Thanks for the constructive comments, and the disclosures. Some comments of
mine (not a full "answer to everything") interspersed.
Esther Dyson
t 02:17 PM 08/03/99 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
>
>Hello everyone,
>
>Last week I attended the ICANN Board meeting in
>Singapore. After having had a chance to reflect,
>here are some comments:
>
>The DNSO.
>
>On Tuesday, I attended the DNSO formation meeting.
>The morning started out as usual, with both the BMW
>and the Paris draft supporters extolling the virtues
>of their respective drafts.
>
>The afternoon session had CENTR once again presenting
>a compromise draft, one that most in attendance could
>support at some level.
>
>>From my perspective, there was a major shortcoming
>in the CENTR proposal. Although there was a General
>Assembly that was completely open to anyone who wanted
>to participate, it didn't give them a voice on the
>names council.
>
>Unfortunately, I soon found out that most people didn't
>support giving domain name holders a voice on the names
>council. For example, a government official suggested
>that since the ICANN membership got to elect half of the
>ICANN board, they didn't *need* a voice on the names
>council.
>
>In response to these statements, I pointed out that domain
>name holders were a small subset of the potential ICANN
>membership (i.e. 13,000,000 AOL users vs. 4,000,000 domain
>name holders). I also pointed out that White Paper (our
>guiding document) specified such a constituency.
>
>Things really got interesting the next day at the open
>ICANN Board meeting. What started out as a presentation
>of the CENTR compromise proposal, quickly devolved into
>an attempt to accept the BMW draft as the basis for the
>DNSO. This became clear upon comments made by ICANN Board
>member Hans Kraaijenbrink, who upon further questions from
>Fay Howard of CENTR, revealed his affiliation to BMW
>supporters.
This had actually been discussed earlier in some e-mails when ETNO announced
its support for BMW. FWIW, it is well-known (and published on our site)
that Hans Kraaijenbrink is affiliated wtih ETNO. To quote from his bio on
our site: "Hans Kraaijenbrink is Chairman of the Executive Board of ETNO,
the European Telecommunications Network Operators association, located
in Brussels. He is also Manager, European Policy and Regulation with
Royal KPV N.V., the Netherlands where he is responsible for European and
international
regulatory strategic affairs."
FWIW, I see no problem with such ties as long as they are disclosed....
>
>By the end of the day, few knew where the board was
>going, and we left the fate of the DNSO in their hands
>to be decided in their closed board meeting scheduled for
>the next day.
>
>Much to my surprise, the board voted to adopt a DNSO
>very much like the CENTR proposal, *with* a non-commercial
>domain name constituency. IMHO, this was a major victory
>that revealed that this board could make difficult decisions,
>and that it could be influenced by public opinion and
>scrutiny.
>
>Draft Registrar Guidelines.
>
>My complaints with these guidelines have been widely
>published, and were reiterated by myself and others in
>Singapore. They can be summarized as:
> - Top heavy regulation
> - Circumvents existing relationships
> - Implies ownership over the entire name space
> - Establishes an unbalanced tax on some domain
> registrations.
>
>Here, ICANN has tempered some of the most distasteful
>aspects of these guidelines, and has reassured the Internet
>community that it does *not* intend to be a heavy regulatory
>body.
>
>And while few details of these changes were made available,
>it would appear that there are still some significant problems
>remaining with these guidelines. We'll know more as soon as
>the new guidelines are released.
>
>WIPO Report.
>
>In general, WIPO is taking some extreme positions on
>the relationships between trademarks and domain names.
>Most interesting were complaints from members of WIPO's
>own panel of experts. Dr. Froomkin has been widely
>
>quoted as one, and Michael Sondow suggested there
>were others.
>
>Coincidentally, after Michael's exchange with the WIPO
>presenter, I ran into another member of the WIPO panel of
>experts. I asked if other members of the panel felt as Dr.
>Froomkin did. To my surprise, this person said that they
>had stopped contributing to the process, because their
>comments had not been acknowledged or accepted.
>
>This person also said that RFC 3 was not a reflection
>of any kind of consensus among the panel, and that it
>basically came out of nowhere!
THis person should speak up....
>
>Reconsideration Policy.
>
>My biggest complaint with this policy is that it places
>three members of the ICANN Board in a position to review
>complaints about the entire ICANN Board. IMHO, there is
>nothing inherently reassuring about this process.
>
>Although this resolution passed, I am at least slightly
>encouraged that Esther Dyson voted against it because she
>"felt it didn't go far enough." I couldn't agree more.
Actually, I voted *for* this, and against the conflict-of-interest proposal,
which I felt didn't go far enough because it doesn't reauire public
disclosure of conflicts/interests. (Although note above that Hans's
affiliations are well-disclosed.)
On reconsideration, please note that this is *internal* reconsideration,
primarily for staff actions. There will be a separate provision (for which
we are calling for advisory committee members) for review of *Board* actions
by an outside panel.
>
>Missing Board Members.
>
>Given the importance and precedent setting nature of this
>board meeting, and given that at least one member was able
>to attend via telephone, I can't help but wonder why two
>members did not participate.
>
>Did they have some extenuating circumstance that prevented
>them from getting to a phone? Did they feel like they didn't
>know enough to make a decision on these topics? Or were they
>afraid to take a position on these controversial topics?
>
>Whatever the reasons, we are entitled to know. I hope the
>board minutes are descriptive in this regard.
Eugenio Triana had a personal emergency, and had to cancel suddenly; Linda
Wilson was planning to attend by phone but was caught in the middle of
meetings/financial planning etc. at Radcliffe.
>
>Board Diversity.
>
>One thing for certain, this board is certainly diverse.
>Maybe that's one reason they are fighting so hard to keep
>their meetings private.
>
>My hope is, as more of their secrets come out (i.e. Hans'
>heavy ties to European telco interests), they will be more
>likely to open up their deliberations.
again, these ties were no secret.
>
>As an aside, I found Hans to be very impressive. And as
>much as I am likely to be on the opposite side of most of
>his positions, I very much respect the way he was able to
>accept the communities desires with regard to the DNSO.
>
>Personal Consulting.
>
>It would be inappropriate for me to complain about Hans'
>relationships without publicly acknowledging my own. For
>the record, I do marketing and strategy consulting for an
>assortment of clients in an assortment of industries.
>
>Some of these engagements are specifically involved in
>Internet Governance. NSI has been one among several
>clients in this arena.
>
>To date, these engagements have been for analysis and
>insight only. And while I have been repeatedly asked
>to speak on behalf of certain prospective clients, I
>have so far refused to do so. I will publicly indicate
>when I am speaking on behalf of a client, should this
>situation change in the future.
>
>Summary.
>
>All in all, I'd say the ICANN meeting in Singapore
>was mixed. No-one got exactly what they wanted --
>probably a good sign.
yes indeed!
>
>On the positive side, the ICANN Board made some
>difficult decisions with regard to the DNSO. They
>also tempered some of their policies with regard to
>the Registrar Guidelines (although we don't have the
>particulars as of yet).
>
>On the negative side, they still held their meeting
>in private, and they adopted a reconsideration policy
>that doesn't provide any real independent review.
see above.
>
>Work to Do.
>
>Bottom line, we have made some progress, but we
>still have much work to do. We have to keep the
>public pressure on ICANN to open up, and to keep
>their decisions light and in the best interest
>of the Internet.
>
>We have to monitor the WIPO and Registrar Guideline
>situations. And we must ensure that the decisions
>announced in Singapore are properly reflected in
>the legal verbiage soon to be released.
>
>Finally, for those so inclined, we must work to
>organize the various constituencies as enumerated
>by the ICANN Board.
>
>For my part, I am going to suggest that ORSC work
>in two areas. First, to join with the existing gTLD
>administrators (i.e. .COM, .INT, .MIL, etc.) to form a
>gTLD constituency to include *prospective* registries.
>Second, to join with the DNRC, ICIIU, DADNO, and anyone
>else who would like to help form the non-commercial
>domain name holder's constituency.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.�
>404-943-0524� http://www.iperdome.com
>
>
Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 (212) 924-8800
1 (212) 924-0240 fax
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org
PC Forum: 21 to 24 March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
