INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
A meeting of the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was held by teleconference on 2 December 2002. The following Directors of the Corporation were present by telephone: Vint Cerf (chairman), Rob Blokzijl, Ivan Moura Campos, Jonathan Cohen, Masanobu Katoh, Hans Kraaijenbrink, Sang-Hyon Kyong, Stuart Lynn, Andy Mueller-Maguhn, Jun Murai, Helmut Schink, and Linda S. Wilson. Directors Lyman Chapin and Alejandro Pisanty joined the call while it was in progress. Also present on the teleconference was Louis Touton, ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.
The meeting was called to order by Vint Cerf at 13:35 UTC (5:35 am U.S. Pacific Standard Time).
Dr. Cerf noted that the first item on the agenda concerns an amendment to the .name Registry Agreement that has been proposed by the registry operator, Global Name Registry (GNR). Prior to the meeting, a "General Counsel's Analysis of GNR's Request for Amendment to Registry Agreement", along with associated materials, was provided to the Board and posted.
Dr. Cerf called for a motion on the topic. Mr. Kraaijenbrink then moved, with Dr. Wilson's second, that the Board adopt the following resolution:
Whereas, on 9 November 2002 Global Name Registry Limited (GNR), which operates the registry for the .name top-level domain under a registry agreement it entered with ICANN on 1 August 2001, requested that its registry agreement be amended to revise the manner in which, and the conditions under which, GNR provides public Whois data for the .name top-level domain;
Whereas, the GNR proposal follows consultations since February 2002 with users of the public Whois and other interested persons, including registrars, law enforcement, the intellectual property community and privacy advocates;
Whereas, in August 2002 GNR's proposal (as it then existed) was posted on the DNSO Whois Task Force public list, the DNSO Registrar constituency's discussion list, and the DNSO General Assembly discussion list;
Whereas, in October 2002, GNR formally briefed the DNSO Whois Task Force, the DNSO Business constituency, and the DNSO Registrar constituency on its proposal and sought comments;
Whereas, GNR revised its proposal based on these consultations;
Whereas, letters of support for, or non-objection to, GNR's revised proposal have been received from the three gTLD Registry Constituency representatives to the Names Council, Ken Stubbs (Registrar Constituency Names Council representative), and Steve Metalitz (President of the Intellectual Property Constituency);
Whereas, the ICANN General Counsel has presented the Board with an analysis concluding that because the proposed changes to the .name Whois service are unlikely to harm legitimate interests of third parties, streamlined consideration of the amendment, without resort to the formal consensus-development process, is appropriate and recommending that the proposal for an amendment be approved;
Whereas, the General Counsel has presented the Board with a proposed substitute Appendix O to the .name registry agreement intended to implement GNR's proposal, and has indicated that conforming and supporting revisions to other appendices will be necessary;
Whereas, the Board concludes that the requested modifications are justified by the unique business and legal circumstances of the .name top-level domain, and the approval of these modifications should not be viewed as establishing a precedent that applies to other circumstances;
Whereas, in view of GNR's stated position that the modifications will provide heightened confidence that its Whois service complies with applicable data protection laws in the United Kingdom, GNR has undertaken to provide timely and appropriate assurances regarding the achievement of this objective; and
Whereas, GNR has stated its understanding that additional substantial modification to the proposed extensive Whois access agreement (including charging a fee for such access) will require ICANN approval, and that future requests for approval should be preceded by documented consultation by GNR with parties to existing extensive Whois access agreements;
Resolved [02.142] that the President is authorized to enter an amendment to ICANN's .name registry agreement with GNR revising the appendices to that agreement to implement GNR's proposal to revise the manner in which, and the conditions under which, .name public Whois data is made available.
At this point in the discussion, Mr. Chapin and Dr. Pisanty joined the meeting.
Mr. Mueller-Maguhn objected to the provisions of revised Appendix O, which he views as providing too much access to personal information. He views the .name Whois service as raising important privacy issues. In particular, he noted that the revised agreement allowed Whois information to be used for journalism purposes. He suggested that Board action be deferred until a Whois system was established that provided a higher degree of privacy protection.
Mr. Cohen noted that the proposed revision to the registry agreement provides the same amount – neither more nor less – of Whois data; the changes are intended to provide a greater practical assurance that the Whois data is not used for inappropriate purposes, thereby enhancing privacy protections. Dr. Lynn stated that the proposed revisions in the .name registry agreement did not effect a fundamental shift in ICANN policy. If there is to be such as fundamental shift such as advocated by Mr. Mueller-Maguhn, Dr. Lynn stated his view that it should go through the bottom-up policy-development process. Dr. Lynn noted that a DNSO task force had recently issued a report on Whois policy.
Dr. Cerf agreed that significant shifts in Whois policy should go through the established policy-development process, but noted that the minutes should reflect that Mr. Mueller-Maguhn's concerns are valid ones that should be considered in the policy-development process.
The Board passed the above motion by a 12-0-2 vote, with Dr. Blokzijl and Mr. Mueller-Maguhn abstaining.
Dr. Pisanty gave a report on the progress of the Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform. He noted that on 24 November 2002 the committee posted its Third Supplemental Implementation Report. This report includes a proposed Transition Article of the New Bylaws specifying the manner in which ICANN would migrate from the existing structures and procedures to those described in the New Bylaws adopted at the Shanghai meeting. The committee has invited public comment on the Transition Article and expects to propose a final proposal on 8 December 2002.
Dr. Pisanty noted various aspects of the New Bylaws that would not be completed in time for the annual meeting in Amsterdam, including finalization of provisions for the ASO and ccNSO.
Dr. Lynn gave a report on ICANN's financial ability to fund the requirements of reform. He noted that ICANN's financial situation required a moderate ramp-up in staffing during the remainder of the 2002-2003 fiscal year. A higher level of funding should be provided in the 2003-2004 fiscal year.
The registry operator for .pro, RegistryPro, has requested changes to its registry agreement so that defensive registgrations may be offered. Prior to the meeting, a "General Counsel's Analysis of RegistryPro's Request for Amendment to .pro Registry Agreement", along with associated materials, was provided to the Board and posted.
Dr. Cerf invited a motion to authorize entry of the requested amendments. Mr. Kraaijenbrink moved, with Dr. Campos' second, that the Board adopt the following resolution:
Whereas, on 15 November 2002 RegistryPro, Inc., which plans in the first quarter of 2003 to launch the registry for the .pro top-level domain under the registry agreement it entered with ICANN on 3 May 2002, requested that its registry agreement be amended to provide for it to offer three types of defensive registrations (Premium Intellectual Property Defensive Registrations, Basic Intellectual Property Defensive Registrations, and Standard Defensive Registrations) within the .pro top-level domain;
Whereas, in his 15 November 2002 letter, RegistryPro CEO Timothy Gelman explained that by offering defensive registrations, Registry Pro seeks to provide professionals located outside of the initial launch jurisdictions with an opportunity to protect their professional name and to decrease the number of potential claims filed by trademark registration owners;
Whereas, the .pro Advisory Board, which as contemplated by the .pro Registry Agreement is composed of representatives of professional associations and is intended to provide advice concerning the operation of the .pro registry from the perspective of professionals, its intended registrants, submitted a statement of support for the RegistryPro request for amendment;
Whereas, the intellectual property parts RegistryPro's proposed defensive registration offering are similar to that previously provided, with few controversies, in the .name and .coop top-level domains;
Whereas, the ICANN General Counsel has presented the Board with an analysis concluding that because the proposed offering is unlikely to harm legitimate interests of third parties, streamlined consideration of the amendment, without resort to the formal consensus-development process, is appropriate and recommending that the proposal for an amendment be approved;
Whereas, the General Counsel has presented the Board with proposed substitutes for Appendices G and L to the .pro registry agreement intended to implement RegistryPro's proposal, and has indicated that conforming and supporting revisions to several other appendices will be necessary; and
Whereas, the Board concludes that amendments to the .pro registry agreement to allow defensive registrations as proposed would promote fairness and stability in the introduction of the .pro top-level domain;
Resolved [02.143] that the President is authorized to enter an amendment to ICANN's .pro registry agreement with RegistryPro revising the appendices to that agreement to implement RegistryPro's proposal to offer defensive registrations.
After some discussion, the Board approved the above resolution by a 10-0-4 vote, with Dr. Blokzijl, Mr. Chapin, Mr. Mueller-Maguhn, and Dr. Pisanty abstaining.
Mr. Touton noted that the language of a ccTLD sponsorship agreement had been negotiated with Uzinfocom concerning the .uz (Uzbekistan) ccTLD. The negotiated language is quite similar to that in the model ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement for triangular situations posted on the web site.
Mr. Touton summarized the history and status of the .uz ccTLD. It was originally delegated to Alex Vostrikov of Tashkent in April 1995, who served as both technical and administrative contact. In August 1999, it was redelegated to Rustam Khamidov, also of Tashkent. Mr. Khamidov established a relationship with a company known as Eurocom, with its main office located in Berlin and the relevant operations in Tashkent, through which he handled technical operations for the .uz ccTLD.
In May 2001, Mr. Khamidov sent a request for the .uz domain to be redelegated to two individuals at Eurocom, one with an address in Berlin and one with an address in Tashkent. While this redelegation request was being investigated, in July 2001, the IANA received a letter from the responsible Uzbek government agency, the Posts and Telecomminications Agency of Uzbekistan, conveying significant dissatisfaction within the Uzbekistan community regarding the manner in which Khamidov/Eurocom were administering the .uz ccTLD. At the end of January 2002, the Posts and Telecomminications Agency of Uzbekistan sent a second letter to the IANA, requesting redelegation of the .uz ccTLD to that governmental agency.
After subsequent discussions within the Uzbek community and with the IANA, the Government of Uzbekistan concluded that a better solution would be to have the .uz ccTLD redelegated to the Computerization and Information Technology Developing Center (Uzinfocom), a non-governmental organization formed in June 2002 with the encouragement of the Uzbek government.
After consultations with both Eurocom and the Uzbek government, and through independent efforts to assess the situation, the IANA concluded that the new Uzbek government proposal was clearly superior, in terms of administering the .uz ccTLD in a manner that best meets the needs of the developing Internet sector in Uzbekistan, to either the Eurocom proposal or the original Uzbek government proposal.
To clarify and document the relative roles and responsibilities of Uzinfocom, the Uzbekistan government, and ICANN, representatives of the parties have drafted the bilateral communications between each pair of the three parties. An Uzinfocom-government agreement was entered in October 2002 in accordance with the GAC principles, which the government has used as a guide in proceeding. The Uzbek government has also sent ICANN communications recognizing ICANN's role in coordinating the DNS to preserve global interoperability.
Mr. Mueller-Maguhn noted his objection, discussed in detail at the Board's 18 November 2002 meeting, to including Attachment B, clause 7, in the agreement between ICANN and Uzinfocom.
A motion was made and seconded that the Board adopt the following resolutions:
Whereas, on 10 March 2000, in resolution 00.13, the Board authorized the President and staff to work with the ccTLD managers, Governmental Advisory Committee, and other interested parties to prepare draft language for ccTLD contracts, policy statements, and/or communications, including appropriate funding arrangements, to be presented to the Board and posted for public comment as soon as practicable;
Whereas, on 13 March 2001, in resolution 01.37, the Board directed ICANN management to press forward with continued vigor toward the completion of draft legacy agreements, and to pursue, as needed, acceptable ccTLD agreements in triangular situations;
Whereas, negotiators for Uzinfocom and ICANN have reached agreement, subject to the ICANN Board's approval, on the terms of a ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement for the .uz top-level domain;
Whereas, the President and General Counsel have recommended that authorization be given to enter into this agreement;
Resolved [02.144] that the President is authorized to enter on behalf of ICANN the ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement for .uz in the form provided to the Board, with any minor corrections or adjustments as appropriate;
The Board approved the above resolution by a 13-1-0 vote, with Mr. Mueller-Maguhn voting against.
Dr. Schink noted that progress had been made recently toward the implementation of ENUM. He noted that ICANN was not responsible for the detailed implementation of ENUM but that, because ENUM employs the domain-name system, its implementation could affect infrastructure that ICANN is responsible for coordinating. He suggested that it would be appropriate to hold a status review of the development and deployment of ENUM at the Rio de Janiero meeting, so that ICANN is better informed about progress on ENUM. After some discussion, the Board's sentiment was to hold such a briefing, with the understanding that ICANN is not expected to develop action items concerning the rules for operation of ENUM.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 14:45 UTC (6:45 am U.S. Pacific Standard Time).