Minutes
Special Meeting of the Board
23 August 2002
INTERNET CORPORATION
FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
23 August 2002
A meeting of the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") was held by teleconference on 23 August 2002. The following Directors of the Corporation were present by telephone: Vint Cerf (chairman), Amadeu Abril i Abril, Karl Auerbach, Rob Blokzijl, Ivan Moura Campos, Masanobu Katoh, Hans Kraaijenbrink, Sang-Hyon Kyong, Stuart Lynn, Andy Mueller-Maguhn, Nii Quaynor, and Linda S. Wilson. Directors Lyman Chapin, Jonathan Cohen, Jun Murai, and Alejandro Pisanty joined the call while it was in progress. Also present on the teleconference were Louis Touton, Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel of the Corporation, and Joe Sims, outside counsel to the Corporation.
The meeting was called to order by Vint Cerf at 14:06 UTC (7:06 am U.S. Pacific Daylight Time).
Dr. Cerf noted that draft minutes for the Board's 13 June 2002 meeting had been circulated. Dr. Wilson moved, with Mr. Kraaijenbrink's second, that the Board adopt the following resolution:
Resolved [02.96] that the minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 13 June 2002 are hereby approved and adopted by the Board as presented.
This resolution was adopted with eleven votes in favor, no votes in opposition, and Mr. Abril i Abril abstaining.
New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force
Dr. Lynn noted that the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force had issued its Final Report on 31 July 2002. The report contains some recommendations to the Board, including the launch of an evaluation of the introduction of seven new TLDs as authorized by the Board in November 2000. Although the report lists a significant number of items that could be investigated, the recommended approach is to prioritize these items, thereby reducing the time needed to conduct the evaluation and provide information to be used in long-term decisions on additional TLDs. The report also notes the possibility of moving forward – such as by planning the next round of gTLD evaluations – in parallel with the evaluation process.
Dr. Lynn proposed that the staff prepare a plan for proceeding, to be considered by the Board at the Shanghai meeting in October 2002. He noted that approximately US$330,000 in funds remained from the new TLD application fees to support the evaluation.
At this point in the meeting, Dr. Murai joined.
In accord with his comments, Dr. Lynn moved, with Dr. Wilson's second, that the Board adopt the following resolutions:
Whereas, the Board at its Stockholm meeting in June 2001 adopted the following resolution:
Resolved [01.74], the Board directs the President to form and chair a New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force, for the purpose of recommending to the Board and the broader Internet community, by means of a report to be discussed at ICANN's Montevideo meeting in September 2001:
(a) a plan for monitoring the introduction of new TLDs and for evaluating their performance and their impact on the performance of the DNS. This assessment should focus in technical, business, and legal perspectives and rely on data gathered as part of the contractual arrangements with the new TLDs as well as other data inputs that can be readily secured; and
(b) a schedule on which a plan should be executed;
Whereas, the President formed the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force (NTEPPTF);
Whereas, NTEPPTF duly produced and presented to the Board such a plan and schedule, following a 30-day public comment period;
Whereas, NTEPPTF has appropriately factored such comments into its report;
Whereas, the Board recognizes that current workload, staffing, and priorities make it advisable to defer acting on the NTEPPTF recommendations until the ICANN Board meeting in Shanghai, China, in October 2002;
Resolved [02.97] that the Board accepts with gratitude the NTEPPTF report and thanks the members of the Task Force for their hard work and dedication in producing the report; and
Further resolved [02.97A] that the President is directed to produce a plan for action for approval by the Board at its meeting in Shanghai, China, in October 2002.
Dr. Pisanty joined the meeting at this point, and Mr. Chapin joined during the following discussion.
The Board discussed the report and resolution. The topics discussed included the status of the applications not selected in November 2000, with different views being expressed by different Board members. Some Board members stated their belief that the Board should focus on the nature of TLDs to be introduced in the future. In the discussion, it was agreed that these topics should be discussed in more detail at the Shanghai meeting.
Dr. Quaynor asked about the continued existence of the NTEPPTF. Dr. Lynn noted that the NTEPPTF's formal work comes to a close with the completion of its final report, but that NTEPPTF members have expressed a willingness to provide additional assistance concerning the topics of the NTEPPTF's report.
Mr. Auerbach noted that he had found some technical errors in the report. Dr. Cerf stated that these should be provided to Dr. Lynn, and that the acceptance of the report in proposed resolution does not imply that any technical errors in the report are endorsed.
The Board adopted the above resolutions with thirteen votes in favor, Mr. Auerbach opposed, and Dr. Lynn abstaining.
Evolution and Reform Committee Report
Dr. Pisanty gave a report on the progress of the Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform in overseeing further detailed implementation and transition work based on the Blueprint for Reform, as it was directed to do in resolution 02.76 adopted by the Board at the June 2002 Bucharest meeting. He noted that the Evolution and Reform Committee has been quite active, presently working on the following main items:
1. The structure of the GNSO and its Names Council.
2. Policy-development process in the GNSO, for which an Assistance Group has been formed. This Assistance Group has developed a draft which has already been published. Thanks are due to Ms. Rita Rodin, who has headed this group, and to the volunteers who with her have produced a process which is expected to increase both the transparency and the efficacy of policy development for generic domain names.
3. Accountability, for which an Assistance Group has been formed and is also in operation. This group, headed by Ms. Becky Burr, has produced preliminary work, and is actively pursuing to deliver a report on the coming weekend.
4. Relationship with “critical infrastructure providers and the technical community to further the establishment of effective working relationships”, as mandated in the Board resolutions from the Bucharest meeting. In particular, there has been strong progress in contacts of Evolution and Reform Committee members with the IETF/IAB community, there is ongoing a contact with the RIRs, and several conversations are taking place with the ccTLD administrator community, facilitated by the end of the Boreal Summer’s suspensions of activities. These contacts have allowed the Evolution and Reform Committee to better establish a proposal to charter the Technical Advisory Committee, and to begin work on the structure and functioning of the proposed CNSO.
5. At-Large Advisory Committee. An Assistance Group has been working on the possible structure and operation of an ALAC; work done by a number of volunteers from different countries and organizations, in a wide spectrum, begins to delineate a starting point and a foreseeable evolution for a workable At Large mechanism, which will be sensitive to the needs and opinions of general, global Internet users; capable of generating trust; and able to facilitate informed participation in the decision-making of ICANN. This Group has also generated a report which is subject to public comment. The work headed by Ms. Denise Michel, Ms. Esther Dyson, the participants in the working group, and other volunteer contributions must be observed and commented by Board members and the community in general.
6. Nominating Committee. The Evolution and Reform Committee is studying at present the detailed implementation structure of the NomCom, criteria to be fulfilled by its members and ways to ascertain such fulfillment, and timelines for the integration and operation of the NomCom. A draft for discussion is being circulated internally and will soon give rise to a document that can be subject to comment by the Board and the community in general.
Dr. Pisanty also noted that the past month of work of the Evolution and Reform Committee owes much to the Assistance Groups and to numerous volunteers who follow it and continue to make valuable contributions. The Evolution and Reform Committee is convinced that its progress and focus are guarantees of a stable, workable ICANN, which is ensuring its accountability and listening capacity globally, and that the reform needed by ICANN is well underway and moving in a productive direction.
During the above discussion, Mr. Cohen joined the meeting.
Mr. Kraaijenbrink reported on behalf of the Reconsideration Committee. He first summarized the Committee's recommendation in connection with request RC 02-1, which was submitted by David Ogden. Upon Mr. Kraaijenbrink's motion, seconded by Dr. Campos, the Board unanimously adopted the following resolution:
Resolved [02.98] that the Reconsideration Committee's Recommendation RC 02-1 is adopted for the reasons stated in that recommendation. The domain name pops.int should be registered to the Interim Secretariat for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, subject to re-evaluation in the event that the Stockholm Convention does not enter into force within four years after the registration is made.
Mr. Kraaijenbrink then gave a summary of the Reconsideration Committee's recommendation on request RC 02-4, which was submitted by Professor Ethan Katsh. Mr. Kraaijenbrink's moved, with second by Dr. Pisanty, that the Board adopt the following resolution:
Resolved [02.99] that the Reconsideration Committee's Recommendation RC 02-4 is adopted for the reasons stated in that recommendation.
The resolution was adopted with thirteen votes in favor, with Mr. Auerbach opposed and Mr. Mueller-Maguhn abstaining.)
Dr. Cerf noted that VeriSign, Inc. had requested that its registry agreements for the .com and .net TLDs be amended to allow it to engage in a one-year trial of a Wait Listing Service (WLS), for which it would be permitted to charge a fee. The ICANN General Counsel recently prepared, provided to the Board, and posted an analysis of the VeriSign request, which contained detailed recommendations.
Dr. Lynn moved, with Mr. Cohen's second, that the Board adopt the following resolution:
Whereas, on 21 March 2002 VeriSign, Inc., the operator of the .com and .net registries, requested amendments to the registry agreements for those top-level domains to allow it to conduct a twelve-month trial of a proposed wait-listing service (WLS) to be offered through accredited registrars for an annual fee;
Whereas, at its 22 April 2002 meeting the Board, after noting that a report of the DNSO will be of assistance in evaluating the VeriSign WLS proposal, requested the Names Council to coordinate within the DNSO a comprehensive review of issues concerning the deletion of domain names and possible solutions for those issues and to submit to the Board a status report on that review, with the status report to include any recommendations concerning VeriSign's request to modify the .com and .net agreements to allow it to provide the WLS;
Whereas, as contemplated by resolution 02.55 ICANN also received various public comments on the WLS on a web-based public comment forum;
Whereas, a Public Forum was held on 27 June 2002 at ICANN's meetings in Bucharest, during which VeriSign gave a presentation of the WLS in which it proposed changes to its WLS proposal (including avoidance of preferential treatment of existing SnapBack subscriptions, and reduction of VeriSign's annual fee for WLS subscriptions to US$24.00) to accommodate concerns expressed in community comments; the DNSO Transfers Task Force summarized its preliminary findings and recommendations; and several members of the Internet community gave their views on WLS;
Whereas, the Board concluded at its Bucharest meeting that its consideration of VeriSign's request would be assisted by receiving the final report of the DNSO's bottom-up consensus-development effort, and therefore called on the Names Council to provide, no later than 26 July 2002, final recommendations, with its supporting rationale and any separate positions of DNSO constituencies, on the VeriSign WLS request;
Whereas, the DNSO Transfers Task Force finalized its report in mid-July 2002, recommending (with dissenting views) (a) that VeriSign's request be rejected and (b) that if it is approved various conditions be incorporated;
Whereas, on 24 July 2002 the Names Council, by a 15-3-1 vote, adopted the task force report "as a whole" and transmitted it to the Board;
Whereas, although the range of opinions regarding the WLS in the community has significantly narrowed during the discussions of the issues, there remains a disparity of opinions;
Whereas, the Board is mindful that ICANN should act in a way that promotes consumer choice and innovative services while ensuring that registry operations are conducted in a manner that does not harm the legitimate interests of consumers or others;
Whereas, the Board concludes that, in general, ICANN should avoid depriving consumers of the option of purchasing services they may decide are beneficial, and that the option of subscribing to a guaranteed "wait list" service is one such service;
Whereas, the Board also concludes that various conditions are necessary to ensure that the proposed WLS is implemented in a manner that promotes, rather than harms, the interests of consumers and others with legitimate interests;
Whereas, the Board notes that the Blueprint for Reform adopted and endorsed in resolution 02.75 contemplates that ICANN should have mechanisms to consult with Expert Advisory Panels or existing expert bodies on competition and other issues and that the Evolution and Reform Committee is developing recommendations for implementation of that and other recommendations of the Blueprint;
Whereas, the Board notes that the implementation of mechanisms for ICANN to consult on economic and competition issues should be in place in time to be of assistance in connection with evaluation of any WLS trial;
Resolved that the President and General Counsel are authorized to conduct negotiations on behalf of ICANN toward appropriate revisions to the .com and .net registry agreements between ICANN and VeriSign to provide for the offering of a wait-listing service as proposed by VeriSign, with the following additional conditions:
(a) Subscriptions under the WLS in the .com and .net top-level domains shall not be taken by VeriSign Global Registry Services until at least three months have elapsed after implementation of the Redemption Grace Period for all deleted names in those top-level domains;
(b) No preference in connection with, or exclusion from, WLS shall be given because of SnapBack or any other existing registrar-level reservation service;
(c) No registrar sponsoring the registration of a domain name in the .com and .net top-level domains shall be permitted to obtain (in its own name or for another, directly or indirectly) a WLS subscription on that name at any time after a date sixty days before the registration of the name is deleted;
(d) With regard to transparency of information regarding WLS subscriptions, [Board to consider this point];
(e) The WLS shall be offered for a trial period of twelve months, with subscriptions offered for a one-year term so that they last no longer than one year past the end of the trial period; and
(f) There shall be an agreed data-gathering and evaluation program that includes mechanisms for analyzing whether the WLS harms the legitimate interests of consumers or others.
The Board proceeded to discuss the resolution. Dr. Cerf noted that one view is that the WLS is a beneficial service, and that ICANN should not foreclose a registry providing it. He stated that registrars, on the other hand, saw the WLS as an erosion of competition.
Mr. Mueller-Maguhn moved, with Mr. Chapin's second, to amend the reference in paragraph (a) to "three months" to "six months." He stated that allowing only three months after full introduction of the Redemption Grace Period before introduction of the WLS did not allow sufficient time. Mr. Touton explained that the purpose for the period is to allow the Redemption Grace Period, which addresses the problem of inadvertently deleted names, to become operative and known to consumers before the introduction of the WLS. This will provide consumers a well-known mechanism for security of their registrations so that they may evaluate that security in considering use of the WLS. Board members noted that three months only allowed two cycles of the Redemption Grace Period to operate, which may not generate sufficient familiarity.
After discussion, the Board adopted the amendment by a vote of thirteen votes in favor, Mr. Blokzijl voting against, and Mr. Abril i Abril abstaining.
A discussion ensued regarding the transparency of information regarding WLS subscriptions, as highlighted in paragraph (d) of the resolution. A friendly amendment was accepted to reword paragraph (d) as follows:
(d) With regard to transparency of information regarding WLS subscriptions, there shall be an effective mechanism for actively notifying the current domain-name holder upon the placing of a WLS subscription on the name, without revealing the identity of the party holding the WLS subscription.
Concern was raised regarding the specific reference in paragraph (b) to the SnapBack service. In response, that paragraph was revised by friendly amendment to read:
(b) No preference in connection with, or exclusion from, WLS shall be given because of any registrar-level reservation service.
A friendly amendment was also accepted to revise paragraph (f) to read as follows:
(f) There shall be a data-gathering and evaluation program, to be specified in the negotiated revisions to the agreements, that includes mechanisms for analyzing whether the WLS harms the legitimate interests of consumers or others.
Mr. Abril i Abril stated that he opposed the resolution, citing several reasons.
The Board then voted on the following resolution:
Whereas, on 21 March 2002 VeriSign, Inc., the operator of the .com and .net registries, requested amendments to the registry agreements for those top-level domains to allow it to conduct a twelve-month trial of a proposed wait-listing service (WLS) to be offered through accredited registrars for an annual fee;
Whereas, at its 22 April 2002 meeting the Board, after noting that a report of the DNSO will be of assistance in evaluating the VeriSign WLS proposal, requested the Names Council to coordinate within the DNSO a comprehensive review of issues concerning the deletion of domain names and possible solutions for those issues and to submit to the Board a status report on that review, with the status report to include any recommendations concerning VeriSign's request to modify the .com and .net agreements to allow it to provide the WLS;
Whereas, as contemplated by resolution 02.55 ICANN also received various public comments on the WLS on a web-based public comment forum;
Whereas, a Public Forum was held on 27 June 2002 at ICANN's meetings in Bucharest, during which VeriSign gave a presentation of the WLS in which it proposed changes to its WLS proposal (including avoidance of preferential treatment of existing SnapBack subscriptions, and reduction of VeriSign's annual fee for WLS subscriptions to US$24.00) to accommodate concerns expressed in community comments; the DNSO Transfers Task Force summarized its preliminary findings and recommendations; and several members of the Internet community gave their views on WLS;
Whereas, the Board concluded at its Bucharest meeting that its consideration of VeriSign's request would be assisted by receiving the final report of the DNSO's bottom-up consensus-development effort, and therefore called on the Names Council to provide, no later than 26 July 2002, final recommendations, with its supporting rationale and any separate positions of DNSO constituencies, on the VeriSign WLS request;
Whereas, the DNSO Transfers Task Force finalized its report in mid-July 2002, recommending (with dissenting views) (a) that VeriSign's request be rejected and (b) that if it is approved various conditions be incorporated;
Whereas, on 24 July 2002 the Names Council, by a 15-3-1 vote, adopted the task force report "as a whole" and transmitted it to the Board;
Whereas, although the range of opinions regarding the WLS in the community has significantly narrowed during the discussions of the issues, there remains a disparity of opinions;
Whereas, the Board is mindful that ICANN should act in a way that promotes consumer choice and innovative services while ensuring that registry operations are conducted in a manner that does not harm the legitimate interests of consumers or others;
Whereas, the Board concludes that, in general, ICANN should avoid depriving consumers of the option of purchasing services they may decide are beneficial, and that the option of subscribing to a guaranteed "wait list" service is one such service;
Whereas, the Board also concludes that various conditions are necessary to ensure that the proposed WLS is implemented in a manner that promotes, rather than harms, the interests of consumers and others with legitimate interests;
Whereas, the Board notes that the Blueprint for Reform adopted and endorsed in resolution 02.75 contemplates that ICANN should have mechanisms to consult with Expert Advisory Panels or existing expert bodies on competition and other issues and that the Evolution and Reform Committee is developing recommendations for implementation of that and other recommendations of the Blueprint;
Whereas, the Board notes that the implementation of mechanisms for ICANN to consult on economic and competition issues should be in place in time to be of assistance in connection with evaluation of any WLS trial;
Resolved [02.100] that the President and General Counsel are authorized to conduct negotiations on behalf of ICANN toward appropriate revisions to the .com and .net registry agreements between ICANN and VeriSign to provide for the offering of a wait-listing service as proposed by VeriSign, with the following additional conditions:
(a) Subscriptions under the WLS in the .com and .net top-level domains shall not be taken by VeriSign Global Registry Services until at least six months have elapsed after implementation of the Redemption Grace Period for all deleted names in those top-level domains;
(b) No preference in connection with, or exclusion from, WLS shall be given because of any registrar-level reservation service;
(c) No registrar sponsoring the registration of a domain name in the .com and .net top-level domains shall be permitted to obtain (in its own name or for another, directly or indirectly) a WLS subscription on that name at any time after a date sixty days before the registration of the name is deleted;
(d) With regard to transparency of information regarding WLS subscriptions, there shall be an effective mechanism for actively notifying the current domain-name holder upon the placing of a WLS subscription on the name, without revealing the identity of the party holding the WLS subscription;
(e) The WLS shall be offered for a trial period of twelve months, with subscriptions offered for a one-year term so that they last no longer than one year past the end of the trial period; and
(f) There shall be a data-gathering and evaluation program, to be specified in the negotiated revisions to the agreements, that includes mechanisms for analyzing whether the WLS harms the legitimate interests of consumers or others.
The resolution was adopted with eleven votes in favor, Mr. Abril i Abril and Mr. Auerbach voting in opposition, and Dr. Kyong and Mr. Mueller-Maguhn abstaining.
The Board discussed arrangements for its e-mail list.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 16:10 UTC (9:10 am U.S. Pacific Daylight Time).
_______________________
Louis Touton
Secretary
Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site
should be sent to webmaster@icann.org.
Page Updated
02-Jun-2003
©2002 The Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers. All rights reserved.