Report for the ISOCNZ Council 13 - 17/07/00
Yokohama
18 July, 2000
First of all I would like to thank the Council for extending some help to make my participation possible.
It is to the credit of New Zealand and ISOCNZ that it was among the first of the ccTLD's to recognize the need for Individual's representation in the ICANN DNSO.
As a result, in Yokohama New Zealand was again represented by three people. My own representation was primarily aimed at gaining further support for the IDNO concept, an additional constituency for Individuals in the DNSO.
I am happy to report that this mission appears to have done its job, in that the General Assembly came with an impressive 65 to 3 vote in favour of the idea. More about this later.
Day 1
Started with some confusion about whether the meeting of the NCDNHC was as announced in the ICANN documentation, or was in fact the Civil Society Forum, taking place within the hospitality of the NCDNHC. It was the latter.
Interesting event, called historic by its organizer Hans Klein of the CPSR. Many new faces in the NCDNHC, a modernized but old fashioned labour unionist brought in by Hans Klein, who reported on his APC with a string of 20 worldwide associated non-profit ISP's with many thousands of members, of which the Japanese branch, the little known JCAnet, was present; many Korean academics (the Korean Internet Forum, that wants to go "beyond" the ICANN at-large membership) and organizers who had newly joined the NCDNHC and who ended up filling a good chunk of the room.
The microbusinesses were represented by AfterNic, a commercial organization facilitating resale of Domain names, now an ICANN registrar after having been able to prod them into action on their requests via a lawsuit. (see ICANN website) Judith Oppenheim is their prominent on-line spokesgirl.
Some faces, previously prominent, such as the remote participants Milton Mueller and Kathy Klein and the non-participants David Maher and Randy Bush were notably absent.
Key items on the speakers' lists were ICANN's mission creep, it's "democracy deficit", perfidious bylaw changes, chartered TLD's, .union, and surely our own Sue Leader urging pragmatism to achieve more remote goals such as gender balance in the ICANN representation. The afternoon was reserved for NCDNHC affairs. A string of resolutions was adopted, the most relevant for us being a repeat of the NCDNHC's endorsement of a separate Individual Domain Name Holders' constituency in the DNSO.
The Civil Society Forum continued in the evening, rather ineffectively trying to co-ordinate the next day's questions to the ICANN Board.
I will draw here on parts of my report to the IDNO-discuss list:
Interesting bits of news. Massive signup of (20.000 with another 15.000 waiting for processing) of AL members in Japan, orchestrated by the Government (according to the JCANet rep.), specifically aimed at getting a Japanese candidate on the Board. Opposition against this ethnocentric approach by Japanese NCDNHC members. Sponsors of this drive: the two biggest commercial internet businesses in Japan, Yahoo Japan and the biggest ISP, Niftyserve. These are the standard portals that most Japanese Internet users pass through every day. Similar recruitment effort in Germany, sponsored by the Bertelsmann Foundation and der Spiegel. As a result 100.000 members are expected by the end of the month.
It looks like the AL membership will grow far beyond the numbers originally anticipated by ICANN.
Other constituency meetings. I did not attend any ccTLD meetings and I trust that the council will be informed on these by Peter Dengate Thrush. I did attend a part of the Business constituency meeting. Marilyn Cade introduced me to a representative of developing country micro-businesses, somewhat orphaned in the Business constituency. Strong parallel interests to those of the Individual DN holders may lead to common policy initiatives, especially in Africa.
Day 2
In the GA of the DNSO, I had the opportunity to again present the main argument for an IDNO constituency and report on the current (lack of) progress, the inherent difficulties of a bottom-up bootstrap process, and the way forward.
Strongly supporting statements of other speakers followed. Dory Kornfeld, Hans Klein, Alan Davisdon, Jamie Love (if you have the time, please check the Berkman Center archive)
The GA overwhelmingly supported the establishment of a new Working Group dealing with the admittance of a new constituency of Individual DN holders.
It was pointed out that the GA did not have the authority to create WG's and that the NC should be asked to create such a WG. A resolution was passed to that effect.
Just before the meeting closed I was able to repeat my on-line motion (Roberto Gaetano read it out) The resolution, as posted in the GA list and presented on the floor was seconded by Hans Klein and adopted, with an overwhelming majority of 65 for and 3 against. 40 abstained.
No on-line contributions were read prior to the vote.
Roberto, acting as Chair, was a bit reluctant to hold the vote (he started with saying that fewer members were present) and later reluctant to recognize the result and make the count. He started pointing out, rather irrelevantly, that the number of abstainees was roughly equal to that of the FOR voters. Cries of "count! count!" followed, and that produced the final result.
********
Next came the issue of reducing the number of at-Large directors by Bylaw Change. Alan Davidson brought to the attention of all constituencies and the GA, the proposed new Bylaw Changes, to be voted upon by the Board on Sunday. These bylaw changes would reduce the guaranteed number of AL directors to 5 (instead of 9) for the next 2 years and after that it could be reduced to zero. Andrew McLaughlin (staff) had reportedly confirmed bluntly to Alan that this was the intent, thereby justifying the alarm. For the Board's decision, see day 3.
The Names Council meeting.
YP Park complains about the NC ignoring the WG-C consensus (on adding new TLD's). Ken Stubs puts a stop to YJ's attempt to address the point of the ignoring of the WG C consensus. No mechanism for the WG members to complain. Cochetti blames the problem to absence to any staff to deal with such complaints. Dennis Jennings insists that input is sought from the constituencies. Roger Cochetti calls for the creation of a WG (G) on performance review of the NC and of a task force to gather the input of the constituencies.
Proposal by Pindar Wong: establishment of a NC review committee. Michael Schneider (ISP constituency) wants to add to the charter of the task force and the WG *whether and how an Individual DN owners constituency should be established*. This amendment was adopted without opposition. Each constituency appoints a NC rep. to the task force. The chair of the GA will add a GA member. The Task Force can be constituted by the 25th of July.
Ken Stubs (NC) promises a decision (and report to the Board) "fairly quickly"
Day 3
The question and answer session with the Board was one-sided, as lot of speakers vented their frustration, but the Board found no time to comment or reply to concerns. On the contrary, the very flood of speeches allowed Esther Dyson to limit the time per speaker to a strict 2 minutes and of course no time for response from the Board.
Day 4, the public Board Meeting.
THE ISSUE of BYLAW CHANGES
After the GAC meeting two public officials Paul Twomey (now Australia's "ambassador" to ICANN) and Christopher Wilkinson (EU) publicly criticized the Board for proposed bylaw changes that would do away with the guaranteed user representation on the Board. They warned that such a move might invite Governments intervention against what then could be seen as an Industry cartel.
Perhaps as a result at least the issue of changing the bylaws to seemingly do away with the 9 at-large directors after 2 years, was addressed seriously by the Board today and there is now language that preserves the number, even if in the meantime (until LA 2000) that means holding on to 4 interim directors. Remarkable that it was Amadeu that objected against that idea. He did not find it appropriate to extend their term once again. It was unclear if he wanted to preserve the original proposal for bylaw change; in view of Amadeu's record, probably so. Only Vint Cerf questioned the (temporary) reduction of User representatives.
In general, the Open Board meeting was a little less stage-rehearsed than the one in Santiago. There was some genuine debate although mainly on issues of boring detail, rather than substantive issues, of which it was hinted that they would be discussed elsewhere.
The Board came out with a clear resolution on the requirements for new TLD applications.
The Bylaw change issue, decided upon in Cairo, was now phrased in slightly more appropriate language, leading to a cordial private exchange between Alan Davidson, who initially drew attention to the issue, and Joe Sims, who had to somehow admit defeat on behalf of the Board that had not managed to get the language that they wanted.
This is how the Board presented the meeting to the press:
Yokohama, Japan (July 16, 2000) - Today, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) held a regular meeting of its Board of Directors.
Items on the agenda included:
* Addition of New Top Level Domains (TLDs)
* At Large Membership and Election
* Root Server System Enhancements
* Administrative and Other Matters
Complete archives of the meeting are available at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/ and the text of the final resolutions are posted at http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-16jul00.htm .
Highlights of the resolutions adopted by the Board:
New Top Level Domains - The Board unanimously adopted the following schedule for the addition of new TLDs in a measured and responsible manner as recommended by the Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) and public comment.
* August 1, 2000 - ICANN to issue a formal call for proposals by those seeking to sponsor or operate a new TLD
* October 1, 2000 - Deadline for receipt of proposals
* October 15, 2000 - Deadline for public comments on proposals
* November 20, 2000 - ICANN to announce selections
* December 31, 2000 - Target date for completion of contract negotiations with those selected
Data elements to be included in proposals:
* full information about the technical, business, management, and financial capabilities of the proposed operator of the registry;
* a detailed description of the policies contemplated to promote orderly registration of names in the initial phases of introduction of the TLD;
* full details concerning arrangements proposed to protect users in the event of registry failure; and
* measures proposed for minimizing use of the TLD to carry out infringements or other abuses of intellectual property rights.
Guidelines to be considered in assessing proposals for selection:
* The need to maintain the Internet's stability, and especially the protection of domain-name holders from the effects of registry or registration-system failure.
* The extent to which selection of the proposal would lead to an effective "proof of concept" concerning the introduction of top-level domains in the future, including the diversity the proposal would bring to the program, such as fully open top level domains, restricted and chartered domains with limited scope, noncommercial domains, and personal domains; and a variety of business models and geographic locations.
* The enhancement of competition for registration services at the registry and registrar level.
* The enhancement of the utility of the DNS.
* The evaluation of delegation of policy-formulation functions for special-purpose TLDs to appropriate organizations.
* The extent to which the proposal would meet previously unmet types of needs.
* The importance of appropriate protections of rights of others, including intellectual property rights, in connection with the operation of the TLD, especially during the start-up phases.
The Board established an application fee of $50,000 USD. The fee is intended to cover the likely costs of the evaluation and approval process, and to ensure that the remainder of the ICANN community is not required to subsidize the new TLD application process.
This action is the culmination of a process that has extended for more than five years and is intended to test the feasibility of the addition of new TLDs while maintaining the stability and integrity of the Internet.
At Large Membership & Elections
The Board finalized the process for initial selection of five Directors by its At Large Membership. Those Directors should be seated in time for ICANN's annual meeting in Los Angeles on November 13-14, 2000. Following is the election schedule adopted by the Board:
* Determination of the ballot (now - August 31)
* Nominations by the Nominating Committee (now - July 31)
* Member-nomination process (August 1 - August 31)
* Voter education/dialogue phase (September 1 - September 30)
* Online vote (October 1 - October 10)
Root Server System Enhancements
The ICANN Board accepted the recommendation of its Root Server System Advisory Committee to submit, no later than the end of August 2000, a proposal to the United States Department of Commerce for the transition of the current root server system architecture to an enhanced architecture based on the use of a dedicated primary nameserver operated by ICANN. In addition the Board authorized the negotiation of agreements between ICANN and U.S. Department of Commerce for ICANN to assume responsibility for the maintenance and operation of various aspects of the root zone files.
Administrative and Other Matters
The Board adopted resolutions to:
* Appoint auditors
* Establish criteria for the specific allocation of countries among ICANN's five geographic regions
* Revise its bylaws to publicize actions taken by the Board more quickly than was required in the past; in general actions taken by the Board shall be made available on a publicly accessible Internet World Wide Web site no later than five days after each meeting
-----end of Press release--------
Here is Hans Klein's interpretation:
"Nonetheless, the final bylaws revision adopted by the Board still weakens user representation. While five directors will be elected this fall, the remaining four seats will remain closed for another two years (until the Annual Meeting of 2002). Thus, user representation will be constrained at 5 of 19 seats, rather than 9 of 19 as envisioned in the bylaws.
The near-unanimity of Board members in their support for measures to weaken At Large representation was striking. Of nineteen directors only one, Vint Cerf, questioned the reduction. All other directors were either silent or spoke in favor of the proposal to reduce elected representatives.
Rules for electing At Large directors also changed. The Board lowered the threshold for candidate nominations from 10% to 2%. In light of the possibility that a very large number of individuals might receive nominations, the Board capped the number of nominees at not more than seven per region."
end of quote from Cyber Federalist.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the ICANN Board has become a tad more responsive to stakeholder representatives input than it has been in the past. Several individual board members appear to have come around to start addressing the "democracy deficit". This is also mirrored in the attitude of the Names Council.
From my own perspective, the NC Task Force that will draw up the advice for the Board with regards to the admission of a New DNSO constituency will be the touchstone for this new spirit of "balance". Private remarks by a key Board member appear to warrant some optimism. But I'm not holding my breath.
Joop Teernstra LL.M
www.idno.org
© 2000 The Internet Society of New Zealand
Last updated 2 August 2000
