus on fact of “initial directors” but on skill set. There’s an upside to keeping Directors around – creates an institutional memory that is helpful.
           • Conrades: Crew and I worked on Membership since the beginning. A hard problem. Election and study will be informative. It’s good that we’re reassuring everyone that we intend to learn from election process and do the study.
           • Abramatic: Tradeoff between building and changing. Need to be able to make changes while sticking with fundamental commitments.
           • Fockler: Have all been thinking about this a lot.
       6.   Cerf: Move that we adopt the resolution.
       7.   Dyson: Election of first five Directors is a proof of concept. Happy to wait for the last four. Changing your mind is no disgrace!
       8.   Triana: We’re effectively asking what the role of one kind of Director should be. That suggests there are two classes of Directors with different roles and responsibilities. But if you rephrase the question to “proper role of the Board,” then the study changes significantly.
           • McLaughlin: Delete the “proper role of such Directors” paragraph?
           • Wong: But want to save “taking into account of the limited technical and administrative responsibilities of ICANN.”
           • Sims: Move it to preface of study so it applies to entire clause.
   C.   Voting on amendment to Bylaws: All in favor, no abstentions
       1.   Abril: Vote in favor of the package, but oppose one particular portion.
           • McLaughlin: Minutes will reflect that.
   D.   Election Process
       1.   Document presented -
       2.   First resolution is general approval of dates recommended by ElCom and staff. Second resolution re implementation of rules. Third resolution re member nomination.
       3.   Clarifications
           • Cerf: Need precision in references – a title, not just a URL.
           • Abril i Abril: Ask about affiliations with national governments or international organizations. Provisions in Bylaws prevent such individuals from being Board Members.
           • Kraaijenbrink: Bylaws already address this issue.
           • Wilson: Request a brief statement (not to exceed 250 words) re qualifications specifically relevant to ICANN’s technical and administrative responsibilities, his/her leadership and policy-level roles.
           • Include in public posting information about investments in Internet-related organizations? Maybe too invasive?
           • Dyson: Previously, thought our conflict of interest statements should be public.
           • Crew: ElCom recommended not to post private phone numbers and email without the candidates’ consent.
           • Cerf: Not sure how I would have responded to that demand. List of consultancies, investments, etc. is pretty invasive. The US Government doesn’t give that to the public (though it does go to an Ethics committee). Should think hard about this.
           • Cohen: People seeking to run for office should have to give “enough” information. Have to figure out exactly what to disclose.
           • Wilson: Every board that I’m on has not demanded this in advance of serving. Rather, conflict of interest policy binds once on the Board. Also, could have a threshold – only disclose large interests.
           • McLaughlin: Question is what the community needs to know about a candidate to decide whether the person has a set of affiliates that are troubling.
           • Dyson: Shouldn’t call it a conflict of interest. No one is saying that these interests disqualify anyone. Policy is about disclosure, not disqualification.
           • Kraaijenbrink: Lost. Conflict of interest policy is clear, and we should ask potential candidates whether they can meet the policy as it stands. But focus on qualifications.
           • McLaughlin: No conflict of interest to having, say, a registrar owner/operator serving on the ICANN Board. Suggest inserting “ICANN-Related” throughout. Add word “significant.”
           • Cerf: On track.
           • Abril i Abril: Too vague. What does “significant” mean?
           • Roberts: Give staff some direction. Don’t get caught up in details.
           • Dyson: Use SEC’s definition of “material” to specify the threshold.
           • Crew: Board’s intent is expressed in ElCom’s recommendation.
           • Roberts: Vote on Crew’s amendment?
   E.   ElCom Recommendations
       1.   How many candidates to support? Geographic regions? Threshold of support required?
       2.   Fockler: Endorsements limited to a Member’s region, but should be able to endorse multiple candidates.
       3.   Cerf: Should be able to endorse multiple candidates. May not have decided yet which candidate to vote for.
       4.   Roberts: Endorse multiple candidates when can only vote for one?
       5.   Wilson: Don’t want to have an upper limit on how many candidates a member can endorse.
       6.   Crew: If multiple endorsements possible, may get too many candidates with the minimal support level. Would then have to use other constraints to reduce size of ballot.
       7.   Abril i Abril: If limited to a single endorsement, giving endorsements requires thought. If can make multiple endorsements, then the process becomes a game.
   F.   Threshold for support. Support from x% of members of the region. Support by residents of at least two countries.
       1.   Crew: Some favored using a high level of support. Support from at least two countries has not been disputed. Limited resources make it hard to handle many candidates – likely max of 30 to 40. Recommend max of seven candidates per region, combined between NomCom and Member-Endorsed candidates.
       2.   Roberts: So, propose 2% of At Large Members in geographic region or 20 members (whichever is greater). And support from members in two countries. Plus absolute limit of seven candidates per region.
       3.   Wilson: Disparity among regions in how many candidates to choose from.
       4.   Roberts: Note that this isn’t intended to “squeeze out” member-nominated candidates.
       5.   Fockler: Disappointed to have to cap the ballot. Endorsement phase becomes almost an election. Unfortunate but I accept it.
       6.   Wilson: Should be explicit that if we have too many candidates meeting the qualification level, deciding factor for who goes on ballot is how many people endorsed each candidate.
       7.   Cerf: ISOC has a similar member-nominating process. Haven’t found it overwhelming. But everyone who meets baseline criteria needs to get on the ballot.
       8.   Roberts: Hung up on limit of candidates on ballot. And some are bothered by introducing a primary in Member-Nominations.
       9.   McLaughlin: Less sure that we’ll have overwhelming number of Member Nominations. But don’t want to overwhelm the staff.
       10.   Wong: Extra funds might help?
       11.   Roberts: It’s hard to transfer skills to new human (or machine) resources. Doing so would add a month (or more). Not pleased to be in that situation, but think it’s reality.
       12.   Dyson: Think the seven-candidate cap makes sense, not just because of staff resources but voter source. Hoping to post extensive information about candidates. To the extent that staff resources are stretched, should be for size of Membership, not number of candidates.
        13.   Abril i Abril: In only two months, Members must learn about ICANN, election process, etc. Too much to ask for if there are thirty candidates. Even seven seems like a lot.
       14.   Cerf: Want to be clear about why cap is worrisome. If there is a cap, have to have well-defined criteria for who makes it in. If number of endorsement turns out to be huge, how to deal with the problem? Rules need to be unambiguous and fair.
       15.   McLaughlin: If number of candidates crossing threshold is less than number of available spots, then they all get to be on ballot. If more, then take the top n (when ordered by the number of endorsements).
       16.   Cerf: Process is undefined if there are too many people making the threshold? (If there’s a tie?)
       17.   McLaughlin: Do it randomly. Or some principle. (Who got the nth endorsement first?)
       18.   Dyson: Case seems unlikely. But if there’s a tie, we can let them all on the ballot.
       19.   Wilson: If there’s a tie, pass the problem to the NomCom which could make a decision.
       20.   Cohen: Use “a cap plus ties.” Unlikely that many candidates will have exact same number of endorsements. Let’s move on.
       21.   Crew: In MAC recommendation, suggested handling ties with random decision.
       22.   Kraaijenbrink: Agree with a cap. Favor “one who reached the tie first” approach.
       23.   Wilson: Stretching staff resources. Maybe should drop back to 30 in case of ties.
       24.   Roberts: Staff will have to support the election. If we don’t properly support the candidacies, we will have a failure of trust.
       25.   Dyson: If using exact numbers, possibility of a tie is very low. Ties more likely if we use a percent threshold.
       26.   Roberts: Endorse a candidate in another region?
   G.   Crew: ElCom recommended that each member can endorse a single candidate in his own region.
       1.   Cerf: Attraction to showing that a candidate has support beyond the region. Potential danger is that some regions could influence the nominations in other regions in a way that might seem unfair. On balance, oppose nominations outside the region.
       2.   McLaughlin: It’s been suggested that the next four At Large Directors be elected globally. Doing that might address these concerns.
       .   Roberts: Place a limit on number of member-nominated petitions? Clear consensus. For unlimited? None. What should limit be?
           • Dyson: The number of Member-Nominated candidates on the region’s ballot. Five in a region with five Member-Nominated candidates.
           • Abramatic: Stick with only one.
           • Abril i Abril: Allowing multiple endorsements facilitates some kinds of fraud. Safer to limit it to fewer.
           • Cerf: Abril i Abril is persuasive. Need to determine whether software can implement what Dyson wants.
           • Kraaijenbrink: Simplest solution is best. One. Let’s see how Board feels about that?
           • Fockler: Agree.
           • Wong: One. Makes it easier to trace mistakes.
           • Dyson: Three. Provides some discretion.
           • Wilson: Have to make this simpler enough for people to understand.
           • Roberts: Show of hands for one? Most hands raised.
   H.   ElCom recommendations – two decisions
V.   Amendment to Bylaws re Minutes
   A.   Roberts: Posted for extended period. Little public comment.
   B.   Vote: All in favor. No abstentions.
VI.   Subleasing of Additional Office Space
   A.   Resolution
   B.   Cerf: Need more room. Prices are reasonable.
   C.   All in favor.
VII.   Audit
   A.   KPMG, recommended by Audit Committee. Fee not to exceed $20,000.
   B.   All in favor.
VIII.   Root Servers
   A.   Root Server System Advisory Committee has come up with plans for a more secure way of updating the root zone. Resolution before the Board is authorization to move forward with it.
   B.   Cerf: Board should review proposal to DoC.
       1.   Roberts: Difficult to convene the Board in August.
       2.   Cerf: “Shall be made available to the Board prior to submission to the DoC…”?
IX.   Geographic Regions
   A.   See
   B.   Cerf: Make sure the list is cited in a way that persists.
   C.   Abril i Abril: Concerned about telling countries what regions they’re in. There’s no such thing as a neutral list.
   D.   Dyson: Have to make the system work. Are pleased to have delegated responsibility to someone else.
   E.   Cerf: Have to make a choice. Reconsider during study.
   F.   Triana: Congratulations to staff for finding a solution to this complicated problem. It’s good that this list fits so neatly with bylaws.
   G.   Touton: List includes codes that are not countries (areas).
       1.   McLaughlin: Areas should be grouped with countries. A person who lives in Guadalupe would be classified with France.
   H.   Duration of policy?
       1.   Touton: Bylaws provide that Board will review geographic assignment at least every three years.
       2.   Roberts: Can limit policy to the election. But need to make a decision now at least for the election.
I.   Cerf: Consistency with RIRs’ guidelines.
   J.   Abril i Abril against. Wong abstaining. Rest in favor.
X.   Voting System Update
   A.   Resolution authorizes President working with Staff and ElCom to select a voting system vendor. Rapid timetable.
   B.   Triana: Notification to the Board?
       1.   Roberts: Sure.
   C.   Roberts: Note tradeoffs between financial terms, system specifications, etc. System has to be able to handle 60,000 votes. Some vendors have already supported larger elections than that.
   D.   Voting: All in favor.
XI.   Status of server
   A.   “Load management”
   B.   How we got to this “awkward” place
       1.   Discussion in Santiago re how to move membership forward. Proposal submitted to Markle for $100,000. Took longer to obtain than we expected. Announcement of grant made only in November.
       2.   Board’s decision in LA contemplated an indirect method. Expected 1,000 to 10,000 voters. Wanted a system that could support 100 applications per day, peak of 500 per day. Those were the loads received in February and March.
       3.   Application rate increased from ~500 per day to consistently more than 1,000 per day, as much as 2,000 per day. Created a huge membership base (already 42,000 verified, more than 50,000 unverified). Expect 90,000 or more registrants.
       4.   Concerns about “fairness” of server not being responsive at all times of the day. Staff has no opinion.
       5.   Thanks to Crispin who helped with improving system.
       6.   After July 31, system use will be less database-intensive. Improvements in August may be helpful.
   C.   Dyson: Now we’re forewarned re planning for capacity. But what we can we do in the next two weeks? Mini-application to take their names and email addresses for subsequent follow-up? People who want to register should be able to. Maybe a separate front-end?
       1.   Roberts: Network access is not a problem. Issue is interaction of dynamically-generated web pages with database. Outside experts say little can be done. Every record in the database creates requirements for letter-printing, etc. that have to be satisfied, so can’t readily move to a new database. Have decided that it’s better to completely serve the people who have already registered rather than to do a bad job for everyone.
       2.   Cerf: Additions to what’s already there risks fouling up the entire process. Nervous about making changes at this point. Have to deal with this “success disaster.”
       3.   Dyson: Suggest a separate application to receive registration requests.
       4.   Wilson: We’re all grateful for outreach. But have to be able to assure that the system runs well.
       5.   Sims: The system must be working well if it registered ten times the people it was expected to serve.
       6.   Abril i Abril: Add mailing list to members page for those who can’t get registered to be full members?
           • Roberts: Outreach task force hasn’t made a recommendation yet re how to proceed once Members site stops receiving new applications. Possibility of referring users to the Internet Society.
      7.   Murai: Agree with Cerf re scaling and risk. Not changing anything for the same reasons Cerf notes. Also, Japanese people suffer from the invalid translations to Japanese.
       8.   Roberts: Also, note that hosting the Root will entail substantial costs, likely on the order of $250,000 per year.
       9.   Roberts: System is performing quite well on the basis of the specifications we had agreed on.
XII.   At Large Director Selection Plan
   A.   Review of ElCom recommendations –
   B.   Cerf: Concerned that voter education and candidate communication processes limit ability of some candidates to conduct a campaign.
       1.   Roberts: Before candidates get to this point, they have to have activated their membership. Anyone who can be a candidate already has web access.
       2.   Dyson: But what it it’s hard for a candidate to get web access?
   C.   Cerf: Concerned that this process will turn ICANN into something it isn’t.
       1.   Roberts: Well-meaning people all over the world are mistakenly calling this a “global election” and not noticing that we’re a small company with a limited mission.
   D.   For Monitoring and Oversight, choice between Independent Individuals versus Election Observation Institutions.
   E.   Fockler: In large regions where the 2% is greater than 200, a candidate only needs 200 supporters to meet the threshold. Threshold seems non-threatening.
   F.   Cerf: This bugs me too. Huge disparities among countries within a region are troublesome. But how to deal with this problem?
   G.   Fockler: Uncomfortable with telling someone with huge support (~500 people) that he or she can’t be on the ballot. Used to being able to get on the ballot; uncomfortable with being pushed off the ballot based on an effective primary election.
   H.   Abril i Abril: Not holding an election, but trying to select a highly-qualified slate of board members.
I.   Wilson: To accomplish Fockler’s goals, would need to adopt additional protections based on nationality also. Not inclined to do that.
   J.   Kraaijenbrink: Thought we were looking for candidates with most support. Doesn’t matter if there’s a bottom threshold or not. Stick with old proposal.
   K.   Cerf: Equal access to the ballot important. Stick with old proposal.
   L.   Murai: Don’t focus on nationality.
   M.   Mike: little support for Fockler proposal.
   N.   Fockler: not nationality focused proposal.
   O.   Voting on resolution as amended: Fockler abstains, others in favor.
XIII.   Thank You Resolutions
   A.   Becky Burr
       1.   Adopted unanimously
   B.   Local Hosts


For additional technical information, please contact:  

Ben Edelman and John Wilbanks
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School 

Other ICANN-Related Content from The Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Translate with Altavista Babelfish: Deutsch, Espanol, Francais, Italiano, Portugues