Hi, I took notes at the Jan 21 meeting. Nothing here is verbatim, everything is paraphrased, and it is possible I made mistakes. But this is a "best effort," and I tried not to editorialize. To give myself a break, I'm doing this in two parts. Part One, included here, consists of an introductory speech, presentation of drafts, and questions on those drafts. Part Two will consist of the facilitated attempt to identify points of agreement and disagreement. Sponsoring Organizations: CIX CENTR EuroISPA ICC INTA CORE NSI POC WITSA Attending (in no particular order. I missed four or five I think): John Englund (WITSA) Sarah Deutsch (INTA) Amadeu Abril i Abril (DNSO.ORG) Kent Crispin (DNSO.ORG) David Maher (POC) Bret Fausett (AIP) Siegfried Langenbach (EuroInternet) Jonathan Cohen (FICPI) Don Heath (ISOC) Robert Gaetano (ETSI) Michael Schneider (EuroISPA) Ron K.... (sorry) (CAIP) Jay Fenello (ORSC) Mikki Barry (IPC, ORSC) Nicholas Wood (MARQUES) David Tatham (ICC) Don Telage (NSI) Walter van der Weiden (ICC) David Fares (USCIB) Theresa Swinehart (MCI) Ken Stubbs (CORE) Fay Howard (CENTR) Bernard Turcotte (.CA) Kilnam Chon (APTLD) Antony Van Couvering (IATLD) Oscar Robles (LATLD) Tadao Takahashi (ECOM-LAC) Roger Cochetti (WITSA) Hal Lubsen (CORE) David Johnson (NSI) Marilyn Cade (ICC) Barbara Dooley (CIX) 1:45 pm - Begin Jon Englund - ITAA part of WITSA. Thanks on behalf of 9 convening organizations. Comments on how the meetings today and tomorrow are profound and revolutionary. All convening orgs actively participated in setting this up. Purpose: to make a more productive meeting tomorrow [in reference to the Jan 22 "open" meeting]. No groups were turned away from this meeting, except government groups, which were not allowed. The 9 convening organizations made room for lots of other groups. This is not a cabal, and we won't make any secret arrangements. This is an effort to probe areas of agreement and consensus, and to find the thorny issues that divide us. The charter for the DNSO comes from ICANN. There are lots of questions for the DNSO -- funding, Names Council composition, membership structure. The meeting today and tomorrow are part of an iterative process that has already begun. [Short introductions from attendees - name and affiliation only] 2:00 PM - Marc Chinoy, facilitator, says a few words. Ground rules - no debate. Identification of substantive issues. PRESENTATION BY DNSO.ORG (Amadeu Abril i Abril): The DNSO.ORG represents not a group, but a process. There are no internal voting rules, no appointed speakers. Because it is not from one group, the DNSO.ORG proposal is not as internally coherent as it might be. "We need more compromises than coherence." But a process is not enough, we need an application. We have two applications -- the "Monterrey Draft" and the "Merged Draft." These were made with two overriding concerns: one, compromise; two, put the application in by the deadline. 1. Monterrey Draft - expresses the current consensus of the participants in the meeting held in Barcelona and Monterrey. a. Constituency-based. Tried to define relevant interests, and to make sure they were represented in the Names Council and the Membership. b. Open membership. No restrictions on who can be a member. c. Six constituencies d. Powers - the Names Council must seek review from each of its constituencies e. Monterrey draft incomplete with regard to incorporation. The Monterrey meeting assumed no incorporation, then ICANN indicated that it was necessary. So this is unresolved. f. Funding -- no coherent consensus yet. 2. Merged Draft - merged from drafts from ORSC, INTA, and comments from NSI, ICC, [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. This draft is not "our" draft, not a consensus within the DNSO.ORG group. Should be seen as a tool to identify common issues, positions, disagreements. a. "Incorporation-friendly" b. New comments on the "boot-strapping process" - how the initial Names Council is chosen, other issues about beginning the DNSO. c. From ORSC, more specific language on Fair Hearing Panels, with NSI comments that Fair Hearing Panels should not be capable of vetoing decisions. d. From INTA draft, language on committees. e. More detailed language on funding, with some suggestions from ICC/INTA 3. General comments. The big issues are: a. Membership structure b. How individual membership should work c. Names Council/Membership power relationship d. Representation - what are the groups [constituencies], how are they weighted. But we should agree on an "automatic minority," whereby every group is a minority, with constitutional guarantees to protect minority interests. By this method capture of the DNSO is impossible. e. In the DNSO in general, and the Names Council in particular, we want expertise, people who know the issues and know what they are doing. *But* we need two diversities: diversity by industry, and diversity by geography. Finally, we need to ask ICANN some questions, for instance, how will contracts (and funding) work between ICANN and the registries. But we are finally beginning to have a wide enough participation to get something done conclusively. Jon Englund - What will the application look like? Will it be the Monterrey Draft or the Merged Draft? Amadeu Abril i Abril - The DNSO.ORG doesn't exist except as a process, so it won't submit anything. *But* there are new drafts. After comments, a final draft wil be presented to the organizations within the DNSO.ORG process, they will sign if they want to. Kent Crispin - The Monterrey Draft is drafted in the style of an application as specified by ICANN; later draft in the format of bylaws, more corporate because of the need to incorporate. So 2 documents are likely to be presented to the DNSO.ORG participants. Marilyn Cade - It's possible that we will agree on some things, work together, but there may be some deal breakers. INTA PRESENTATION - Mike Heltzer We looked at this as developing bylaws. The principles are: a. DNSO should protect interests of all concerned parties b. Should be fair, open, transparent - use current technology to assure this c. All interests should be represented d. DNSO should not "make" policy, but recommend e. DNSO should have formal structures f. The Names Council should be representative of constituencies, and should be the conduit to ICANN The INTA document is a working document; we are not hoping to be *the* DNSO organization. - We used the ICANN bylaws as a guide, with the addition of notes on trademarks. - Membership should be open to anyone with an identified interest - Should be defined constituencies - The groups [constituencies] should be from ICANN and DNSO.ORG meetings, plus others that come forward - Individual membership is OK, but should work through members organizations: perhaps "domain name owners" or "public advocacy groups", but the current proposals are too vague - Funding: we like a flat fee, but are willing to look at other methods - Names Council: something needs to run the DNSO. The Names Council should be active. It should be representative, and listen to members, but consensus may not always be possible. A weak Names Council will lead to chaos. - Initial Names Council should be limited, just to get things set up - INTA is open to other geographical diversity proposals - Allocation of Names Council seats should be according to level of investment - Concerned about the ICANN-registries relationship - Names Council should direct the DNSO - As to incorporation, ICANN should decide. INTA is OK with incorporation being outside the US. Antony Van Couvering - "Identified interests" should be represented in membership. What do you mean by "identified"? Mike Heltzer - That's why we're here today. Marilyn Cade - You can distinguish between types of users, domain holders (direct users) as against (for instance) customers of AOL. Where do you put them? Mike Heltzer - We didn't get that far - we're trying to define the "at-large" category. Sarah Deutsch - We don't want Amadeu's grandmother [in reference to an aside by Amadeu Abril i Abril about where to put his grandmother -- in other words, someone with little interest or experience in domain names]. Jonathan Cohen - Representation in the Names Council relative to "investment" - what does that mean? Mike Heltzer - To make sure that trademark owners and businesses have seats. Mikki Barry - How do INTA members get on the Internet Subcommittee? [Mikki Barry is an INTA member - Mike Heltzer describes the internal INTA process to her.] Ken Stubbs - The "at-large" membership. There aren't any equivalents to the AARP, with its tens of millions of members, for Internet users. We must acknowledge that this is evolutionary, it will develop. Pointless to try to identify Internet users groups *now*. Mike Heltzer - We just want it to be better defined. We don't want chaos. Seigfried Langenbach - ICANN has an at-large membership category. ORSC PRESENTATION - Jay Fenello Jay doesn't know the specifics of the draft, Mikki Barry did the drafting. Will go over principles. - Open, fair, bottom-up. Effort began with the Green Paper. - This is about Internet governance. - Process for bylaws - what can we pull from other groups? - Governance means consent of the governed. There are 200 plus registries; the rules must be acceptable to the registries, to prevent fracture or government intervention Comparison with other bylaws: - Bottom-up or top-down. Bottom-up means that it is not only the Names Council that should gather consensus - DNSO weak or strong? ORSC supports a weak DNSO. - Separately incorporated? DNSO wants non-incorporation - Names Council strong or weak? Strong means top-down. - Membership structures - the biggest group of stakeholders are domain name holders. Flat membership structure. - Proxies - How does INTA get represented? Use proxies - they can then vote for their members in proportional strength - Fair Hearing Panels - as a counterbalance to the Names Council. Ken Stubbs - How does this compare with the other SOs? Does the Addressing SO have people all over the world ratifying standards? No, it relies on experts. Concern about proxies introducing corruption, noting examples of fraud perpetrated by corporations using proxies, where people give consent to proxies without even knowing it. Mikki Barry - Proxies can be more fair; we also want veto power for registries. [At this point I go to the men's room. Later, I ask Mikki Barry for some notes on what happened during the questioning about proxies. She gave me this: "Proxies - points made were: 1) We can construct a fair process 2) Registry veto makes for a bicameral structure to avoid capture 3) Corporations who use proxies have a *very* hard time getting anyone to turn them in anyway. Makes capture *very* difficult." Of course I didn't hear the questioners comments, but I asked Mikki for these notes since it was her group proposing the proxies. Now we return to the regularly scheduled programming....] Don Telage - Proxy system is tough. Don Heath - ISOC has no proxies Ken Stubbs - Membership represented in the decision-making process already. Nine of ICANN's board members are chosen by at-large members. Aren't we defeating the "expertise" function of the DNSO? Won't the nine ICANN board members scream about it if there is abuse? PRESENTATION BY THE ASSOCIATION OF INTERNET PROFESSIONALS - Bret Fausett AIP has 8000 members. Mission is to "support the Internet community". - Our proposal thinks of the DNSO as a think-tank, a research arm of ICANN, not as a legislative body. - The centerpiece is the "research committee" - representatives of diverse stakeholders will get together and draft. - The DNSO should mirror the Internet, which consists of corporations and individuals. If we erred, we tried to err on the side of individuals. - Flat membership structure; capture not a problem with a weak DNSO. - Takes advantage of existing membership organizations -- if they agree to abide by DNSO rules, they can become affiliate organizations. Members of affiliate organizations automatically become members of the DNSO. Don Telage - Is the AIP a result of earlier groups? Bret Fausett - 3 groups merged 18 months ago, I don't know all three. David Maher - The only kind of members are individuals? Bret Fausett - Yes. David Maher - And members of affiliate organizations become members of DNSO? Bret Fausett - Yes. David Maher - What about corporate members? Bret Fausett - They would become corporate members of the DNSO. If AIP, for instance, is 40% of the DNSO membership, they would pay 40% of the costs. No additional fees to AIP members, in this case. Amadeu Abril i Abril - Both INTA and DNSO.ORG want research also. But what is an Internet professional? Bret Fausett - No-one is denied membership [Note: this may not be entirely correct. Bret was a lot more careful than this, but as far I could tell no-one is turned away. Case in point: I am a member ;)] Roger Cochetti - What is the advantage of the research structure? Do you want to leave all the power in ICANN? Bret Fausett - DNSO is constrained by the ICANN bylaws to give recommendations. The research committees will report to the Names Council, which will report to ICANN. Roger Cochetti - So there's no structural difference in the DNSO. Just emphasis. Bret Fausett - Correct. Roger Cochetti - What about American Express, or the AAA. They're membership organizations. Bret Fausett - The Names Council can make a determination on what is a legitimate group. [15-minute break is announced] END OF PART ONE __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
