Esther Dyson at 3:50pm ET
Hi! I'm here. will stand by until 4. I have 3.48 right now. greetings from Santiago!
Moderator at 3:52pm ET
Hello, Esther, glad you could make it! We'll be getting started right at 4 p.m. ET, so if there's anyone who hasn't posted a question, go right ahead!
Moderator at 4:02pm ET
Well, why don't we get started. Esther Dyson, interim chairperson of ICANN, thank you for joining us from ICANN's meeting in Santiago, Chile. Before we start posting questions, why don't you give us a quick run down about what you and ICANN have been doing these past few days?
Esther Dyson at 4:03pm ET
FWIW, I'm sitting here in Santiago, Chile, in the university auditorim where we have been holding our meetings. RIght now I am sitting in on a meeting of ICANN's "names council" (which fortunately I am not running!, linked up over an Ethernet hookup to the Net. Subliminal message: The rest of the world is getting wired!
Esther Dyson at 4:06pm ET
We held our first open board meeting this morning. Some of the decisions made (details at www.icann.org) include the adoption/implementation of a Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy to cover purportedly abusive registrations of domain names. We also adopted an independent review panel (for disputes concerning *our* bylaws), and took steps towards establishing our membership structure.
Peter Vos from [18.104.22.168] at 4:06pm ET
What is the current status on opening up the top level domains to include the proposed .web, .store, .firm, tlds?
Is there a time line associated with this or not?
Esther Dyson at 4:07pm ET
basically, we are now (finally) working on substantive policies, rather than designing our own navel. And overall, the atmosphere here has been much more constructive and friendly than in the past, despite what yo might read in the (other) press.
Esther Dyson at 4:10pm ET
TH etimeline for new domain names is that ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization has a working group to consider this issue - whether, why, how, how many, when...... It won't happen this year, I assume, because our next board meeting - when we could consider this issue after recommendations and public comment - is in November.
Esther Dyson at 4:11pm ET
PS - is that Peter Vos from Austria (whom I know)? Or some other Peter Vos?
darshan from [22.214.171.124], at 4:11pm ET
Whence does ICANN draw its authority? In other words, who made you guys the domain name czars?
Esther Dyson at 4:14pm ET
Our authority comes from the Net itself. That's why our proceedings sometimes look fractious! We need to foster a consensus, then adopt policies reflecting that consensus, and then enforce those policies through contracts, such as the contracts we currenlty have with the new .com registrars. (Separately, we have some delegated authority via contracts with the US government, mostly concerning opening up the .com/.net/.org registry to competition from additional registrars (the incumbent is Network Solutions).
Moderator at 4:15pm ET
No word yet from Peter...so we'll continue.
adrian stokes from [126.96.36.199], at 4:16pm ET
What's happened in Santiago to make the whole domain-name policy system more open and democratic?
Esther Dyson at 4:18pm ET
AMong other things, we accepted the Non-Commercial DOmain Name Holders constituency of the DNS). (SOrry for all the acronyms!) ANd we held both an open meeting *with* the public -lots of comments, suggestions, mostly constructve criticism, moves towards consensus - and also our long-awaited first open board meeting, with the public and press invited to watch -either in person or over the Web. It went well!
Jim Hisle from [188.8.131.52], at 4:19pm ET
What are ICANN's plans for the individual holders of Internet addresses? I have an address setup in the process of a small business development. I am concerned that my selected name might be challenged internationally and I would be at a great disadvantage. My domain name currently is not trademarked in the US, but does have some similar matches internationally.
Esther Dyson at 4:20pm ET
We also pledged to include the views and interests of individuals and non-commercial orgs in drafting the precise wording of the dispute- resolution policy.
Esther Dyson at 4:24pm ET
What do you mean by "matches"? Basically, if you have registered the name already, and you have some legitimate claim to it - for example, it's your own name or the name you ahve been doing business under - the policy would support your claim to it against that of anyone coming along later. (The lawyer sitting next to me says I should stress that this is not professional advice and you should consult your own counsel!)
Dan from [184.108.40.206], at 4:25pm ET
How do you measure consensus?
hard members or do you have more than
3000 people that agree with ICANN?
Esther Dyson at 4:28pm ET
That's one of the challenges. We consider the messages we get over the Net (after substantial posting), as well as what people at our meetings say. We also check that a variety of points of view are represented. That is, you can't go to a meeting of business people and get a consensus there and use that, just as you can't base a judgment of consensus on just a US community - since the Net operates worldwide. There's a fair amount of judgement involved. And most people don't "agree with ICANN" about everything; we do most things issue by issue.....
LaRell from [220.127.116.11], at 4:29pm ET
Have there been any forward advances toward the problem of running out of IP addresses to match up to "Domain Names"?
Esther Dyson at 4:30pm ET
There's going to be a whole new addressing system called IPv6 (vs. teh current IPv4) that will solve that problem in spades. Our Protocol Supporting Organization and Address suppporting organization are shepherding that process.
New Approved Registrar from [18.104.22.168], at 4:31pm ET
How is the financing side of things going with ICANN? Many new registrars (including ourselves) have agreed to contribute the $1/domain to help sustain ICANN. How does Esther feel about that $1 tax helping to finance ICANN. Are any registrars blatantly against it or are we pretty much in agreement?
Esther Dyson at 4:39pm ET
The financing side is going better, thanks to some loans from MCI and Cisco among others (details on the site). We appreciate your support - moreal and financial! - but let me stress that this is not a tax but a user fee. It is proportional to use and you don't have to pay it unless you register a domain name. NSI is against it, but no one else (among registrars) that I know of has protested violently. Compared to the $9 fee NSI charges for its registry services, it looks pretty reasonable. And compared to the former $70 per year retail price before ICANN came along, it looks positively cheap!
FWIW, we won't resolve long-term funding (as opposed to loans and donations) until we have a larger board with 9 elected members in November. We now have a task force consisting of registrars, registries, and other affected parties to figure out how to fund the organization long-term.
Patrick Greenwell from [22.214.171.124], at 4:40pm ET
The current unelected Interim board
has engaged in some very substantial decision-making without either the board itself of the ICANN structure being fully constituted, yet there is still no process by which to elect a board that is truly representative of
Internet users. When will such a process be in place?
Esther Dyson at 4:44pm ET
We're working hard to put it in place. The first nine elected board members shold be seated by November (as I said above). The other challenge (in parallel) is the At-Large Membership, and it is a challenge given an undefined electorate, limited funds, etc. etc. We made a fair amount of progress here and the process should be in place over the next few months. The *people* should be in place - at least the first tranche - by next summer. ANd there will be nine of them by Septeber 2000, when the current members will all have stepped down.
Moderator at 4:45pm ET
We've had a number of questions about a petition from individual domain name owners that was submitted at this meeting. Can you tell us what happened with that petition?
Esther Dyson at 4:49pm ET
Yes. We deferred consideration of it because we had promised to deal first with the initial seven constituencies we had decided to establish (by consensus) last March. However, wehave been working hard (as in the dispute resolution procedure policy I mentioned above) to make sure the vies and interests of individuals get considered. Today, for example, the Intellectual Property constituency of the DNSO announced that it would accept - in fact, welcome - individual members.
Carlito from [126.96.36.199], at 4:50pm ET
Jon Postel, "Father of the Internet" was one of the dominating voices in this area. Do you believe that alot of the current controversy over ICANN would have been avoided if Jon Postel was still alive?
Esther Dyson at 4:50pm ET
PS - We also invited Joop Teernstra, who proposed that petition, to help us in reaching out to and establishing our At-Large Membership. I hope he agrees to do so! We need all the help we can get in reaching that worldwide community.
Esther Dyson at 4:56pm ET
any more questions??
Esther Dyson at 4:57pm ET
ps - moderator only - any sign of Mike ROberts?
Dennis Schaefer from [188.8.131.52], at 4:57pm ET
Yesterday I submitted a comment at your meeting stating how disappointed I was that ICANN didn't represent individuals and hadn't consulted them in adopting its dispute policy.
You said my concerns belonged to the noncommercial group in ICANN. But they also had no voice in your policy.
Shouldn't you really go back and do this right... before ICANN begins to look like an organization captured by business interests?
Individual Domain Name Owners
Moderator at 4:58pm ET
Esther: unfortunately, Mike couldn't logon here.
Esther Dyson at 4:59pm ET
Well, thanks a lot! Hope people fond it useful and interesting. FWIW, you too are welcome to get involved and help shape the consensus on all the topics above. What do *you* think about new gTLDs? how to fund ICANN? etc. etc.
Moderator at 4:59pm ET
Actually, if you have the time, we do have one more question.
Moderator at 5:00pm ET
It's listed above, from Dennis Schaefer.
Esther Dyson at 5:01pm ET
For Dennis - I did *not* say that indivs; concerns belong in noncommerical constituency. I am an individual and I have a lot fo commercial interests. As I explained, we did and will consider both invdivs and noncom interests in the dispute resolution policy and elsewhere. Hpapy to continue this by e-mail email@example.com
Moderator at 5:01pm ET
Thanks, Esther, for taking the time to chat with our readers. And thanks to everyone who participated here today!
Your message will go into a queue accessible only to the chat moderator, who will select and post messages.