World Wide Alliance of Top Level Domain-names

ccTLD ICANN Meetings in Montevideo

ccTLD ICANN Meetings in Montevideo, Uruguay, Latin America, 06 - 07 Sep 2001

Minutes

Meeting Documents

• 20010906.Montevideo-agenda.html
• 20010906.Montevideo-documents.html

Content

1. Plenary Session 1 - Sep. 6 (Morning)
2. Plenary Session 2 - Sep. 6 (Afternoon)
3. Plenary Session 3 - Sep. 7 (Morning)
4. Plenary Session 4 - Sep. 7 (Morning)
5. Plenary Session 5 - Sep. 7 (Afternoon)

Plenary Session 1 - Sep. 6 (Morning)

6 Sep 2001 9:49:46

ccTLD meeting in Montevideo - 6 Sep. 2001 (Morning Session) Chaired by Patricio Poblete (PP) & Oscar Robles (OR) PP: Welcome remark PDB: Opening remark - We have come a long way. We have managed to set up secretariat. Smooth transition to BK Kim and Abhisak. We managed to have lunch and reception. We now have name tags and card. The whole work has been focussing on the work of secretariat. Peter Dengate Thrush Presentation: Please go to presentation materials to see his presentation. We gave this presentation last week in Taipei including Peter de Blanc. How we got here as an organization. I will begin with the history. I begin with US government. A large part related to money. IANA manages this project in the past. RFC 1591 under John Postel upto 242 cctlds. The other side developing is NSI sign in 1993. In 1995 Jon Postel proposed to increase 150 gTlds. This is not appreciated by Internet pioneer. That brought in new players. The US trade mark associaton don't like the idea. We also started to see involement of foreign goverment. They signed the mou in geveva to creat a share registrar and so forth. But the growing pressure in the middle and value of .com increasing but US DoC becomes involved and responsiblity transfer to IANA. We get the green paper and White Paper and Sep. 1998 ICANN was set up. A Nukmber of people seems that this was not appropriate. US DoC said if you can meet the term of the White paper, we will transfer this function to you. ICANN structure has been created with 3 DNSO Directors and a number of constituencies. There are also 3 PSO Directors and 3 ASO Directors. There are still 4 virgin birth of Directors. There are 5 at large Directors. There are also GAC. A problem with this is they fail to recognise the unique property of ccTLDs. Our proposal is to detach ourself from DNSO and put at at ccSO with 4 seats of Directors. Also there is a presentation from Asian Board last week. Where is the money come from. (see presentation) Where is the power? Need global body to represent. ccTLD Issues: What are the issues that make us difference. IDN, New gtld, Lack of representation in ICANN structures. Needs to be outside ICANN - as a first step to negotiate with ICANN. What we are proposing is a collective trade association. And because ICANN staff requested a peer. Let me talke about Peer organization. This is the meeting that Andrew announced the first task. There is no way for ccTLD will talk as a one body. Why Outside? - Redelagation - for ICANN is only to report the outcome. DRP is ccTLD to develop, not ICANN. Content is the issue that we have deal with, not ICANN. similar issue is second level TD. ICAnn has no role. IP interests, the GAC, verisign. The other issue is security. ICANN may fail. Benefits of being within ICANN We need to cooperate with IAND, gTLDs, ASO, PSO and DNSO. We have to agree to incorporatie out side ICANN. New ICANN strctures - ALSC report provides different icann structures. The cart and the horse - It should our organization to tell ICANN what to do. That way the relationship come back to peer to peer relation. Incorporation Issues - We need a name to describe us such as AIMcc. We need to decide on membership structure. Let take a look at this option. Arguments for regional would be lightweight and supported by Europeans. Arguments for Individuals. More democratic, harder to capture and more than 5 members and flatter structure. There are arguments against Regional: requires audit of regional association. Ignores differences in size of internet in regions. (Europe vs. Africa) Arguments against Individauls: too hard to get global concensus, even in regions. easier for new cc's to travel to regional meetings. It's very hard for ccTLD from Africa to come to Latin America. Solutions: Regional - an association of 5 regions, 3 reps. from each region form ccBoard. Individual - An association open to rep. of cc. Functioning as an SO. - ccBoard acts as ccCouncil, policy issues raised from International body, elect 3-4 ICAnn Board directors, councils would meet and report to open forum and to board. Other issues: subscription policy - self select including US$0.00 for APTLD model. CENTR model has similar self select band that seem to be working. There are other models that we can compromise. There are issue of membership threshold, 25 at least. Do we wait for 242 to sign on? The question of how big of participation. 95 ccTLDs from election last time. How many board seats we want? There is model to have us actively participating. In that case we need some certain number of board seats. It would be difficult for us to start with one. Conclusions: we have to have a strong financial viable organization. As a result of that we will get a share of respect. Timeline proposed: this will be very tight. In the next two days, let debate on principles and concludes Published principles and lobbying begins. voting on principles occures online Draft Articles for AIMcc posted 5 Oct. Voting on Articles on 12 Oct. then Incorporated AIMcc Published bylaws. Voting on bylaws. Articles and bylaws published And in Nov Los Angeles - voting to adopt bylaws. That is the end of my talk.

6 Sep 2001 10:19:57

Peter de Blanc: You heard from Peter Dengate that what we want to do. There are a lot of interest of what ccTLD would do. As PDT suggested, ICANN should be recorded what is the outcome. If any of you wish to go out and employ rack space and servers, you would specify what you want. So this contract should be written by us. We don't sit around. So to conclude, as you go about in the hall, go with the sense of our destiny. We always provide ourself, listening to internet users. There is more opportunity to help and assist those developing ccTLDs. This will make the whole system stronger. Adminttedly, some other constituencies now have the same ides. We want to build the alliance so that they can understand that we don't take anything away from them.

6 Sep 2001 10:27:29

Coffee Break

6 Sep 2001 11:09:03

EP Presentation (Please see her ppt file) At large and ccTLD - ICANN reorganization - My proposal is ccSO to have 6 ICANN Directors. My observation based on statistic take from mailing list. It was dominated by North Amerca English Speakers. I am very happy to have an International cafe. Conclusions - ICANN reform is nessary. ccTLD component is essential for ICANN and its structure does exist. At large component is essential for ICANN Presentation by Marianne W. , General Manger of CENTR (no presentation materials) The contract should be written by us. To conclude this briefing, we are only doing what we have been doing. There is more opportunity for us the ccTLDs to help the unstable ccTLDs. This will make the us stronger and we are not taking anything away from the other constituencies. The other constituencies are also thinking making their own SO. A new incorporated body will take time to be established. Therefore, this might take some time. You don’t know what will come at the future. This org. will need money, a secretariat, and a place to stay. You have to build new organizations. Therefore, it will not be light weighted. If you combine the existing organizations, it will be better to reach consensus when we have similar backgrounds. (regional) It will be easier to reach consensus first and then again at a higher level. Presentation by Stephan Welzel from denic - Peter de Blanc said we want to do this. What this means. We have agreed on creating ccSO but we have not agreed on anything more than that. The presentation from people this morning got some good ideas on this. My impression is our discussion suffered from one thing. We discussed how ccSO could look like. We should see what ccSO like within ICANN structure. This reorganization is the starting point of our discussion. If we are talking about SO, it will be inside ICANN. If it is out side ICANN, it is World Trade Organazaion. we have to be careful here. If we look to other SO, we have to realize that this SO only exists as SO. If we create a WTA, this would harm association on one side as well as SO. It would be as association, it would be weak. This is outside ICANN. Even if we think to have separate organzation. How can we claim board seats when we claim that we are outside ICANN. If we agree to create such an organization, this means ICANN has to say in all the issues. I don't think we want that. I don't think ICANN should have any say on content or DRP or Pricing issues. If we keep that in mind, the starting point is easy. It should be narrow scope. Alf Hansen: I agree with Stephen Welzel. The way to go forward is to use the regional organzation to get together to discuss this. Nigel: It's about time we did this. Joop: I do support what has been decided by the ccTLDs. I have not come across gDNSO. I would like the supports of the individual constituencies to take part in the names council. I have many objections and questions about the SO. We do want interaction with the DNSO and do not leave the DNSO behind. PDT: Do we need another organization? We don't make new org. We are converting this exist cctLD const. to ccSO organziation. When we say we have 3-40 people at the meeting. We got .de with 4 million names. we got .uk. The term of representation is very good. There is no period of weakness. We are in charge of this action. We had already done all the work from regional organization. We did agree on crafting ccSO. We think the mechansim is not to do it outside ICANN. Let's go somewhere we can form the organazation. One of the jobs for sometime is to do ccSO work. There is no question is ccSO is inside ICANN. There is a suggestion that somehow ccSO would be weak. There is any consistency of weakness. We won't get any board seats because we don't be a certain part of ICANN. We will choose what part we want to be with ICANN. We are the filter what goes in the ccSO. Let's me make one final point. I am in favor of regional organization. CENTR is a model and become one of the power house of association. What we are going to do, we have to have an association. It seems to me that is the critical issue right now.

6 Sep 2001 11:51:20

Open Discussion: Young Eum Lee, proxy for .kr: .kr support ccSO formation creation. The relationship between ccTLD managers and ICANN is just that, individual country, not regional organization. That is the strength. Instead of saying that each regional org. talked separately with ICANN, I think we are all one. Maureen Cubberly of .ca: Morgan Taragin of .il: I suggest we start SO. At this point, we try to set up SO to go into contract with ICANN. We agree that we need SO. But i think the actual structure and small points should be left to AdCom to work on details. We should focus on global issues. David Thompson of .au: There is a contract between .au and ICANN. It should not be construed that we have not supported ccSO. It is a redelation issue of .au. We support the ccSO formation. PDT: Let's start putting some issue on the board and talk about them. Sabine of .de: I think it's much easier to start off with what our needs are and point out step by step and put away of what ICANN don't like to have. PDT: The primary reason to do it is political than anything else. from South Africa: Many African ccTLDs are not functioning. The ccSO formation is important and is a real way of the ccTLDs to become active. Nii of .gn: We support the idea of the ccSO. We suggest that we move as fast as we can with the formation of ccSO. PP: I personally tend to think that this is a technical matter. We will have to be working on the ccSO side of it, how we will reassure the other constituencies that we are not taking anything from them and such. Incorporation is not important part of this. Perhaps starting from the ccSO side is more practical. What I tend to get from the presenations is that we have fundamental differences. We should be discussing on world trade organizations and such. Maureen of .ca: If it is regional, the individual cc's will not have access? It is easier to participate in regional level and then across to the next level. That will insure more participations from the individuals rather than leaving them as individuals. Morton from .il: It is easier to travel to regional meetings. If that is the only reason to have regionals, I don't think that is important. Maureen: It is not just travel. The consensus at a regional level can lead to consensus in international level. PDT: We are trying to take what we have at the moment and trying to have that into the new organization. We are not excluding individuals. If we say that the only members of the SO are regional, that is exclusion. We are trying to organize what we already have. It is not easy to travel regionally. (AP) Marianne W. from CENTR: We don't want to exclude anyone in anyway. The ccTLD managers will still have a direct relationship with ICANN on few items. There are such things that cannot be through a SO, for example the ccTLD contract. PDT: the ccTLDs as a constituency does not want to hear what is going on in GA. What I would like to ask people who are supporting a regional, there will be no global meeting of the ccTLDs and only the representatives but I am opposed to it. What I want is a meeting where everybody is participating. MW: That doesn't mean we don't have a meeting like this, where all ccTLDs are present. The regional will decide what is on the board. Patrick Lay .ag: These regions does not represent the individuals and that is one of the problems. There is just one consensus that we need a ccSO. We should start with that. We just formalize a different structure. We should let the individuals decide whether they want regional representations or a direct contact. Willie Black .uk: Where the power will be is worrying everybody. We are worried about how it will be constructed. If we are to discuss mutual interests, it doesn't matter how it will be constructed. We have to decide individually on the contract with ICANN. What will this organization as a ccSO do for us? How will it bind us to ICANN collectively or not? CENTR has consensus in favor of regional structure but I've heard the argument on the other side. What power does this body have?

6 Sep 2001 12:33:42

Open Discussion: continued Morton Taragin of .il: I have the following question, what is the difference with what we have now? We just want to move ourselves up into another level and take the necessary formalism to do that. Willie Black: We are trying to formalize it and I don't think we can be informal. What I am asking is what will this organization be? I don't think this current structure has any power at all. PDT: We should make committment. The critical question is what are the powers we are going to see of this organization? To negotiate and consult, we need to be outside of ICANN. We should also think about alternative ways to 'participate' in ICANN. Young-Eum Lee .kr: Ultimately, everybody is talking about the same thing. PDT is talking about individual members but regional representation. Everybody is talking about the same thing except about the powers of the regional councils. PP: The LACTLD's interim president, Rafael Ibarra and Oscar Robles as vice president and Margarita Valdes as secretary.

6 Sep 2001 12:45:15

Lunch Break

Plenary Session 2 - Sep. 6 (Afternoon)

6 Sep 2001 14:15:51

Open Discussion for afternoon session - Sep. 6 PP: We have PDT leading the discussion. PDT: I like to get back to Willie's question. What I put up on the board is the legacy contract posted by ICANN on Sep. 2. This is the time that this language will appear on the contract. This is going to be contract that we sign. Recognize what you will get, you will oblige to sign contract like this. You will adhere to ICANN global policy. What you bind into is ICANN developed policy. Means you will have to take part in ICANN process. In the other part is you will have to pay ICANN. The issue is you are bound by contract to pay money to ICANN, you better make sure you can take part in this process. Part that involve if you can not live with, you should not be here. The power of ccSO we are creating will be the policy that we can control.

6 Sep 2001 14:26:55

WB: I come to ICANN meetings because I am concerned if I don't come, somebody will say something in my place. The ICANN was created because of the gTLDs. I am content with the current status quo. Nigel: After leaving the DNSO, what comes next is unclear for me.

6 Sep 2001 14:27:00

Marcel Schneider .ch/.li: I think we should also look at from ICANN's perspective. ICANN is restructuring. We can communicate to ICANN as a whole and there should be a professional people who can speak for the best of the constituency. As soon as we make multilingual, the decision making will take longer. If we want fast process, we should have a flat structure. If we want to be part of ICANN, we should also present things in ICANN interests.

6 Sep 2001 14:33:12

Chair asked secretariat to show the Stockholm resolution on the screen. Maureen of .ca: I wasn't at that meeting. This is the general approach to things. PP: The only thing we have agreed is that to form a ccSO. PDT: I'm not sure. The part of the reason we have not made any progress is because some people say they don't want to be part of the ICANN. When we get to the fundemental reasons, they withdraw and maybe that is why we don't get any progress at all. If you don't want to take part in the policy making process, then how can they argue about how to reconcile in forming the SO.

6 Sep 2001 14:38:00

Nigel Roberts: Can we have a brief recap of what you just said? PDT: We all agreed on SO. Let's continue with the ccTLD constituency we have now and move it somewhere and incorporate it. And take it to the board saying that this is our SO. The opportunity should be taken to see what changes can be made to our current structures so that the new organization doesn't come with all the problems. We can incorporate it or just hold it on a limbo and go straight to the SO. Let's focus on the current administration and structure. Is there anything more fundemental about our structure that we want to change? Morton Taragin: We the individual ccTLDs do not have to accept that clause. (legacy mou no. 5) PDT: We can turn that to David Thompson or CIRA. They have done the same thing. There is no problem signing a clause like that if you are there. If you don't want part of the organization, you should not be here.

6 Sep 2001 14:39:16

Sabine of .de: I think the question doesn't reflect to. What is our authorities from ICANN or ccTLD? And what is the global policy? That is the border line to participate. The concern is the need that ccTLD has. That is part of local Internet community. It should be part to come to understanding if you discuss something like that.

6 Sep 2001 14:40:04

PDT: I think that is the issue. It was highlighted in the morning, being outside of ICANN. So there will be things you might want to leave home. There are things we want to discuss ourselves. But there might be things we have to discuss with the ICANN. Per Koelle: To me policy means something within country. ICANN policy should only be taken to standards and if that is the word, it's ok to me. But they should not impose anything on me.

6 Sep 2001 14:43:04

PDB: The issue whether we give up our Sovereignity or not is not the issue here. We come to this meeting to create some way of communication. It has nothing to do with contract. Further, the idea of ccTLD and ICANN contract is up to the term in the contract. We spent part of years to study the terms of contract. All these issue is separate issues. Why we may wish to interact these mechanism to ICANN. It's all about Power, money & others. The estimate is by the year 2002 - 2003 there will have millions of names of IDN. All the money of IDN of korea may go to US, not Korea. It happens probably right now with testbed program. There could be mechanism that ask to pay to Korea. The policy by negotiation somehow get the money back to Korea. It's not the kind of thing that we won't participate in if we don't have mechanism.

6 Sep 2001 14:50:30

Morgan of .il: Two separate things. Right now, we have ICANN whether we like it or not, we have to work with it. The purpose of why we all here is to protect the rights of registers. If we work as a block, we can protect certain common interest. We have more strength with ICANN.

6 Sep 2001 14:52:42

Herbert V (ICANN liaison): Let me just give an example of policy. We only have one policy, it is called ICP 1. If you think ICP 1 should be changed, it is up to you to decide. I will be happy to take it to the board for consideration. I would like to invite you to the public forum, which is on the 9th, for the update of ccTLD agreement. I hope you don't lose anything on this document. We spoke to LACTLD and APTLD to give an early update on this and will at the end of this month to the CENTR. This is the item of the agenda for the November meeting. Pilar Luque: I just wanted to say that we should just forget about the contract because it is something to be discussed just between the country and ICANN. We are here to discuss about the formation ccSO and we should just concentrate on that, and not deal with the contract.

6 Sep 2001 14:52:54

Nigel Roberts: Two separate comment on what Herbert said. To publish a document 3 days prior to the ICANN meeting. It is unrealistic that we will discuss it. It should be announced 6-7 weeks prior to an ICANN meeting. PDT: Let's take Herbert's side. Let's get back to the issue. There are policies that can be put through the ICANN process. There were some things that Sabine said that might be appropriate. Is there class of issues that might be appropriately discussed with ICANN?

6 Sep 2001 14:56:58

WB of .uk: I am quite sure the whole benefit of ICANN to do this. Somehow I don't think that is what ICANN is established to do. PDT: Thanks for the first part of that which is yes. How do we deal with ICANN.

6 Sep 2001 15:02:00

PDT: May I ask David Johnson (lawyer who negotiate the contract between ICANN and NSI) to explain how the policy will be developed. Maybe we opt for some kind of parachute. We can still have another reservation if we don't like it. How is the binding policy with NSI? NSI has completely different relationship with ICANN.

6 Sep 2001 15:10:54

David Johnson: I think it is impossible for ICANN restructuring without talking about the contract. Why and under what condition, that any registry should follow any rule other than what they want to follow? If the ICANN board, would itself have expertise and have decisions everybody can refer to, that can be reassured. But that is not the case. The ultimate theory, in the process of adopting bylaws comes from 2 principles: 1. picket fence: ICANN can only make rules of narrowly described fundamental issues. It only has powers to act on that subject. 2. It can only act if most concerned has reached consensus. The fundamental contract that ICANN is what it meant to pose, people can go along. We are not asserting sovereign powers on anyone. Is there an adequate mechanism that your voice is heard? Will you be able to go along with what others have agreed? If you begin to think about the contract, there is no possibliblity that it will be legitimate. Are you able to abide and reach consensus with others? Are you prepare to sign contract with ICANN based on that consensus? Is there enough of a voice that any declaration can be made?

6 Sep 2001 15:11:00

PDT: I found that very helpful. ccSO can negotiate any more?. Please suggest. David Johnson: It depends on the subject matter. It is ultimately the contract that sign with the ICANN and it defined the activities with ICANN.

6 Sep 2001 15:14:35

PDT: Structural? What about the current structure we put a lot of time into? What about the old structure, what we can take or leave behind. If we had a ccSO that looks like ccTLD constituency, will people generally support that? If that is consensus, we can leave that to legal drafting and change constituency to SO, but that is not a big issue. We should think about the structure.

6 Sep 2001 15:16:19

Ken Fockler: I attended many of this meeting. I want to emphasize the maturity of this ccTLDs. I strongly support that you continue to do this activities. I don't know how close you are to deal with this members of ICANN. MOU of ASO to define of what they would do. I am not sure it would be nice in some way that you have association whether regional association or individual association. There needs to be binding either way. One of my questions to Willie is that is it comfortable to see ccSO and CENTR.

6 Sep 2001 15:21:19

PDT: That is great. Sabine, does that work for you? Marianne? Marianne: How would we structure that? I don't see how it is simple. How should this look like? We would have 2 regionals, and 50 individuals, how will that work as an organization. As a lawyer, I don't see how we would this. David Johnson: That is the exact problem. It is impossible to set up voting rules that will reflect to everybody. So the principle behind making consensus policy is when you are comfortable with the decision, without worrying who voted for what.

6 Sep 2001 15:21:57

WB: I could forsee a view where provided the contract was as light weight with ICANN as we see it should be, I could see that CENTR might be done that way. PDT: If the organization we are talking about is flexible where we accept individuals not really part of regional, that seems like a reasonable compromise. Certainly not now.

6 Sep 2001 15:21:59

Maureen: Could we structure it that each cc participate as an individaul or as a regional, the choice is up to each cc?

6 Sep 2001 15:24:54

PDT: We should stop here. And start looking at the principles. PP: If there is anyone here who would like to revoke the motion of stockholm, please raise your hand. NOBODY

6 Sep 2001 15:28:19

Maruyama: There is 2 parts in Stockholm resolution: 1. form ccSO 2. withdraw from DNSO. Please ask the participants what they each think of the 2 resolutions. PP: Who revokes this decision? WB: What is the organization that we are asked to support? Is this mandatory or voluntary that we join? PDT: The issue is, do we want to form a ccSO? If so, we have to look at how we form ccSO. Let's go on with it. Maruyama: Is there anyone who would like to revoke this resolution? PDT: Is there anybody here who would like to change our decisions?

6 Sep 2001 15:29:40

WB: I would like to reserve my position on the issue of ccSO formation.

6 Sep 2001 15:33:14

PDT: There will be a limited range of issues that we agreed to put through the ccSO, there is consensus on that. Nigel Roberts: I support that. I would like to suggest, " In any eventual org. we might form, we limit the powers it has" PP: We also have to limit the powers of ICANN. PDT: We have to get principles clear first. We have to agree on that there will issues to be put through the SO. Can we craft some kind of principle about protection. We heard David Johnson's explaination. Can we have a proposition that says we believe we require more..? Are we content with the existing mechanism?

6 Sep 2001 15:33:21

Ken Focker: Those position applied to those condition in ICANN laws. David Johnson: what applied to is what is in the contract.

6 Sep 2001 15:33:24

Per Koelle: I don't think we should put in protection except to put in what is allowed rather than prohibition. PDT: Can we get principle on protection mechanism? picket fence principle and consensus policy principle. Nigel: It sounds like we are throwing away each country's sovereign and just going along with American ICANN.

6 Sep 2001 15:41:11

PDT: That is the current ccTLD Constituency model. At the same time, we form a group of association. I don't see any difference. David of .au: I think we have to make a difference between membership and the formation. We can work out the document entirely. PDT: The example of .nu or .tv. They should be entitled to the benefit of forming together. Start the building block and leave the option to stay or to leave.

6 Sep 2001 15:42:59

Morton Taragin: We are getting into the matter what should be the principles. The SO is clearly to protect the common interest of the ccTLDs. WB: If we don't go into the organization, we are going to banned. It has to be each ccTLDs that enter into contractual agreement. Just because they are member of CENTR, it doesn't mean they are into the global org.

6 Sep 2001 15:46:00

Morton: One possible structure is where we have individual members and have proxies to regional for representation.

6 Sep 2001 15:46:17

Coffee Break (afternoon)

6 Sep 2001 16:17:38

Open Discussion Continued: Chair announced that we have 75 attendants with 37 ccTLD managers or representatives (proxies) and with 45 ccTLDs represented at this meeting. Posted on the screen on the critical issues: - Does any ccTLD here wish to revoke the ccSO decision? No. .uk - reserve position on ccSO - There are a carefully defined range of issues which can be put through the SO .uk - reserved position - Each country is solely responsible for it's decision making except for carefully defined list of issues. - The Bylaws/Articles/Contract must ensure that the existing protection mechanisms [limits to ICANN scope and Consensus Policy making] apply to ccSO. - Statement of Purpose: the cctld to protect and promote the common interest of ccTLD's. to give advice to ICANN; [context is global stability, interoperability]. - Membership: regional, individual, or mixed? --Mixed too difficult because of contractual relationships within region not same as with ICANN, needs of individual cc's, also each ccTLD --Distinguish relationship between relationship cc-ICANN as separate from ccSO-ICANN --Individuals might be able to give their proxies to regional organisations? Limit on size of proxies? --Cannot be a voting member of more than one Regional/other organization for ccSO purposes? --"Border" ccTLD's may choose region to join (self-select) --Role for Regional or other organizations [where they exist]: running elections to ccSO 'Council', integral part of any drafting process for "Policy" recommendations to ICANN; - ccSO Council - three members of Council per region - Election of ICANN Board members Direct (by ccSO members) - unless not legal under ICANN Bylaws rules - Do we wish to also incorporate the group ccSO? - Leave to Lawyer..? - What's the difference" eg. other legal agreements: Incorporation vs MOU.

6 Sep 2001 17:02:29

Nigel: People should give proxies to those they trust. PDT: There are arguments both ways. PP: If bylaws are going to put some limit on proxies, we can discuss them. But on principles, I think we can agree. Marianne: You can only be one regional organization. PDB: Canada would normally be joining NA but it is in CENTR. Does that mean, Canada cannot join North American region? Then, I object to it. PP: This only implies to voting. For other matters, I don't think being in 1 region or other matters. PDB: Are there other members in CENTR that aren't from Europe? PDT: NZ and JP are associate members. Marianne: I am not being negative about being in regional orgs, but we have to be careful when it comes to voting. Ken: Are we trying to capture the basic functions of being a member? If and only if, there is a situation that an individual member be in regional orginization and that regional org. is to make contract with ICANN, there is no need for individual members to make contract with ICANN. PDT: Board members number 3 seems to be reasonable. Direct or indirect elections? Nigel: Direct election. It is the only way to go WB: If we got consensus for direct, I would support that? PDT: Anybody want indirect? NO. Nigel: Are we part of ICANN? Are we part of incorporated under California law? PDT: If we incorporate, we will incorporate where it suits us. But anything to do with DNSO, it is under California law. If we do both, we get flexibility. Nigel: I thought the SO will be not part of ICANN. PDT: the SO is part of ICANN Morton: If members are individuals, how can the election be not direct? Recognizing regional is just for convenience, if we don't want to recognize CENTR, we don't have to. We can make our own bylaws. BK: Shouldn't we define regional organizations? PDT: The countries on the borders in the ICANN regions, you get self-selection. Pilar Luque: I am not seeing too many contributions from African, Asian, and Latin Americans. Also, can native English speakers, please speak slowly. PDT: Which country we go to for incorporation is a different matter. Does anyone have object to incorporation? MT .il: It should be up to the lawyers. I could careless as an individual member and I think it is just a technical issue. Can someone explain the pros and cons for incorporation? WB: If you aren't incorporated, may be legally liable individually if sued. Incorporated body: not individually liable. Stephan Welzel: rather technical question, but in ICANN structure do not have to incorporated- other SO's are not. If only acting as an SO can't be liable. PDT: It's not true that the ASO is separate incorporated Stephan Welzel- all ccTLD's are incorpora What if we create an incorporated and turn to ICANN and it is not. PDB: Willie mentions the liability issues. Who is responsible for this meeting? We have the secretariat to book this room and we really should have insurance to attend this meeting. We already spend money and take responsibility and should have legal cover- can't at the moment as not incorporated. Can't give Secretariat contract and therefore, no bank account and no money can be taken in. Maruyama: The process of giving voice to ICANN is different from incorporation. From my experience, if we want to hire someone and we want contact from legal company, legal status is helpful The purpose for incorporating should be written down. The advantage of incorporating, is that it can be forceful to the members. We should limit the purpose of incorporating.

6 Sep 2001 17:05:32

Stephan of .de: You exclude those who do not want to formally join this organization. If we keep its open as today constituency and we don't have this formal process. PDT: The proposition is that we don't represent 242 ccTLDs. We are moving to situation quite deliberately. If they don't join, we can't represent them. Marianne W.: We mix up things here. We need an incorporate secretariat and that's it. WB: The reason to create the ccSO is this is the group of ccTLD that want to mutually agree ...The key issue is to be accepted whether to bind by the membership or an MOU. Straw Poll - Incorporate need more discussion

6 Sep 2001 17:13:11

PDT: Atlarge committee and seats to the board? Can we talk about the withdrawl from the DNSO? The adcom meeting in August and decided that there were some mistakes about what was decided in Stockholm The matter is that we are still part of DNSO. PP: The fiscal year of DNSO coincides with calendar year. Maruyama: If we withdraw as of June 30, we cannot participate in DNSO. I want to emphasize that we should not withdraw from DNSO until we have a ccSO. Even if we form a ccSO, we can see some way in participating in the DNSO. PDT: I agree with you. On the communique, it does not say we withdraw from DNSO but not to fund them after 30 June, 2001.

6 Sep 2001 17:18:53

WB: The logic is that DNSO wants to talk to us, it's up to them if we don't pay. If they go through legal process to throw us out, then let's be it. Otherwise, we continue to participate. PP: The fiscal year is misunderstood at Stockholm. So we should correct that and that means we still fund DNSO until 31 December 2001. PDB: we should pay our bill to get the respect. Nigel: Whether it's June 30 or Dec. 31, it still doesn't change things. It makes no difference on the statements. Morgan of .il: PDB: Names Coucil will sanction SO that don't pay for six months. Then, the constituency will loose the vote. So I plea to you all to donate to DNSO. Sue Leader of .nz: We donate $500 to DNSO. PDT: Do you want to change the resolution in Stockholm to a correct fiscal year? Meeting agree to change.

6 Sep 2001 17:24:17

Maruyama: This is a diplomatic issue, negotiating with other constituencies. I feel we can still participate in the DNSO even we have our own SO. PDT: What other constituencies are thinking is that the withdrawl has to be complete; either out or in. It would be reciprical. I'm not sure if we want to open up in that way. I don't know how we will liaise with other constituencies. PDB: One of their concerns is that we will cease to communicate with them. They do want to talk to us or relate to us in some way. It may be through a council to satisfy their concerns. There may be way for registrars to collect money for their ccs. We need to keep our doors open in some way and not alienate some constituencies in this process. PDT: don't want non-ccTLLD managers in ccSO; and need to keep ccSO people in any workgroups (e.g. Preseident's task force)- we go to them, not other way around. Tomorrow morning, we can get into At large study report, Mike Robert's report and Board seats. Nigel: This is to do with the election for ICANN board members. The NC voting system: Convention voting system; PDT was the second highest numbers of supporters but didn't get elected. How do we get influence as much as wecan, with the existing constituency. Do everything legitimate to get good candidate. All 3 ccTLD representatives have to vote the same way, the way it represents what we want. It is a good idea that every ccTLD manager present and on remote participation, to vote to decide who is on our list for candidates. Elisabeth: I need to get the record straight, for preliminary votes in 1999, we got exactly as we voted for. Whatever we have against convention style, this preliminary vote gave the exact thing we voted. We could discuss with the candidates.

6 Sep 2001 17:48:39

PDT: Is there any disagreement for voting for NC to vote for Board of Director? How we propose to give them some directions? Nigel: Once we heard the candidate speech tommorow afternoon, we will have a ballot in the room. We select the candidate in order using the vote in the room and give to NC the list of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 so forth. Maureen of .ca: Is there any way to establish some criteria to ask the candidates? It would be good to have a criteria. WB: I agree with Maureen. Is it going to be secret or open? EP: The candidates will need 11 votes and I appreciate to have guidance tomorrow. Nigel: We have been mandated by our constituency to bind the votes. PDB: I do agree to have guidance from ccTLD but I do not agree that we should accept .....Have a list from constituency, we do not want to throw our vote away. Nigel: This is exactly what I called Bazaar. Sabine: I totally agree with Nigel. If we don't have guidance, then we would be in same situation last time. If we asked them to vote, PP: If this method of voting has many rounds, then we should leave some room to negotiate. WB: One on the secret, email can be sent to secretariat. But I favor the open. If we have a ballot and it's clear the order of the list, then there is no need to negotiate because they just follow the list. PDT: I will put a vote Proposal to bind the direction (not opportunity for guidance): In favor 19 agaist 1 abstain 10 Secret vote or open vote for tomorrow: In favor 12 (secret vote) against 10 (open vote) abstain 7

6 Sep 2001 18:12:28

PDT: What are criterias that we should ask the candidates? What are we going to do with the ones who aren't present? Criteria: -Must support ccSO -Do they believe ICANN is a lightweight technical co-ordination body only PDB: the integrity, credibility of the candidate must be included when assessing candidate. Nigel: If they aren't willing to come to Montevideo, I wouldn't vote for them. Sabine: internet background of candidate is important PDT: overall position of ICANN; light weight? Will they work towards ensuring light weight?

Plenary Session 3 - Sep. 7 (Morning)

7 Sep 2001 9:07:00

Plenary Session 3 - Sep. 7 (Morning) Chair: Patricio Poblete & Peter Dengate Thrush PDT: Welcome to round 2 -ICANN restructure -At Large Memberhship Study report Were supposed to be 9 At Large Directors 5 were elected 4 directors from previous election stayed ccSO looking to have 4 'old' places- not taking anyone else's Today there will be ALSC presentation, and they are looking into having 6 places. -Individuals inside the DNSO and individual domain names. Vs. individual domain name owners [IDNO] Constituency in DNSO EP: 'global village' & 'country village' ALSC have difficulty with diverse democracy ccTLD are world wide and international, some of them are representing local internet community. Therefore, my approach, we have worldwide structure and are able to elect directors representing the 'world'. To get request directors elected, through ccTLD channels, I am suggesting 6 seats for ccSO electing directors and 3 seats for At large. 3 only, because they orginally get 9 but it is clear that it is impossible to have 9 elections, to start, and it should be sufficient. I believe this international cafe is essential. PP: Are we going to claim that through ccTLDs, ICANN will achieve world wide representation, wouldn't that force us to go with a certain model? EP: Some of this developed and some don't, but when I look on what we have, we have something on a global level. PP: What you are saying is that, what we have is better than nothing. EP: There is nothing existing with At large. But we have something. At At large election, we had quite a lot of ccTLD candidates. We had cc candidates in this at large election. At large is only focusing on domain names, which is astonishing. PDT: PP made a good point. If we are to say that we represent ww interests, what the at large is concerned about, we would need to prove that.

7 Sep 2001 9:29:29

Per Koelle: in Denmark we have member society. We have the same problem as .uk. I think we should concentrate only Domain name. We don't have power to fulfil that wish.

7 Sep 2001 9:30:41

PDT: We want to assure ICANN and AL, that we look after our own registrants. We need to make this clear. We are looking after the cc registrants and AL is looking after the gTLDs.

7 Sep 2001 9:36:55

PDT: Can we form a working group to start as an exercise to prepare diagram to see how things work in their territory. It will be very important to us to negotiate with ICANN board. We have done a very poor job to explain to registries. Any one has responded to this propositons: 1. 6 seats for DNSO, we get 6 seats. (EP) 2. 5 Seats for DNSO, we get 4 seats. (PDT) 3. 5 for the at large, 3 for DNSO, 1 generic registrar and 1 registries, we get 2 seats. (Mike Roberts) Willie: We should go for 6 seats and negotiate. Nigel: I think EP proposal is right. I don't think we will get 6 seats. BK Kim: With ICANN restructures in mind, I prefer 4 seats. PDB: With MR proposal, it is very significant. What Mike is writing is probably what ICANN staff has in mind. To reinforce MR proposal, these constituencies will meet today to discuss to go as a block. What could happen is IPC, ISPs would be there with gTLD as a block of five.

7 Sep 2001 9:54:23

Young-Eum Lee (.kr): The ICANN is restructuring in to 3 main parts; provider, developer, user and putting the ccSO under provider. I think what EP has been saying is that cc registries are doing many things for users and that is why we should be able to be put under users as well. BKK: If you look at the At large proposal, you have to look for ccTLD funding. Maybe we can ask for PP: We provide 1/3 for the funding so that is a good number. How many seats should verisign have? MW: The number of board seats is open to the board and they can be extended by them and it shouldn't be us to decide the board seats. We can make enemies. We only should ask for 3,4,5 board seats but to decide the actual numbers of board seats is up to them, and none of our business. PP: If the total number is unknown, it is undefined what your weight is to the board. MW: It can be sure that there wouldn't be too many board seats. Maybe 5 more board seats than at the moment. It would be harmful if we say we are going to take away board seats, then we will just make enemies. PDT: The ratio is something we can compare but I do agree with you that we are saying we want 3, 4 board seats and what comes next is not our responsibility. It's important we do this step by step, we know that our proposal can be a signal to others to do something; like non-commercial want their own SO. We only should focus on ccSO and not get into the sort of thing Mike Roberts wants to do, which seems to me that they want to shuffle everything around.

7 Sep 2001 9:56:36

New.net: I am hearing three different sides. First, ccTLD deserved seats on ICANN Board. Second, .....Third, ccTLDs provide the structure to help the at large to gain the kind of represetation to at large study. If you feel you contribute to at large process. My preference is ccTLD deserved seats on ICANN board. I don't have any ratio in mind. .sg manager: I support to go for 6 seats. But I think we should have aimed for minimum. I also feel that the reduction of less than 5 of at large is not possible. Nigel: I agree with .sg but my practical has some reservation on that.

7 Sep 2001 10:07:38

Morton Taragin: I think this is negotiating strategy, and the AdCOM knows what is going on, understanding there is minimal acceptance. Per Koelle: If we have to vote something on email list, we should discuss it on closed list. I don't feel comfortable discussing negotiating strategies in an open list. PDT: We have set up a ccso-discuss list, which is a closed list for just 'ccTLD managers' .gt: One of the issues I have been thinking about right now, is for us to get 6 numbers, we might want to go through regional association. PDT: If we can do that, we will through. Eduardo Santoyo (.pe): We have been very attentive to the discussions. Now that we are discussing the number of seats, we had 3 proposals, and 1 proposal for a minimum number. I think that now we are approaching discussions with other constituencies, maybe we can write on the table the 3 proposals, so we can see what we are looking at and so we can reach a decision easier. The proposal from SG, EP, and Mike Roberts is as important as others. Maybe we can reach a decision easier. PDT: We will have a brief presentation from Canada about their contract and Nigel has prepared the questions for the candidates. I will put on the white board the 3 proposals.

7 Sep 2001 10:08:02

Maareen of .ca and Bernard Cocotte (CEO of .ca): We have received contract from ICANN and do some exhaust analysis of this contract. We have not signed anything with ICANN, just for your information. With this intro, I would like to introdure Bernard. Bernard Cocotte: This contract is basically met the content of MOU we signed with ICANN. We should try to make the best we can on what we got. We believe to have a decent contract that is practical. We should get as many seats as much as we can. The contract will dictate the whole thing. Some of the concern we have: 1. giving too much ICANN power to run, to set policy ccTLD 2. giving ICANN the power to cancel you and who will run it if they cancel you. 3. Technical requirement for operability. ICANN can change the whole landscape. 4. They don't have to talk to you basically if there is no technical contact. 5. allow ICANN to set iits own fees. 6. many of critical terms are undefined. 7. the whole thing rest on email contacts. If DNS downs, then what. 8. ICANN ....... If we can come to some sort of terms as a group, it would be great. I dont want to reinvent the wheel. We should look at this contract as a whole together. Legacy and Triangular contracts can be combined to be one contract because government don't require to sign contract in Triangular situation. ICANN should be obligate to implement upgrades. It's all one sided on this contract. This is a responsibility and also business. ICANN can change the contract if they want to. Under normal situation, it should be both sides to agree to change the contract, not just ICANN alone. Relegation should be spelled out precise, not just left out in the air.

7 Sep 2001 10:36:46

WB: CENTR have a legal group that consists 7 lawyers. On behalf of CENTR, I would like to invite any other lawyers from ccs (esp. Canada) to the meeting, 8 October, in Salzburg. UK will not sign any contract until it is similar to NSI. PDT: Should this be discussed in private? WB: ICANN 'lawyers' are going to represent their contract they put up on the website in Bled in less than 2 weeks. PDT asked everyone who is not a ccTLD managers to leave the room. Berney: Our lawyers are happy to help, as Willie suggested. PP: We are operating very vulnerably in my corner of the world. Important documents aren't in writing. In our culture, there would be a pressure to have something in writing soon, not the contract but something. We should have a minimal document that doesn't bind us to something we will regret, but many a letter of intent. Something very minimal. NR: It's a good idea, but we have to careful about the intentions what it will do to us and ICANN. We have to look at what we benefit from and signing such document gives ICANN what they want. This contract was put up, not because anyone is going to sign it, but to show the US government they were doing something. If we sign an agreement, we are giving them a lot and if we are going to that, we should get something back. Berney: I will send the letter of intent to the secretariat. Maureen: That letter was written a year and a half ago, and it seemed to us that there was something we had to abide by what the GAC had put to us. If we were to write something now, we would write it in another way.

7 Sep 2001 10:40:11

Hotta of .jp: Now in japan, we have JPRS to get the right to operate .jp to redelegate from JPNIC. We feel lonely and need some suggestions. Masa of .jp: we are planning to redelegate to JPRS of Hotta. This domain business is quite commercial. Space is a public resource but the registration is quite business. One point we have been facing, JPNIC is a public org. and public org. can not have a bank loan. Registration is quite expensive is the number growing rapidly. The solution we are finding is we established a prvate company JPRS with Mr. Hotta is a Director. JPNIC is outsourcing to JPRS. Our plan is to have a contract with ICANN and JPRS. We are asking ICANN to redelegate to JPRS. That is a background. We can refer to .ca is facing and can learn from it.

7 Sep 2001 10:46:23

PP: If it is not in writing, it doesn't exist. If they take it away from you, they are not taking anything you had, because it wasn't in writing. EP: Exactly, I haven't MV (.cl): The way that we obtain something written, was the way we asked the receipt of the payment nicCHile did in the year of 2000. That was the 'only' written 'document' that we had something going on with ICANN.

Plenary Session 4 - Sep. 7 (Morning)

7 Sep 2001 11:22:01

PDT: We are going to update the other constituencies with the issues we have been talking about. We can't do our work in isolation. As much as possible, the ccTLD constituency wants to use the existing relationships and structures. This is a multi lingual meeting, who the majority of the members don't have English as the main language, so please speak slowly. Go over the principles we agreed yesterday, 6 September 2001.

7 Sep 2001 11:36:26

Board Seats- The proposals 1. ALSC (AT LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE) ALM-6 ASO-3 PSO-3 DNSO-3 CCSO-3 2. PETER DENGATE THRUSH ALM-5 ASO-3 PSO-3 DNSO-3 CCSO-4 3. ELISABETH PORTENEUVE (gives ccSO 1/3 of the seat, because we are international organization) ALM-3 ASO-3 PSO-3 DNSO-3 CCSO-6 4. MIKE ROBERTS ALM-5 ASO-3 PSO-3 DNSO-3 GSO-2 CCSO-2 We, as the constituency, have not decided which proposal better.

7 Sep 2001 11:37:21

SM: (International property constituency): I think the business constituency has gotten further than us thinking about this (At large study committee) Peter refered to the relationship of ICANN and cc might differ according to NSI contract. As part of the liaison, I hope there is something from the ccTLDs and maybe from Mike Roberts, we should have detailed discussions on present registries. PDT: Does anyone on the floor put questions to the other constituencies? Chair of ISP constituency: We need to work very closely on this. The ISP is supportive of how you want to move forward. The joint session we had today, in terms of ISPs we have to have more debate before we have a firm view. Some of the fundamental principles need to be addressed. As individuals, there may be a need for them to interact, in particulary ASO and PSO. Unless there are compelling reasons, they need to interact that, should At large committ to DNSO (?) These are issues we the ISPs want to look on before we have a view on what to do next.

7 Sep 2001 11:39:52

Maralyn of Name Coucil: There are other members - IPC and BC ..they might want to make comment. We have been working with you consistent thru out formation with ICANN to build ground formation. There is a lot of work to do. One of the thing we concern is the important of continuing work together dialogue on issues. As a global business user rely on service ccTLD provided, we were very dependent on ccTLD success and the voice of ccLTD in ICANN. This morning we talk about is about restructuring. We gave them about view and some concerns. The question and perspective that might arise is the firm of establishment between CCSO and us to continue communication early.

7 Sep 2001 11:46:31

Philip Shepherd: congratulations so far. One thing that would also be hearing is the policy overlap for DNSO ...how we can liason...put my Name coucil chair on, ....some concerns on the six regions, we are happy to get to.....

7 Sep 2001 11:49:52

Marilyn Cade: We have a prilimanary document considering At large committee report. It is relevant for the ccTLDs to understand IPC, business users, ISPs, registries, registrars. That can be divided to generic domain groups and cc domain groups. Your SO will be broad enough to cover the both groups. We don't want generic TLDs having their own SOs. It is important us. Marilyn Cade's proposals: 1. ALM-5 ASO-3 PSO-3 DNSO-4 CCSO-3 2. ALM-6 ASO-3 PSO-3 DNSO- 3 ccSO- 3 (6th as floating)

7 Sep 2001 11:51:37

EP: What is the difference between 3 and 4 for DNSO. Marilyn Cade: It's political reality. It needs to educate the board. There is not yet enough understanding on what you do. I have begun to get involved to develop functions for dot US and I would be a political reality issue. You have to get concurrent of other SOs. When we talk about resturcturing of DNSO, we have to look at maintaining the balance. We will elevate all policy to the board and take it out of SO. It is largely because it is great diversity. We are also looking for politcially feasible. There are people on the board that think it's ok but that is not what we are.

7 Sep 2001 11:58:53

Chair of ISP: Just to pick up on the last point. I think one of the view is look beyond this. Not only to try to address the situation, but the longer term as well. It's certainly on your agenda as well as ours.

7 Sep 2001 12:04:13

PDT: There is the question of timeline. TIMELINES: Sep 7 conclude discussion on Principles in Montevideo Sep 14-21 ccTLD Inc Principles published, lobby begins Sep 21 Online vote on Principles 5 Oct Draft ccTLD Inc Articles posted 12 Oct Vote on Articles 14 -21 Oct. ccTLD inc Bylaws published for comment 22 oct Voting on ccTLD Inc Bylaws 26 Oct - 10 Nov ccSO A&B debated online 11 Nov Vote at LA to adopt bylaws ? MOU with ICANN This is the proposed timeline presented to other constituencies.

7 Sep 2001 12:04:17

EP: Thank you Danny for bring our attention to the future. I want to explain why 6 for ccSO. We are the reality of the world, internation dimension. What is on the table, we are stable internet. A few items were listed last year, one of them ccTLD contracts. It is important for the stability of the internet, to make ICANN more international and to do that, use our ww registries, through 6 seats.

7 Sep 2001 12:07:49

PDT: We are not talking about incorporating the SO, that is not legally possible. We are talking about an association outside of ICANN. Outreach to other constituencies haven't been going on as much as it should have been. We haven't had any formal contacts yet with the registrars or generic constituencies.

7 Sep 2001 12:10:10

Sebastien Bachollet from Business Constituency: The question is where is everybody could fit together. Some argument to creat ccSO that I can not accept as a end user. End user pay everything. We can only represent 1 percent of ICANN board. There is concern of overall organization of ICANN. Today we are in DNSO but why we are outside of ASO and PSO. REally we need to see how we can organize overall thing. Many will follow and will make a lot of colors in ICANN. PDT: There are two fundatmental answers to that. First, this is not about money. The point is we are changing fundatmentally that we have. Generally TLD did not answer to the government. On the other hand, we have to respond to government. We are sharing soverignity with ICANN. We are confident the way to do that is to creat an SO becasue SO is responsible for policy. Finally point, you are talking to representative of end-users. I have to deal with trade mark lawyer and the whole range of issues as well. Sebastien Bachollet: You can't say that you deal with end-users. You can't speak for their behalf. It's not the right way to think about end-users and ICANN process. David Thompson of .au: I am end-users and represent Australian end users. We have end users input into our organization. Morton of .il: I want to concur with .au. One of the thing is that everyone of ccTLDs has to be represneted by local internet community that they required to do. PDT: If we don't do the job, that ccTLD will loose the job. John Loius of Business Constituency: One point is that many business has responsibility to end users. I do note that the relationship... Marilyn Cade: I want to conclude. At our last meeting together, we support your idea of ccSO Formation. While we have some differences, but we also have commonality. So let's keep communicate.

7 Sep 2001 12:28:16

Nigel Roberts presentation on the questions we want to ask ICANN Candidates for this afternoon. 1. To what level do you support the formation of a Country Code TLD Supporting Organization and please state your full 2. What are your views on ICANN reorganization in general. 3. What level of Board Representation do you think is appropriate for ccTLDs 6,5, 4 or less? 4. Taking into account the special position of ccTLDs, how do you see the role of ICANN in relation to ccTLDs a) a lightweight, technical co-ordination body b) a global oversight body and regulator c) Something between 5. What is your backgournd with ccTLDs. 6. How do you foresee working with ccTLDs in the future. For the existing Director seeking re-election, please also comment about your track record during your time on the ICANN board. 7. What conflicts of interest do you have and how do you deal with them? The rules: a. if we are going to ask, we will ask the same questions for both candidates.

7 Sep 2001 12:47:47

Lunch Break

Plenary Session 5 - Sep. 7 (Afternoon)

7 Sep 2001 14:17:50

Start of afternoon session - Sep. 7 ICANN staff join the meeting: Andrew McLaughlin Amadreu Abril Herbert Vizthum Stuart Lynn PDT starts off by presenting principles agreed from yesterday meeting. Andrew M.: To capture the state of play, there seems to be a lot of support from my discussion. The idea of DNSO now group together sufficient enough. gTLDs issue is different than ccTLDs. I would urge you to stay away from the word "sovereign" because it's kind of stimulate the government to think too big. You don't let self interested party make decision but you let the community decide. The thing that make me nervous is the immune to prevent users come to a decision making. The basic priciples we had for SO .... the history of ASO, there is a big fight for telco. They want telco to be bigger than RIR. Each RIR has policy open for any parties to participate. Some ccTLDs open and transparent and some don't. That is a concern. I am little surprise for one manager one vote. PDT: The question that ....is unfounded. The consultation we had this morning is non-commercial and ISP constituency and they are very supportive of our move. Local needs include trade mark issue. There is a general agreement that is the base. Let me put some question back to you. If there was ccTLDs that don't work and how can ICANN deal with that issue but we can form the policy to deal with this issue. Pilar Luque of .es: Why it should be one vote for one ccTLD? This is a question to Andrew. Andrew: One vote one cctld in the past is not fair to large ccTLD. This is what I heard from the past. I do think that you all should think seriously that you might run into competition law for cartel if you become a ccSO, one big group. I want to emphasize and it is an area I have some concerns about. PDT: Let look at Trademark issue. In solving the issue, they will come to ccSO for consultation regarding trademark policy. We can gear towards local community. Andrew: Local policy is adequate mechanism for local community. As ccSO is a global body, I am not sure if this can tailor to local community. The idea of the DNSO is to spread to many SO to understand more local issue.

7 Sep 2001 14:49:31

NR: Regarding, 1 vote for 1 registry, I am surprised we haven't heard anything within the constituency and that Andrew is hearing something. It is valuable. One registry, one vote is how the UN works. Maybe the big registries feel they should have more say to some things and maybe on some important issues, we can give the bigger registries more than one vote. But for now, I think there is no problem regarding that. PDT: Issues on reorganizing ICANN and ALSC. We don't want others to take advantage of this restructuring and get too much. We are talking about number of seats; number of issues, adequate representation. ALSC has 6 and we want balance to be distributed. PDT is going over the proposals by PDT, ET, and etc. I feel DNSO is the right place for gTLDs to be discussed and our withdrawl from it leaves it totally to discuss gTLD issues. So we haven't decided yet any ranking for these but we will soon. Any reactions? Andrew McLaughlin: I would be shocked if you choose anything than the one with 6 seats. It would be bizarre for ICANN, which doesn't make ccTLD policies, to give ccTLDs to give more seats. The ccTLDs are important, as registrars, ISPs, and etc. You have to live with the competitive commands. There are more ccTLDs affiliated people on the board (e.g., Nii Quaynor, and etc. in total five) than other communities.

7 Sep 2001 14:51:49

EP: We have two approach: one is global and another is country approach. What I was trying to divide between the two. I wrote in my proposal that you can read it. Andrew: It's interesting discussion. I have to talk to people who demand 9 board seats. We got a structure from 1591 that works well. I know every people want a board seat. So we have to consider carefully.

7 Sep 2001 15:00:37

Bernard Turcott (.ca): I've read the contracts, too. I have to follow up with .il's comment. What is this that you said about ICANN not dealing with ccTLD matters? I probably misunderstood...but.. Andrew McLaughlin: local policy is responsibility of the local internet managers, it is written in the RCP 1591... Bernard Turcott (.ca):It sounds very nice but we are trying to get through the community. ICANN seems to be dumping, without any consultation from this group, the documents. I don't know how you expect people to read, comment them when you post them 3 days before the meeting.

7 Sep 2001 15:01:55

Andrew: We posted two weeks earlier or two weeks later. People still complain. This is the process that we try to be transparent as much as possible. The documents are out and there is no pressure. Marianne of CENTR: gTLDs has no local policy. Please define what is local and global policy. Andrew: Local policy is price, registration requirement, DRP, management organization. Global policy is making sure if you send email to other countries and it should work and from any where in the world. Also Whois service is responsible for Global community. There is a distinction for local and global policy.

7 Sep 2001 15:03:05

Sabine Dolderer: I see that there is a clause that says ICANN cannot issue 2nd level for ccTLDs and I don't see how that relates to technical stability. Is there global interest in that? AM (ICANN): It's in there, because there is to be an RFC askee compatible format, until there is a standard. That is the idea. Carsten Schiefner (.de): Couldn't that (posting 'contract' on website) wait until the end of the ICANN meeting? The discussion is used to discuss contractual issues, which is not what we want to discuss. Why did you have to post that up, that we 'think' we have to talk about that. PDT: We are not discussing the contracts, and let's not discuss anything on timing. What is important is the policy we are putting to the ICANN. Andrew has agreed a narrow range of issues is necessary. Who defines the global issues? ICANN?? Or up to us?

7 Sep 2001 15:06:41

Andrew: This is the key point. What issues are resolved through ccSO and that is why it is a serious one. If you are smart, you will provide consultation to the community. EP: Are you suggesting to build up ccSO in such a way to set the advisory committee like ICANN. Are you suggesting that? Andrew: I suggest nothing, just bringing out the issues. Pilar Luque: If we have the contract now and we have Andrew here, why not talking about a contract now. Patricio: We have to read contract first before we discuss. Masa of .jp: What problems ICANN will solve by the money we pay? Andrew: We will solve at the ICANN level.

7 Sep 2001 15:11:03

Herbert Vitzthum: I'm just worried about the contract, many of you signed the contract already, but it will take time to deal with the contract. We will work on this in the future, we are not in a hurry. The policy development is up to you, not us. PP: We are running behind schedule. We have ALSC report.

7 Sep 2001 15:22:04

EP: The attempt to build up ALSO, is an attempt to build up direct democracy. You are looking for our help but you have 242 ccTLDs, truly world wide, a lot of ccTLD registries have the mandate to represent the local internet community. I would like for you to consider, that ICANN international dimension is provided by us. International structure already exists, which is us. I have my proposal and you have your proposal. I am happy that you are here.. Chair of ALSC: I would not use the word 'global', but it's not going to be that. Those who are interested and committed, I don't see that a competition with the structures that are already there (ccTLDs) but as complimentary. We looked into different things, possibility of handing it over to developers and providers, ICANN international dimension..but we came up with 3-3-3. Pintar: Looking at this community, we can see that is very large. It is an open question to our proposal, we are getting representation on geographical line. Each of the local internet community has different interests, and except for global interests, I don't see why they have to come together for anything.

7 Sep 2001 15:29:02

Pindar: What has to make observation is the universal opportunity of domain names. If domain names is resolved, we should be able to use this as representation. Chair of ALSC: We deal with the problem of only half structure of ICANN and that is impossible. Our work to find the solution of happy family within ICANN is not easy. We need your input and suggestion to make this system work.

7 Sep 2001 15:30:55

EP: It is now challange to be ALSC. My observation from this terrible experience is the discussion over email is wonderful but difficult. The discussion is from America and Europe. This is a challange and how to overcome that. Chair of Alsc: Our experience is the same. Email is fantastic and Web is fantastic but they have limitations. Sabine: As for Domain name holders, to only select base on this may not be good representation.

7 Sep 2001 15:35:11

PDT: ALSC and ccTLD community's contact is welcome. I am surprised to find out that you think this has anything to do with ccTLDs, and how it involves us. If a problem occurs in .nz or .fr, ICANN cannot deal with that. I think you are dealing with gTLDs more, that is We are trying to create an org that transcends particulary registries, the ICANN can deal with. The purpose of this membership is so we can represent the local issues better within ICANN. So, as part of ICANN, that is why we see ccTLDs are appropriate.

7 Sep 2001 15:38:54

Chair of ALSC board: We do see a very strong At large membership of ICANN governing structure. It is important from credibility point of view. Our proposal is to set up At large SO, not to focus on the representation, but on mechanism for participation. There are couple of points where we have diverged from conventional wisdom, ICANN is divided 50% in public and private interests, we have failed to see that. We don't think that it is a fruitful parady of ICANN governance. We have been trying to get a system that is workable in a reasonable time frame, not eutopia. That is how we ended up with domain names. In order to participate, you get a domain name and conduct an on-line election. This is a draft report and are dependant upon requests, comments, input for middle of November, to the ICANN board. There is a good argument to made in the near future for something more stable. What we have now on the table, is roughly the best we can achieve at this time.

7 Sep 2001 15:22:24

Esther Dyson: You and ccTLDs are the key that will make this work. We want to encourage you that this is the way to go forward. We ask you to pass this on to your registry and registrar. We want to hear from you and we want to fly this out.

7 Sep 2001 15:43:39

NON Comercial Constituency comment on ccSO issue: Milton Mueller: We certainly feel under represented. There is some overlap in our constituencies. To have ccSO is truly a bottom approach that is really great. We do believe at large membership should constitute half of the board. So the problem with ccSO is you have to eat out at large membership. You do deserve a larger membership. We have a great deal of sympathy from us. PDT: We thank you for that. The question for you is our ability to take seat of ASO, PSO are really limited. If it comes down to that ,the worst possibility is we have to share with you the at large seat. Milton: I have no problem of demolishing DNSO. It's a mess. If we have to give up at large seat for ccSO, I can not answer if we can give you 6 at large seats. Patricio: Thank you.

7 Sep 2001 16:10:22

PDT: We will suspend online voting. If anyone online now, please send email to montevideo@wwtld.org NOW.

7 Sep 2001 16:21:38

Start session of Candidates hosting No. 1 question: Taking into account the special position of ccTLDs, how do you see the role of ICANN in relation in cctlds. a) A lightweight, technical co-ordination body? b) A global oversight body and regular? c) Something between? No. 2 question: To what level do you support the formation of a ccTLD supporting organziation and please state your full position on this? No. 3 question: What are your views on ICANN reorganization in general? Paul Kane: I support ccSO for two years. I have been speaking with ICANN staff . I am very much for this initiative for ccSO as a consensus board. With regard to ICANN reorganization, we have been saying for sometime what to look for ICANN to have Internet community have to say or with bottom up approach. Amadeu: I have to agree with Paul. Regarding reorganization of ICANN, I felt some guilt that there is not enough representation within DNSO for ccTLDs. I think we mixed too many things. So many identities that is running and it is very confusing some time. The mechanism of ccSO is not solved all the problems for ccTLDs. It may resolve the representation issue. Other issue is also the agreement of ccTLD with ICANN. If this is solved, it will solve other issues as well. I have strong preference to have ccTLD within ICANN structure. One final comment, if ccTLD opposed to ...... No. 4 question. Amadeu: My real problem is to work equilibrium among board members. And it doesn't work. Why? Minimum 2 Maximum Paul Kane: It is one of the process. Historically, SO would be 3 on the board. There are strong indication that it would be three seats for you. The rest is up to ccTLD to convince other. A lot depend on ICANN staff. Board members are for consultation. No. 5 & 6 question. Paul: I am running .ac registry. I participate in significant numbers of ccTld meetings. When Verisign negotiation, I was asked to be a part of it. I became a member of registrar constituency. I participate more in the registrar during ICANN meeting in the past two years. Amadeu: I am not a tld manager in any capacity. In IcANN related activities, I am involved mainly in that. I am not member of any cc association. Individual cctld member knows that we try to help them. We try to get more attention from IcANN staff to help them. Most of registry that come to me mainly from Europe. Regarding my track, I have not been a voice of ccTDs. I try to define the role of GAC. I am there to be accountability for the community. No. 7 questions: Amadeu: I have to be exaggerating in sort of thing being a lawyer. I advise registrar that is the member indirectly. I have a very wide to a conflict of interest. I should not refuse or abstain when there is a financial interest. Paul: I have many interest to ...I don't have any conflict of interest in ccTLD interest. Loius Touton is the adviser to the board. I would inform them if there is any conflict of interst. Closing remark by both candidates: Paul: I have been ccTLD manager. I understand the requirement of ccTLD community. I will make the board of ICANN listen. To make sure that it will be.... Amadeu: I will try to keep the same work within the ICANN board. Some time we are trying thing to what extent we can do. Some time I am a difficult man on the board. I am ready to answer any questions both in spanish and english. Open floor for questions to candidates: EP: Do you have any idea how the board should be change. Amadeu: First convince the board it should be retroactive. Second, we should do something with SO to give more recommendation. The proposal we got from the names council said nothing. This is not the best way to ensure. We need to reorganziation and refocussing on ccSO. You would be better of one member out of 12 than 3 out of 30. Paul: This process will elect only one out of 18. I want to have vision. ICANN don't have vision. The whole concept of change is one, ICANN will serve the need in the x year time. More importantly make board members listening more to community. I draft the first resolution on how gTLD should be considered. You have a rather consensus process than top-down process. Good argument will win the day.

7 Sep 2001 16:53:23

NR: I have a different question for each of the candidates. To Amadeu:What will you do to make sure ICANN staff consults with the ccTLDs before they sandbag us? Amadeu: We need less briefs and more staffs, to versify more of your work. Then we need to make sure that we have increasing guidance. The only way to do that, reasoning to all the complaints and discuss how to work on that. To Paul: If you are elected, what could you achieve? Paul: It's role is long time stability of internet. What will you do in 5 year time? Do the job so others can get the vision. Bottom-up procedure. Amadeu: If something is wrong, There should be time to correct it. EP: The last question I have is to Paul, If elected to the board, are you going to resign from any companies you are talking about; ccTLDs, registries...? Paul: It's fairly difficult for me to resign, I own most of them. It doesn't sell domain names but it is accredited by ICANN. I have been asked to suspend ICANN accreditation to another company, and I am willing to suspend ICANN accreditation.

7 Sep 2001 17:00:38

PP: Should we have a motion? Suspending the on-line voting? First round of voting is to choose our preferable candidates. NR: Private vote? PDT: We voted for the vote to be secret, but should we revisit that? OK, it will be secret vote.

7 Sep 2001 17:25:51

The motion to have proxies for voting was carried unanimously. WB: Would have anybody talk for other candidates? EP: I am unhappy about how this is proceeding. We had a vote to see which candidate the ccTLD constituency prefers. A total of 60 ccTLD managers have voted. It is now being counted.

7 Sep 2001 17:26:09

Motion:  To see which candidate is preferred most by the ccTLDs. The Results: Amadeu Abril I Abril: 34 votes Paul Kane: 25 votes Joanna Lane: 0 Jefsey Morfin: 0 Abstained: 1 ________________________ total: 60 votes The motion to destroy the ballots is carried.

7 Sep 2001 17:46:34

Second Round Motion: To choose a candidate, WITHOUT Amadeu Abril I Abril. Results: 59 total voters Paul Kane: 46 Joanna Lane: 2 Jefsey: 9 Abstained: 2 __________________________ Total: 59 votes Motion to accept Paul Kane as the 'second' candidate. Carried Motion to destroy ballots is carried. Motion If 1 and 2 are both out of race, NC members to decide is denied. Third Round Motion: to see who is the 3rd candidate; between Joanna Lane and Jefsey Morfin Joanna Lane: 15 Jefsey Morfin: 15 Abstained: 18 ______________________ total: 48 votes The report to the GAC will be presented in Spanish and Pilar Luque will translate it. Drafting of the communique: nominees, PDT, Marianne Wolfsgruber, will reconvene after the IANA meeting.

7 Sep 2001 18:01:55

Drafting of the communique: nominees, PDT, Marianne Wolfsgruber, will reconvene after the IANA meeting. Meeting Adjourn at 18:15 See you all in Marina del Rey in November!