ICANN|ARCHIVES
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Please note:
You are viewing archival ICANN material. Links and information may be outdated or incorrect. Visit ICANN's main website for current information.
ICANN Board Meeting in Bucharest Real-Time Captioning
28 June 2002
Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the ICANN Board Meeting held 28 June 2002 in Bucharest, Romania. Although the captioning output is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
ICANN Board Meeting
Bucharest, Romania
Friday, 28 June 2002
VeriSign Wait-Listing Service Proposal
(Proceedings begin at 8:34 a.m. This immediately follows a Public Forum session on Whois issues.)
Vinton Cerf: With that, we'll close the discussion on Whois for this time and move on now to the rest of the formal Board meeting.
Just a couple of logistics comments. We do not plan to break for – formally for lunch. So people who are in the room now should be aware of that. Some of the directors are hoping to leave promptly at the end of this session, which is scheduled to close at 1:00. For those directors to make their flights and other plans, and who have been asked to be fed, meals will be provided right here in the room at your places at approximately 11 to 11:30, when we will take a break. But we will intend to work our way through without a formal lunch break.
I don't think I have – oh, I have one other announcement from yesterday. And I don't know whether the gentleman is in the room or found his bag, but Stuart Marsden apparently left a bag and it was brought over to the table here. If that person is known to any of you or is in the room, please check with the folks over at the desk.
Okay. So are we ready to begin?
Our first item on the agenda is to review two reconsideration requests. And you should have before you the text of the proposed resolutions. But I'd like to call on Hans Kraaijenbrink to just briefly remind us of the specifics of these two reconsiderations before we decide whether the resolutions are appropriate. Hans.
Hans Kraaijenbrink: Thank you, Vint.
These have been submitted for your review on June 17th.
The first one is number 02-2, which we received on the 1st of February, and Russell Smith requests – or complains of ICANN's inaction in responding to complaints regarding the actions of VeriSign Global Registry Services concerning requests for transfer of sponsorship of domain names between registrars.
Mr. Smith is not an accredited registrar, but he is engaged in reselling domain name registrations.
On the 2nd of February, ICANN General Counsel wrote to Mr. Smith to ask him for a number of specifics regarding his request. And the committee notes that it is important that those requesting reconsideration include all the specifics set forth in the reconsideration policy.
In a reply message, Mr. Smith provided additional specifics on his items. And we have proceeded based on the original request augmented by his reply.
The request raises two issues. First, Mr. Smith complains that ICANN's chief registrar liaison, Dan Halloran, has failed, despite numerous complaints by Mr. Smith, to enforce the registrar transfer procedures described in a letter from Louis Touton to Christine Russo. He has said it violates the agreements inasmuch as it has violated all transfer as they, as the losing registrar, claimed they didn't receive properly processed authorization request.
Second, the request seeks revision of statements by ICANN, including on the registrar problem report page ICANN maintains at the Internet web site, that consumer complaints regarding registrars should be addressed to private sector agencies involved in addressing consumer complaints or governmental consumer protection agencies, and that ICANN does not resolve individual customer complaints.
The committee notes that the registrar transfer procedures involve complex questions that are currently under study by the transfers task force of domain name supporting organization. And we've listened this morning to some issues treated by the – by the task force. They are evaluating whether to recommend a change in policies concerning registrar transfers, which may or may not envision a greater enforcement role for ICANN. Until the adoption of such a policy, however, there is no basis for ICANN to enforce any agreement in the manner requested (inaudible) present reconsideration request.
The committee believes that the statements on the Internic web site appropriately summarize ICANN's limited mission regarding customer complaints against registrars. ICANN's role is not to act as a consumer complaint bureau, or otherwise adjust customer complaints. There are many entities within government and private sector that do include that role within their missions. The Internic statements appropriately direct consumers to those entities.
Because the request for consideration does not demonstrate any basis for enforcement by ICANN in any event, there is no occasion on this case to evaluate whether some discretion has been – sound discretion has been exercised in enforcement decisions. For these reasons, the committee recommends that the Board take no action on the reconsideration request, and my move that the Board resolves that the reconsideration committee's recommendation, RC 02-2, is adopted for the reasons stated in that recommendation.
The Board notes that the DNSO task force is currently involved in bottom-up policies concerning registration transfers between registrars, proposals for such improvements should be directed to the task force.
Vinton Cerf: Thank you very much, Hans. Is there – I take it that this resolution is placed on the table as a motion.
Hans Kraaijenbrink: I do.
Vinton Cerf: May I have a second?
Masanobu Katoh: I second.
Vinton Cerf: Katoh-san seconds. Is there any further discussion from the Board on this recommendation?
All right. All those in favor of this resolution, please say "aye."
Many: Aye.
Vinton Cerf: Are there any opposed? Is there any abstention? One abstention from Andy. So it is nearly unanimous. Let's go now to the second recommendation.
Hans Kraaijenbrink: The second recommendation concerns reconsideration request 02-3, submitted by Tony So. And it appears that the domain name xtronx.com was registered by Mr. So and then reregistered by another person contrary to his issues. The action was, and I quote, "we would like ICANN to return the domain name www.xtronx.com back to us until an investigation is completed as to the steps that were taken by them to notify us of the registration." There was no indication, however, that the request was directed to any action by ICANN.
On the 1st of March, a request was sent seeking clarification of the request. And no clarifying response has been received. It appears, however, from the Whois data that the domain xtronx.com is once again registered to Mr. So with eNom as the sponsoring registrar.
In view of these circumstances, the reconsideration committee recommends that the Board take no action on request 02-3. The committee notes, however, that unintentional deletions of domain names as presented by this request have arisen with frequency. And under current policies, there's very little ICANN to do to help these situations, but the recent – has proposed the staff to propose a redemption grace period policy. They have a 30-day policy to redeem them. And I hope that today we will take a decision on that proposal. So I move that the Board resolves the reconsideration committee's recommendation, RC 02-3 is adopted for the reasons stated in that recommendation.
Vinton Cerf: Thank you, Hans. Is there a second for this motion? Alejandro seconds. Is there any further discussion of this resolution?
All right. Then we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please say aye.
Many: Aye.
Vinton Cerf: Are there any who oppose? Are there any abstentions? It's unanimously passed. Thank you very much. And I share Hans's hope that we will find a remedy for at least some of the unintentional deregistrations.
The next item on the agenda is to approve a resolution which authorizes the president to sign a memorandum of understanding with the ccTLD operator for .mw (Malawi). You should have in addition for you, in addition to a resolution, also a summary of the details of the actual MoU.
I don't propose to read through that MoUu, 'but you can see from the resolution text that such agreements have been reached and the president now wishes to be authorized by the Board to proceed, to finalize them. So my first question would be to ask the Board member to place this resolution on the table.
>>Stuart Lynn: Moved.
>>Vinton Cerf: Mr. Lynn moves. Is there a second? I see from Nii Quaynor, a second.
Is there – let's now look at this resolution. Just to summarize, there has been an agreement between the Malawi Sustainable Development Network Program and ICANN, subject to our approval, on the terms of the ICANN ccTLD manager memorandum of understanding for the .mw top-level domain. I'm simply summarizing here, not reading all the text. The memorandum of understanding has now been presented to the Board, and the recommendation in this resolution is that we would authorize the agreement to be made in two steps; that the president's authorized to enter on behalf of ICANN this MoU as presented, subject to any corrections that we may discuss in a moment. And finally, that upon signing it, the President is authorized to take actions to implement it.
So let me ask the Board whether there are any further discussion about the memorandum and the resolution. No. All right. All those in favor of this resolution, kindly say aye.
>>Aye.
>>Vinton Cerf: Are there any opposed to the resolution? Is there any abstention? The resolution passed unanimously. Thank you for that.
Now comes a much more interesting and difficult discussion, and that is the response to the evolution and reform committee's proposal. We have a fairly lengthy resolution that is to be placed on the table, and I would like to invite the chairman of the evolution and reform committee to make that motion.
>>Alejandro Pisanty: I move.
>>Vinton Cerf: Is there a second? Hans Kraaijenbrink seconds.
I think this is such an important matter that it is important for us to, in fact, read through the proposed text of the resolution, and to discuss it. So if you'll forgive me, unless – would you like to read it? No. Let me read this for the record.
Whereas Stuart Lynn –
>>Louis Touton: Vint, there were a few minor corrections in the paper version, so you should be reading from the paper version now?
>>Vinton Cerf: I am reading from the paper version. No, I'm actually doing this from memory. (Laughter.) (Applause.)
>>Vinton Cerf: Whereas Stuart Lynn's "President's Report: The Case for Reform," thoughtfully laid out the need for constructive change in ICANN's structure and processes, and initiated a very productive dialogue throughout the ICANN community;
Whereas the Board accepted the president's report as timely and important – as a timely and important call to action, and then established an evolution and reform committee – small typo – of the Board (ERC) to manage the process of receiving and evaluating community input on these and related issues;
Whereas the ERC has since undertaken an intense process of outreach, consultation, and analysis of suggestions from throughout the community on how ICANN's structure and processes can be reformed to improve its effectiveness while preserving its essential character as an open and transparent nongovernmental policy development body;
Whereas, the ERC established various mechanisms for receipt of input from the ICANN community and the global public interested in these issues, received and considered a very large number of comments and suggestions related to these issues, and periodically published Working Papers on ICANN Mission and Core Values, ICANN Structure and the Nominating Committee Concept, and the ICANN Policy Development Process, along with other documents identifying possible alternative solutions to the identified issues and seeking further community input on increasingly specific and detailed proposals for reform;
Whereas, the ERC most recently published its Blueprint for Reform, summarizing its work to date and making specific recommendations for Board action that would create a roadmap for moving forward in the reform process;
Whereas, the ERC Blueprint offers specific recommendations with respect to a statement of ICANN's Mission and Core Values, its organization and structure, the composition and selection of its Board, improvements in ICANN's policy development process, various measures to improve accountability of ICANN's structures and procedures, and the need for funding adequate to carry out ICANN's mission;
Whereas, the public participation of the audience and Board members in the open forum of the ICANN Board that took place during its meeting in Bucharest, Romania, on 27 June 2002, provided additional input and feedback on the proposals contained in the Blueprint;
Whereas, it is now time to move forward with implementation with confidence that while the Blueprint may not satisfy everyone, it provides the right foundation on which ICANN can build for the future;
Therefore, it is resolved, that the Board adopts and endorses the ERC Blueprint for Reform, and the broad outlines of ICANN's structural and procedural reform that it contains;
Further resolved that the Evolution and Reform Committee is directed to oversee further detailed implementation and transition work based on the Blueprint for Reform with the continued involvement and participation of the ICANN community, to report to the Board at its next telephonic meeting as to its progress and schedule, and to provide its implementation recommendations to the Board and the community sufficiently prior to the Shanghai meeting so that the Board can take action at that meeting;
Further resolved that the President is directed to provide all appropriate assistance and resources to the ERC and any transition teams or mechanisms that it creates to assist in the transition process;
Further resolved that the Board takes note of the importance to the community as expressed throughout this reform process and in the Public Forum discussion at the Bucharest meeting of the following issues and instructs the ERC to take due account of these issues as it moves forward in the implementation process, namely, the need to:
- emphasize geographic and cultural diversity which have been key core values of ICANN since its inception and remain so today, as expressed in the ERC Blueprint for Reform;
- consider the creation of an At-Large Advisory Committee as a potential vehicle for informed participation in ICANN by the broad user community;
- ensure that the composition and operation of the nominating committee in fact represents a balance among segments of the ICANN community;
- collaborate with critical infrastructure providers and the technical community to further the establishment of effective working relationships; and
- ensure that ICANN's policy development processes enhance and promote the bottom-up policy development process.
Further resolved that any further opportunities for strengthening ICANN's capacity to fulfill its mission that develop or are identified during the implementation process should be carefully reviewed and utilized as appropriate;
Further resolved that the Board takes note of all the many different viewpoints that have characterized a very constructive dialogue since the President issued his report and extends its deep appreciation to all the many members of the ICANN community that cared enough about ICANN to participate in an extraordinarily thoughtful and serious undertaking. The Board notes with deep gratitude all the countless hours of volunteer time selflessly devoted to this process.
And may I add as chair that in addition to the enormous amount of work that has gone before this resolution that there now remains an enormous amount of implementation work to be done, and I call upon the ICANN community to continue its support and assistance to make this proposal a reality.
So we now have the resolution on the table. I would invite the Board to discuss it, if you have any issues. Andy.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: I have three points I'd like to change in this resolution. It's all about – after the fourth "further resolved." First point is starting with the phrase geographic and cultural diversity and so on.
I'd like to make sure that this is not only valid and true for the members of the Board and the members of the constituencies but also for the ICANN structure. So for staff and other places. So my suggestion is to add the phrase, after emphasize geographic and cultural diversity, "in all parts of ICANN structure." Going on, which have been core values, and so on. So that's a suggestion.
>>Vinton Cerf: I'm sorry, we should find out whether that's thought to be a friendly amendment or not. That's a proposition on the table. Sang Kyong.
I'm sorry, Sang Kyong, let me ask, that's a formal – let's make this a formal proposal.
So, Andy, that's a piece of modification. We need a second for that, and I see Helmut is seconding. So please, Sang Kyong.
>>Sang-Hyon Kyong: Yes, I'd like to introduce a further amendment to that particular section of the resolution.
>>Vinton Cerf: Sang Kyong, this is a little confusing, but we have a specific amendment on the table that we should discuss before you add another one.
>>Sang-Hyon Kyong: Okay.
>>Vinton Cerf: Unless you're trying to modify Andy's. Let's take of Andy's proposal and then we'll do yours. How's that? That will make it more straightforward. Is there any other discussion about the proposal from Andy? Lyman.
>>Lyman Chapin: Andy, could you just explain what you mean by "jurisdictional diversity"? I think I know, but....
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: By the way, that was what I mailed. I should explain this. So right now I can ease, indeed, geographical and cultural diversity given who we have on the Board and constituency but most of the staff is United States citizens, which is not a problem but it does not reflect the geographic and cultural diversity I think it should. And also, by having a domination of United States jurisdiction, we have, let's say, values of the United States jurisdiction in a more dominant way represented than I think it should. Again, watching this idea of geographic and cultural diversity, which of course is an idea of diversity of different understandings of culture, representative.
>>Vinton Cerf: So I would ask, Andy, that we all understand that this is a goal.
We cannot guarantee in every single element that we are 100 percent, and you understand that.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: That's completely right. But the phrase starts with "emphasize," huh?
>>Vinton Cerf: Yes. Stuart.
>>Stuart Lynn: I'm just a little confused. This is not what you sent to us – it's not the jurisdictional thing. This is a separate one; right?
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Yes, because I discuss with Alejandro, my original idea was writing emphasize geographic, cultural, and jurisdictional diversity, which might be an alternate wording but it might not be right saying key core values and so on. So that's why I thought it better saying "in all parts of ICANN structure to state that's what we want to be, but I want it also to be in the structural.
>>Vinton Cerf: So the language proposed is simply to say "emphasize geographic and cultural diversity in all parts of ICANN structure."
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Right.
>>Vinton Cerf: All right. So is there any further discussion about that? Nii.
>>Nii Quaynor: Yeah, I just want to understand, it would be about more all parts of ICANN structure. It doesn't mean it goes all the way to root servers, goes all the way to registrars. How far do you want this – what do you mean by the "all parts of ICANN structure"?
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: All parts. So including the parts you just mentioned, but also those you did not mention. (Laughter.)
>>Stuart Lynn: I'm very sympathetic to Andy's motion, but I have a hard time with this Board passing motions over things it cannot control. I mean, we probably can't control anything.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: I don't want to control everything. I just want to emphasize.
>>Vinton Cerf: I think Andy's point is still very valid, because the term "emphasize" ranges from, you know, promoting, endorsing, doing a variety of other things. There's no guarantees here. It's just that we want to take the view that the Internet should be global in its scope and fully diverse. It already is in many of its aspects. Do I see a hand up? Louis.
>>Louis Touton: Yes. The qualification, which I think is on your screens now, in speaking of all parts of the ICANN structure, I think that Nii's question was a good one. For example, this has not been a characteristic of ICANN for design reasons. For example, constituencies are self-selected groups, and we have not sought to dictate any kind of diversity as to those constituencies; it's just that they allow all of their constituents in. And it's difficult to understand how to apply that kind of instruction. So I think some additional clarity of what's meant there.
>>Vinton Cerf: Ivan.
>>Ivan Moura Campos: This is a very interesting point, because for reasons that are easily understandable, some constituencies, because of the origins of the Internet, are more US-based than others. And this is a concern for many, if not all of us directors; that there should be some affirmative action, so to speak, in terms of doing whatever is at the Board's reach to diversify or else we may take a much longer time leaving it to a spontaneous flourishing of these initiatives.
We have to do some affirmative action to bring people from other parts of the world, different cultures, and have their voices heard in different constituencies.
In some discussions, there is clearly an excess of US view.
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay. Stuart. I have on the list right – I'm sorry, Stuart. We have on the list, Stuart, Jonathan, Hans, and I see Sang Kyong.
>>Stuart Lynn: I want to point out that one of the ways I'd interpret "emphasize" and "affirmative action" is the fact that we hold our meetings in different parts of the world, which I consider, personally, extraordinarily important in spite of the fact that some people call us all sorts of funny names for going around these parts of the world. That's an example of how we can encourage people from regional communities to get involved with the constituencies.
>>Vinton Cerf: Jonathan.
>>Jonathan Cohen: Thank you, Vint. I think this is an important discussion; however, I'm fully satisfied that there is not one member of this Board that does not entirely endorse – well, maybe this microphone doesn't – entirely endorse the idea of cultural, linguistic, national diversity at ICANN. I think you have to be careful, however, when you fool around with words. As a lawyer, I – when you start to wordsmith in order to kind of be absolutely sure that there's no doubt that the thing near and dear to your heart is done, you can create a Pandora's box without meaning to. I think I have what I consider to be a friendly amendment that I'm prepared to put on the table subject to Louis' comment that might satisfy, and that would be these issues as it moves forward in the implementation process, namely the need to recognize the fundamental importance of geographic and cultural diversity of ICANN, which have been key core values. Not in all parts.
The reason when you put in "in all parts," you're trying to guild the lily. I understand what you're saying. I don't think there's one person at this table that doesn't think the staffing, et cetera, should be internationalized. I don't think there's any objection at this table and I don't think there's anything in this statement here that doesn't make it clear. But when you start putting in these words, you start opening it up to interpretation.
I'm telling you as a lawyer, you're trying to accomplish something that I respect and agree with, but by adding the words you're going to actually hurt it. Thank you.
>>Vinton Cerf: All right. Let's here from Hans.
>>Hans Kraaijenbrink: Thank you, Vint. Jonathan throws me off my original remark. The problem is that if we are going to wordsmith this, we end up like the committee designing a horse, and then it was a camel, I believe. I feel that we should stick with andy's amendment. I have great sympathy for that.
We should note that this is an expression of intention, reaffirmation of the core value, as a global organization, and emphasize once again the geographic and cultural diversity in all parts of the structure. We are not concerned here with the – let's say the fundamental execution of it in all parts. So I believe that the implementation should be guided by this emphasis, as Andy said. So despite the friendly amendment on the friendly amendment, I believe we should stick to the first one.
>>Vinton Cerf: Sang Kyong.
>>Sang-Hyon Kyong: Since the wording that remains or got changed in consideration of Andy's proposal for amendment impinges on what I was trying to propose as an amendment, I would like to propose an amendment to an amendment introduced by Andy. I specifically refer to this initial portion, "emphasize." I think in the Blueprint, the geographic and cultural diversity in the organization has been emphasized enough. I am quite satisfied with the way it is emphasized in the document. What I, and from the discussions at the public forum yesterday, the problem arose and still exists is the perception that the Blueprint way of forming or populating the Board and other parts of the organization does not seem to allow for reasonable means of ensuring this geographic and cultural diversity. So in that sense, I think it needs – the wording needs something more than a vague term such as "emphasize."
So specifically, I like to propose an amendment which will change the word "emphasize" and instead should read "devise and incorporate specific measures to ensure, comma, to the extent feasible, comma, geographic and cultural diversity." And on and on, yes.
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay. So we actually have two issues here. One of them is whether Andy would accept that as a friendly amendment or not. If not, we can separately – we can still separate these things. If we take it as a friendly amendment, we have to vote on the aggregate.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: I take it.
>>Vinton Cerf: You take that as a friendly amendment. All right. Lyman.
>>Lyman Chapin: I think it would be useful to point out that what we're looking at is a resolution that instructs the Evolution and Reform Committee to observe certain qualities and directives in the course of their work. And I'd like to point out that the basis for this is already the Blueprint which contains language that is already substantially more encouraging of this feature than anything that has been proposed for this resolution. So to the extent that the resolution is trying to start with the Blueprint and then give instructions to the Evolution and Reform Committee, or whatever it becomes from this point forward, we already have language in the Blueprint which says, for example – it's in several different places.
I just found one of them where it talks about emphasizing the functional geographic and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making, which certainly captures the sense of at least some of the variations on the wording that we've been talking about.
And I guess what I'm – what I'd like to suggest is that we may be trying to nit-pick this in the resolution with a result that ultimately is going to be less effective in accomplishing what we want to do than what is already in the Blueprint. And we've accepted the Blueprint as the fundamental structure that we're going to work with. So I'm a little frustrated by the fact that we're spending so much time on this.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Maybe we can just go for a vote on this. I just wanted to have this to be a little more clear. So I think it's helpful. You might think it's not.
>>Vinton Cerf: Hans.
>>Hans Kraaijenbrink: Vint, I understand, I follow Lyman's observations, and I understand what Sang Kyong wants to reach but I have some difficulty with his amendment because I think it dilutes and weakens the thing we want to state here to the implementation process in the original text as amended originally by Andy. So I would like to ask Sang whether it's, with the clarification by Lyman, so important to instruct and device in the message which really weakens what we want to say which is to emphasize the cultural and geographic diversity in all parts of the structure.
>>Vinton Cerf: Sang and then Alex.
>>Sang-Hyon Kyong: As I said earlier, I think the document, Blueprint document, emphasizes the geographic and cultural diversity need in the organization, at least to my satisfaction. What I'm not satisfied with is how, as document, the Blueprint reads now, how, for instance, the Board seats that come from the supporting organizations are going to actually reflect this emphasis that we are talking about.
>>Vinton Cerf: That's what the implementation process is about.
>>Sang-Hyon Kyong: Yes, that is, that is. But then implementation ought to, as I say in the amendment that I proposed, implementation ought to come up with some specific measures to ensure that this thing happens. That's the sense of what I'm saying. That's all I'm saying.
>>Vinton Cerf: Almost by definition, it will have to.
I have Alex, Stuart, Helmut and Linda. Stuart—sorry – Alex.
>>Stuart Lynn: Alex, I thought.
>>Alejandro Pisanty: I think that we have to take a broader look here at what's exactly in the resolution. The resolution says the Board takes the Blueprint and tasks the committee to go to implementation. And we are taking note of some specific points which are for more emphasis, for more detailed emphasis that were expressed in the most recent days.
So I think that the latitude the committee has is not too much, since it already has a Blueprint to start with. And then we are still emphasizing these subjects of geographic and cultural diversity and so forth. So the – the wording that we have is sufficient to be sure that the committee's going to be working with other people in the communities, as is called in this resolution, to implement this thing satisfactorily. In fact, the committee did not come up with these details in the Blueprint, because there's a lot of math to be done about how you manage to do diverse Board that comes from two completely different types of sources. One of them comes from the SOs themselves. And intermediate policy, development organizations. And the other part comes from the nominating committee. So we have to work out the rules in detail. And I think we can satisfy Professor Kyong's need and urge, since it's already expressed by – in the Blueprint, just noting the fact that the committee's four members come from at least three different geographical regions, if not four, out of four, I think we can be satisfied that we will be careful about this, without further wordsmithing today.
>>Vinton Cerf: Thank you, Alex. Stuart.
>>Stuart Lynn: Yeah, let me just say very quickly, because Alex said it better than I would, I think what we have is a common understanding of what we want to accomplish. Some directors may feel comfortable that there's enough in the Blueprint. Others would feel more comfortable if there was more there.
I don't see anything in conflict between the proposed amendment and the Blueprint. And if it draws attention – further attention to that, frankly, I think we should adopt it and move on.
>>Vinton Cerf: Helmut.
>>Helmut Schink: I'm building on the amendments from Sang Kyong and Andy and takes the sentence as it is now shown on the screen and propose a further amendment just to delete the words "geographic and cultural," because they are different elements of diversity, like functional, ethnic, and so on.
>>Vinton Cerf: I think you may not get too much support for that, just judging from the shaking heads around the table. So I respectfully suggest that we not go there. Although, if – Helmut, if you want me to be formal about it, would you like to find out?
>>Helmut Schink: No.
>>Vinton Cerf: Linda, then Hans.
>>Linda Wilson: I'm very sympathetic with the emphasis on cultural and geographic diversity. But I believe what we really want to charge this transition work to do is to ensure that in everything they bring forward for us in the implementation is consistent with and very supportive of the mission and core values, plural, of the Blueprint. That is, I'm a little concerned about calling out only the geographical and cultural diversity when there are other core values that are very important and it is the whole set that we want this to do. So my suggestion would be to simply delete this first emphasis, because I think it isn't needed.
>>Vinton Cerf: I'm sorry. You are proposing to delete –
>>Linda Wilson: Drop the first –
>>Vinton Cerf: – the first emphasis?
>>Linda Wilson: The first one. I'm offering it as an option, because the core values are multiple for ICANN, geographical, functional, and cultural diversity are – is a very important one. But when we get this implementation, it has to be tested against the mission and the core values of ICANN that we set forth in the Blueprint. It can't meet just one set.
>>Vinton Cerf: Hans and then Katoh-san.
>>Hans Kraaijenbrink: In view of the discussion, and also Stuart's emphasis, I remove my objection to Sang's addition or amendment of the – the friendly amendment.
So I can accept the text as it is proposed now. And I would like to put an emphasis to Linda that both within the committee and in our discussions, we have heard some anxiety that the geographic and cultural diversity would lose in the further process. So I believe that it is very important for the committee, but also for the Board, to put this emphasis on the table and to remain committed to the geographic and cultural diversity in all parts of the organization.
so maybe you can live with – can accept it.
>>Linda Wilson: Absolutely.
>>Hans Kraaijenbrink: Okay. Thank you.
>>Vinton Cerf: Katoh-san.
>>Hans Kraaijenbrink: So I believe that we are almost ready for a vote, Mr. Chairman.
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay. Katoh-san.
So we now – I just want to remind everyone after this rather exhaustive discussion that the scope of the ERC is what the scope of the ERC is. And so this does not necessarily affect every aspect of ICANN. It only affects those aspects of ICANN that the evolution and reform committee is charged to deal with. So we may be overworking this portion of the resolution more than it reasonably can be done. But we now have the proposal on the table.
I hope that there can now end discussion on that proposal. Andy probably had no idea he was triggering such a lengthy debate. And you said you had two more.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Right. So we don't have to vote on that; right?
>>Vinton Cerf: Well, we can – no, we can vote on this one. In fact, we probably should to get it out of the way. So if there is no further debate on this particular –
>>Masanobu Katoh: oh, yeah –
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: so as it is right now –
(multiple people speaking simultaneously.) –
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: No, no, no. Because i don't want to mess up the session. So the other –
>>Vinton Cerf: No, no, no, no. Andy, don't –
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Other than the other parts, i just thought we'd get this done.
>>Vinton Cerf: Andy, don't add more. Let's just take care of this one first. Okay?
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Right.
>>Vinton Cerf: Louis, are you coming to the microphone for a reason?
>>Louis Touton: Just to assist in seeing the Board –
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay. Thank you.
>>Louis Touton: (inaudible).
>>Vinton Cerf: Yes, that's correct. So the amendment – do you want me to read it to you, Amadeu?
>>Amadeu Abril i Abril: No, is it the red material?
>>Vinton Cerf: Yes, it's the red material. It now reads: "devise and incorporate specific measures to ensure to the extent feasible, geographic and cultural diversity in all parts of ICANN's structure," et cetera. So if I can now have a vote on this. All those in favor, please say "aye."
>> Aye.
>>Vinton Cerf: Are there any opposed? There's one opposed, Lyman. Are there any who abstain? So the vote passes 17 to 1. Thank you, Andy. Had you two more?
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: The next one –
>>Stuart Lynn: Mr. Chairman, 16 to 1.
>>Vinton Cerf: 16 to 1. Did I –
>>Stuart Lynn: Missing – we're missing Karl Auerbach.
>>Vinton Cerf: You're right. Sorry. Thank you.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: We are moving to the next one, where I expect to mess up a little more. That's the fourth ensure. It's now saying ensure that the composition and composition and operation of the nominating committee in fact represents a balance among all segments of the ICANN community. I am missing something, and that's because ICANN community is not so well defined, or, let's say, what I miss here is those being affected by the decisions we make. So that's going out of the pure ICANN community. That goes to the so-called Internet community, however we call them. So my suggestion for a better wording would be: "ensure that the composition and operation of the nomination committee in fact represents a balance of interest between the ICANN community and those being affected by the policies." So that's my suggestion.
>>Vinton Cerf: Is there a second? Let's wait until we get this up here. Is there someone who wants to second that proposal?
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: (Referring to the video – ) Are you doing that? It's not correct. It's at the end. You put it in the middle. It's at the end. Among all segments, and those affected.
>>Vinton Cerf: A balance between – is that right? A balance between all segments of the ICANN community and those –
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Yes, right.
>>Vinton Cerf: – and those affected by the policy.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Instead of "among," "between."
>>Vinton Cerf: A balance between instead of among. Right.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Right.
>>Vinton Cerf: Between. Strike among.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Okay. That's it.
>>Vinton Cerf: All statements of the ICANN community and those affected by its –
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Yeah, by its, or by the policies.
>>Vinton Cerf: Or by – by its policies.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Do I have to explain this or is that clear what I mean?
>>Vinton Cerf: I think – by ICANN's policies. Stuart.
>>Stuart Lynn: I don't object to what Andy is wanting to accomplish. But I think there are two separate points, and maybe both need to be incorporated.
>> We don't have a second.
>>Vinton Cerf: We need to find out if there is a second for making these modifications.
>>Stuart Lynn: I'm sorry.
>>Vinton Cerf: Helmut seconds. Okay, Stuart, please go ahead.
>>Stuart Lynn: Yeah, as I was saying, I think there are two separate points. And by adding one, we've lost another. One point is, you know, balance among all segments of the ICANN community. And the other is balance between that as a collective object and those affected. So I – I would rather add Andy's amendment on, so as it kind of allows both.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: You're right. That's fine. And in my original, what I mailed here, I had it like that. So I said saying – no. I had "of interest between" –
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay. Hang on. I've lost track of who wants to talk.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: I mean, the point is this. This goes back to the original idea of ICANN, which was half of the Board, 9 people, stakeholders; half of the Board users, having balance and interest between those two groups. So you know what I mean?
>>Stuart Lynn: I do. And I don't have a problem with that, provided we're not talking about precise numerical balances. But I know the intent. But I would also like to see reflected in there that there should be a balance among. So it's really two separate –
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: But I think that's very idealistic and not realistic.
>>Stuart Lynn: No.
>>Vinton Cerf: Well, let's – let's get other comments on this. Hans and Lyman, and then Alex.
>>Hans Kraaijenbrink: Thank you, Vint. I'm a little bit confused about what amendment of the text we are talking now.
>>Stuart Lynn: It's on the screen.
>>Hans Kraaijenbrink: But it's, again, different from what you originally proposed, Andy, and –
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Right. So –
>>Hans Kraaijenbrink: The funny thing is, the funny thing is that you create sort of a dichotomy between ICANN and the community.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: No, no, no. Wait.
>>Hans Kraaijenbrink: And what I would like maybe you could accept that, to emphasize that in the original text, we see that the nomination committee should represent a balance among all segments, basically, of the community.
there is no contradiction between ICANN and all the others.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Um –
>>Hans Kraaijenbrink: It should emphasize that all segments of the Internet community, as far as I am concerned, are balanced in the nomination committee.
So maybe if your amendment is replaced by a simple amendment to replace "ICANN" by "Internet," you reach your goal.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: That's correct. I am happy with that.
>>Hans Kraaijenbrink: So if you accept that as a friendly amendment, the only amendment would be to replace "ICANN" by "Internet."
>>Vinton Cerf: Lyman?
>>Lyman Chapin: I'm delighted by that change and would like to ask if the Chair would just call the question on this, as modified.
>>Alejandro Pisanty: This is giving – one more turn, in the idea of making a committee of the whole Board, the Blueprint is already very explicit in this. It has already gone through 13 or 15 iterations on this issue. And I don't see the need for any of these amendments. The resolution as posted originally covers enough endorsement of the – of what's already been incorporated into the Blueprint. I would like to have to read it explicitly.
>>Vinton Cerf: I think we have – I'm sorry. Something interesting has just happened to the screen. Oh, the text got bigger. I think that we had quite a bit of discussion on this one point. It sounded like we had come close to a conclusion that many people would support. So I'd like to find out if that's the case. So the current text simply replaces the word "ICANN" with "Internet." And I'd like to find out if we have a favorable result. So all those in favor of that modification, please say "aye."
>> Aye.
>>Vinton Cerf: Are there any opposed? Is there any abstention? One abstention from Alex. Okay. So now it's 16-1. Okay. One more, Andy.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: My last point is the last "ensure" in this paragraph saying that: "ensure that ICANN's development policy process enhance and promote the bottom-up policy development process." I missed the transparency mentioned here, so I'd like to add, or make it: "ensure that ICANN's policy development processes enhance and promote the bottom-up policy development process in the transparent manner."
>>Vinton Cerf: Another way to – I'm sorry. Let's first find out if there is any second for that proposition. Hans. Okay. As a suggestion, Andy, for simpler change would be to say "promote the bottom-up, transparent" – I'm sorry, "promote a transparent, bottom-up policy development process."
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: That's okay.
>> That sounds better.
>>Vinton Cerf: Alex.
>>Alejandro Pisanty: In this one, I would only like a cleaner – this was done late in the early hours of the morning – a cleaner expression which would not repeat the policy development process, but would say ensure that ICANN's policy development processes enhance and promote the bottom-up and transparent character of that process, or something to that effect. Just cleaner writing. Friendly amendment.
>>Vinton Cerf: Do you want to try –
>>Alejandro Pisanty: To eliminate the repetition of the words "policy development."
>>Vinton Cerf: So a transparent, bottom-up process. Yes, that's cleaner. Is there any further discussion on this? All right. I think I'll call for the vote on that one. All those if favor, please say "aye."
>> Aye.
>>Vinton Cerf: Are there any opposed? Are there any abstentions? So thank you very much, Andy. I hope that – I'd like to acknowledge that those suggestions turned out to be quite helpful. Are there any other discussion items with regard to this resolution? In that case, I think we're prepared to call for – I'm sorry. Amadeu.
>>Amadeu Abril i Abril: Yeah. Thanks.
Are we now voting on the resolution already? Because I just wanted to express some concern people voting on the whole that they would like being noted regarding that. I have not interlineated the discussion, because, frankly, I lack the energy after 5 years to have enthusiasm discussing the perfect structure for ICANN or whatever other body can run the ICANN functions. We've been doing that for the, you know, last centuries, apparently. And we are still there.
and I just would say that, you know, the process is quite transparent, more than people would think. If you see the imbalance between the time and the energy and the enthusiasm we devote to these structure issues, enthusiasm, the time, the energy with we devote to the material competencies that are the reason why ICANN exist, well, this still worries me a lot, and I would like having all this behind.
But I don't think we will have this behind. We tried that many times. I think that I am worried, I would say, that, you know, the reasons for this reform seems to be at least partially also reaction to some external political pressures and problems out there that are leading us to do things that are perhaps needed, but perhaps hurry too much.
Second, I think that ICANN structure has some problems in the design that lead to a quite anti(inaudible) to me decision-making process. One of them is an excessive weight of the representative model. Representation against voice.
We need diversity of voices that cannot speak for, but bring the ideas of the different parts of the community, the different parts of the world, the different experiences. And we have insisted in a representative model in which we are fomenting the creation of, you know, fractions, political parties, you know, large business are different than the small, ISPs are different than this one, at-large and individuals, large registrars and small registrars one day. Everyone is different from someone else, nonsponsored. The idea is the more you are different, the more you have a claim to have a seat somewhere. And the more we are establishing (inaudible) little ships for these small parts that keep fighting for the status quo for having to seize the representation, whatever. This has led to a less than perfect decision-making process.
A second feature in my view that has added to that, especially this – is an excessive symmetry in the process. We treat everything the same. We have parallel, symmetric SOs and councils, blah, blah, blah. When there are many different rules. And I think that we are still missing in this reform a differentiated treatment between those who are running the infrastructures on which our – (inaudible).
>>Vinton Cerf: I think that means your time is up, Amadeu.
>>Amadeu Abril i Abril: Okay. Just allow me a couple of minutes, please. No, I am saying that, you know, the difference between those that have the duty of running some of the different infrastructures, those who have contracted with ICANN, and those who have not. But just, you know, not to explain many of my frustration, I would say even if I support and I will vote in favor on the reform of – I mean, the Blueprint for Reform, and I will vote in favor of the resolution, I have expressed reservations. I will not be prepared to vote in favor of a final system that has three of the companies that are now here.
First, I think that the Board is too large. There are not a way we can devise working habits within a Board of volunteers coming from many different parts that only meets sometimes that should meet with mailing lists and teleconferences in such a Board. We have addressed this problem in the Names Council and other councils, we are not doing that at the Board level to try to reduce that.
The second one is the composition of part of the Board, and then also the nominating committee. And it's regarding that, I think we are lacking the courage to reduce the Board simply because we are trying to compound still with excessive representative model. We cannot cut down, because we want representation that these people who come here to defend the (inaudible) concrete parts and concrete established (inaudible) of different parts. And I think I still oppose that. I think that especially for the nominating committee, we should be more courageous and don't try to do our thing here, even today, we want representation of this one, we want balance of everyone, and we will have a system in which we will have some sort of horse-trading, my candidate against your candidate, and not having focus on a global composition of the work.
So these two things, the size of the Board and excessive attention to the representative model still in both the Board and nominating committee I express reservations for the Blueprint and the process.
>>Vinton Cerf: Jonathan.
>>Jonathan Cohen: This may be a first, but in one second, I actually agree with Amadeu. I will vote for this because I think it's important to move forward.
But I think that – I hope that the re – - the implementation committee will consider – what Amadeu is talking about is the experience that we had in the DNSO. And you get into trying to – the intention is from the heart. Everybody wants to ensure that nobody's not at the table, that nobody feels that they're left out, that nobody's position is not heard. But in doing that, you have to be very careful that you don't, with the best of intentions, create horse-trading, gridlock, and Balkanize the Board. So I'm not prepared to interrupt the flow, but I think a word for the wise.
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay. Are there any other comments to be made on this resolution? Nii.
>>Nii Quaynor: Yeah, I think the comments I've heard are fine and fit. On the other hand, I wish they would propose an alternative. Because if you believe that this representative approach is unworkable and input is not the right one, then tell me which one is the right one.
>> I will.
>>Nii Quaynor: And if you make a strong, you know, opposition, then maybe we can try and find a resolution. But from the comments I've heard so far, I haven't heard an alternative, so I'm getting even more concerned.
>>Vinton Cerf: A suggestion. It's not an invitation for another lecture, Amadeu.
>>Amadeu Abril i Abril: No, it's –
>>Vinton Cerf: But I would like to make a suggestion to you. We don't measure our work, I think, adequately. Our real progress is not made in restructuring ourselves; our real progress is made in designing and implementing policies that help the Internet work better, that make it better for the users.
And I would like to suggest to you that regardless of the organizational structure that we adopt, that we start paying more attention to what we actually get done and let that be our guide. Amadeu.
>>Amadeu Abril i Abril: Yes. This was exactly my point, Vint. That's why I have not intervened previously in this discussion. My first frustration about my practice with the Board is that we don't spend nearly any time discussing the material issues of our competence. So, yes, I think regarding Nii, I think it could be a different – I think that the nomination committee should be more with a pre – people at the beginning who should have specific obligations to consult with the existing groups to provide a general slate instead of adding balances between each of the, let's say, so-called political parties here, regarding the composition of the Board, I think we could go down to one representative for so and five from the noncom as maximum. But, you know, once again, I don't think here is the place to discuss these issues. I would prefer going on and discussing the things we are supposed to do in a material way.
>>Vinton Cerf: Thank you. Helmut.
>>Helmut Schink: Just a brief comment. I will vote in favor of the resolution, especially because I think that ICANN needs to progress as fast as possible and show some signs of commitment and progress, especially the first part of the Blueprint, which contains the mission and the core values was unanimously supported. And I would like to draw the attention of the respective community that for the deliberation with the critical infrastructure providers and the technical community is still open and the input to the committee is requested, as well as more detailed comments on the details of the nomination committee, for instance.
>>Vinton Cerf: Thank you, Helmut. I think it is time to vote on this resolution. All those in favor of this resolution, please say "aye."
>> Aye.
>>Vinton Cerf: Are there any who oppose the resolution? Are there any who wish to abstain? The resolution passes unanimously.
This is a very important moment for the Board and for the ICANN community, because we now have at least the basis for a new structure. And I now charge the ERC with the task force of implementing this new basic structure. All of the community is invited to engage in dialogue on the implementation questions that the committee will undoubtedly pose, and to provide whatever valuable suggestions, concrete recommendations that they can so that we can make this a working operation.
Thank you very much. We go on now to the next item on the agenda. I'm sorry. Is this an interrupt?
I have an emergency note here. Please contact Dr. Petuma Panthaui. Is she here in the meeting? She's to call her office. Let me suggest that we check with the hotel also to leave a message in the candidate's room. You have a fax for the same person. All right. Thank you.
Okay. The next item on the agenda is the budget for the 2001/2 – is that right, 2001 to 2002? Or is it 2002 to 2003?
>> Yes, this is an error.
>>Vinton Cerf: 2002-2003 budget. I will call on the President, Stuart Lynn, to lead us through this.
>>Stuart Lynn: Thank you. There's a resolution. Do we have it up?
>>Vinton Cerf: There should be a correction made to the title, which says 2001-2002. Unless it's intended that we restate our financials for the previous year. (Laughter.)
>>Vinton Cerf: In which case we may have to report to the SEC that there's been a material accounting problem.
>>Stuart Lynn: I'm not going to go there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to put on the floor the motion that is on the screen regarding adoption of the annual budget for the year 2002-2003. Before doing that, I would just like to make a couple of observations.
This budget has been developed in a very open and transparent process, as I mentioned in the Public Forum yesterday, with considerable participation. I'd like to thank the budget advisory group and the finance committee for all of their advice and help, and the community for their inputs as well.
This budget, as I indicated yesterday, is a, if you like, "business as usual" budget, but with the cooperation of our funding organization enables us to get to the point where we are need to be to do the things we need to do today.
What it doesn't incorporate is any revisions that come out of the reform process over and above what's that, such as funding for ombudsman and participation and so forth, since we don't know how that will shape up until we go to the implementation planning. I alert you to that because it's conceivable through the year we may come to you with requests for modifications as we know more about that. We do not know yet whether we can adapt changes in the current budget or whether we'll have to have a modification, but I just want to alert you to that fact before we vote on the budget today.
What I'd like to do with your permission is put the motion on the floor. If there's a second. And ask Linda, as the chair of the finance committee, if she has any remarks she'd care to make about the budget. So I move the motion.
>>Vinton Cerf: Thank you. I see a second from Hans.
Is there any further discussion of the budget motion? Linda, you have no specific things to add? I remind the Board that given the restructuring that is now anticipated, that we should keep in mind Suart's observation this we may be revisiting the budget during the course of implementation. I see no further discussions. All those in favor of the 2002-2003 budget proposal, please say aye.
>> Aye.
>>Vinton Cerf: Are there any opposed? Are there any abstentions? One abstention, Andy. Okay. It's 16 to one in favor of the budget. Thank you.
Now we come to an even more interesting and, I think, widely appreciated proposal called the redemption grace period. Is there a particular member of the Board that wishes to introduce this resolution? I don't see anyone.
>>Stuart Lynn: I'll move it.
>>Vinton Cerf: Stuart Lynn moves. Is there a second? Second from Alex. I'll take the opportunity to briefly characterize this as a resolution which will effectively allow the registrars and registries to introduce a redemption and grace period that will take care of problems causing accidental removal of a registration from a database.
The specific resolution reads –
Whereas, ICANN resolution 02.45 authorized the convening of a technical steering group to develop a concrete proposal for implementation of a Redemption Grace Period for deleted domain names;
Whereas, the Technical Steering Group's Implementation Proposal was posted on the ICANN website on 7 June 2002;
Whereas, the proposal called for implementing a Redemption Grace Period by instituting an extended Delete Pending Period and a new Restore capability, which will be a new Registry Service for which registry operators will be able to charge a cost-based service fee;
Whereas, the Redemption Grace Period proposal was discussed and received broad community support at the ICANN Public Forum held 27 June 2002 in Bucharest, Romania;
Resolved that the President and General Counsel are authorized to conduct negotiations on behalf of ICANN toward appropriate revisions to agreements between ICANN and the unsponsored TLD registry operators to implement the Redemption Grace Period in a manner consistent with the Technical Steering Group's Implementation Proposal.
Amadeu.
>>Amadeu Abril i Abril: One question. I think I heard you saying that this will allow the registrars to do that. That's not my interpretation. The redemption period will be established; that is, it will affect the way – the cycle life of the domain name, how it is deleted, but will not be, you know, something that some registrars could implement and some could not. Tt would affect the real life of the domain as is intended.
>>Vinton Cerf: Thank you. I didn't intend to imply that some registrars would and some would not implement. I meant all of them would be affected by this. Jun Murai, your – you have your light on. Did you want to say something?
>>Jun Murai: No, no, no.
>>Vinton Cerf: Any other comments? All right. It sounds like we're ready to call for a vote on this. Andy.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Two things. One is I know that our policy power for the ccTLDs is not the one for the gTLDs, so I understand this correct, this is only for the gTLDs. But could we have something like emphasize it also for the ccTLDs? I mean, just we'd like them to, they don't have to?
>>Vinton Cerf: We could simply note for the record in the minutes that you suggested that. I see Hans had a hand up.
>>Hans Kraaijenbrink: Well, my answer to Andy's request would be a number of the ccTLD registries already have a grace redemption period implemented, so I think we could follow this resolution and note Andy's remark for the record that cc should consider it as well.
>>Vinton Cerf: Louis.
>>Louis Touton: I just would also like to make the point that the language of this resolution contemplates that this matter will come back to the Board once again, once those – the language of this resolution provides that this will come back to the Board again once negotiations are completed. And that might also be a juncture to make such statements. If the Board would rather move on a faster rate and authorize amendment of the agreements, that's something that could be done as well.
>>Vinton Cerf: Andy, go ahead.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Yeah, that's my other concern. I'm very much in favor with this redemption grace period. I do see the problem that our next topic here, the wait-listing service, I would like to change a little bit the language of that, because I think it's necessary for the wait-list service to be accepted if DNSO should tell us to; that we have the redemption grace period in place working.
>>Vinton Cerf: I'm sorry –
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: So my question to you is if this – okay.
this should be at the other place. Maybe just again for the record.
>>Vinton Cerf: Let's not bring up – we don't even have that one on the table yet.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Right. What I'm just trying to say is that timing is critical of this one here. It's okay for the record just to have that.
>>Vinton Cerf: That's fine. But it nominally should come up in the discussion in the next resolution. Okay. So are there any other comments on the grace – redemption and grace period? Okay. Call for the vote, then. All those in favor of this resolution, please say aye.
>> Aye.
>>Vinton Cerf: Are there any opposed? Are there any abstentions? It's unanimous, and we have a redemption grace period action on the table. And the President and General Counsel will be charged to move forward with that recommendation.
VeriSign Wait-Listing Service Proposal
The next item on the agenda is the proposal from VeriSign to implement a wait-list service by making suitable modifications to its contract with ICANN.
let me see whether there's a member who wishes to put this on the table.
Stuart – Stuart moves. Is there a second? Rob Blokzijl seconds.
This particular resolution essentially, we heard yesterday, a summary of what the wait-listing service is all about. If you read the resolution – in fact, I think we should do that.
The resolution reads:
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, in resolution 02.53 the Board 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, the DNSO's Transfers Task Force presented to the Board a status report giving preliminary findings and recommendations on WLS, but requiring additional analysis and discussion within the DNSO before the report is finalized;
Whereas, as contemplated by resolution 02.55 ICANN has 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 constructively proposed changes 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, although very anxious to ensure that action on VeriSign's request proceeds without unnecessary delay, believes that its consideration of the request would be assisted by receiving the final report of the DNSO's bottom-up consensus-development effort, including its views on the modifications recently proposed by VeriSign;
Resolved that the Names Council is requested to provide, no later than 26 July 2002, its final recommendations, with its supporting rationale and any separate positions of DNSO constituencies, on the VeriSign WLS request (including the modifications made on 27 June 2002), so that the Board may act shortly thereafter.
So in principle, this resolution would delay specific Board action on the WLS proposal until we've had a chance to review and digest the final report from the Names Council.
Andy.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Yeah, I'd like to have, as mentioned already, also, at the last paragraph, that condition that the Board may act only on the condition that the redemption period is in place for the gTLDs affected. So the wording of the last paragraph would be that "the Names Council is requested to provide, no later than 26 July 2002 its final recommendations, with its supporting rationale and any separate positions of DNSO constituencies on the VeriSign WLS request, including the modifications made on 27 June 2002, so that the Board may act shortly thereafter, comma, on the condition that the redemption grace period is in place for the gTLDs here affected."
>>Vinton Cerf: Stuart – oh, I'm sorry, beg your pardon. Rob was next then Stuart then Amadeu.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: The last words, for the gTLDs affected, is in place for the – I'm not sure that's necessary, but it –
>>Vinton Cerf: That makes it more precise. Rob.
>>Robert Blokzijl: I think Stuart wants to react directly on Andy, so let him go first.
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay. Stuart.
>>Stuart Lynn: The first question is there a second for that amendment?
>>Vinton Cerf: Yes – Helmut.
>>Stuart Lynn: Okay. Then I'm speaking to the proposed amendment, which I assume is on the table now. I would oppose the amendment. It's not that I'm not sympathetic to what Andy is trying to achieve, because there's no question in my mind that if the Board wants to approve WLS it should only do so if redemption and grace is operating first. But that schedule should not be conditioned on our approval or disapproval as the case may be. It seems to me the place to introduce that is if the Board should choose to approve the WLS service, part of its approval should be that redemption grace is in effect first. So we don't wait for three months so someone who is trying to plan a new service doesn't know, because it's going to take several months to introduce the redemption grace service. We don't wait there to approve it. If we go to approve it, we approve it when we can, and make our approval for implementation being conditional upon the redemption and grace being in effect.
>>Vinton Cerf: It's a subtle point. I hope Andy is understanding that.
>>Stuart Lynn: It's not very subtle. It's actually very important. It could cause a delay on implementing WLS.
>>Vinton Cerf: I'm sorry; what I meant was the language – it's a subtlety of language to make it clear which of the two you mean.
Anyway, Rob is actually next, and I see Hans's hand.
>>Robert Blokzijl: We are now on a sub-stack, I think, on this amendment. And I had some more general remarks, so I would prefer to wait ‘til we are back on the main track.
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay. Stuart, you've already talked. Amadeu.
>>Amadeu Abril i Abril: Also, regarding all of these amendments, I oppose that because this consideration should be only taken into account when we have formal resolution whether to accept or not the WLS service, but not now. I think that even as it reads, it seems to imply that we'll accept it conditioned on that and having the report. And in fact, we don't have a resolution to consider or discuss or accept or reject the service. So I don't think this is –
>>Vinton Cerf: Good point.
>>Amadeu Abril i Abril: – a good place for what Andy says, even if materially I agree with him.
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay, Lyman.
>>Lyman Chapin: I have – I understand what Andy is trying to do with this amendment, but it seems that we now have a resolution that combines a bit awkwardly two very different things. On the one hand, the original intent of the resolution was to give a – essentially a direction to the Names Council that they provide by a certain date its recommendations so that the Board may act. And that's very straightforward. We want to get recommendations from the Names Council so we'll get all the information necessary to act. The circumstances under which we might then decide to act in one way or another – in other words, take one specific action or another – might, in fact, require us to take into account, for instance, a desire to see a redemption grace period in place and so forth. But that seems to me a separate issue. And I think by adding this amendment to this resolution, we've made it impossible, really, to deal with it.
And so I would rather – if this is something that, Andy, you feel needs to be in a resolution, I would put it in a separate resolution. Right now I'm not sure how I'd even wordsmith it to make it scan because at the moment it seems like we should not receive the Names Council recommendation until the redemption grace period is in place. In other words, linguistically, the awkwardness of the language in this case, I believe, reflects the awkwardness of trying to put this additional element into a resolution where it doesn't naturally belong.
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay. Hans.
>>Hans Kraaijenbrink: Thank you, Vint. I have to agree with Stuart in the discussion because if we have the WLS, it will be in force only when the redemption grace period is in place. The only difference is following Andy's proposal, the knowledge of whether or not it can be introduced will only materialize later. It delays the decision on the WLS, because as you say, we can only take the decision when, for dot com and dot net, the redemption grace period is in place. Then we take the decision. And I would support that.
>>Vinton Cerf: Andy.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Yeah, I just wanted to go back to Stuart's comment because he said something like I'm trying to do something here in the very far future that might be better to do then. To explain this, of course I'm also watching the period of the Board of Directors in place, and the restructuring approach we just took. So I stay with my suggestion, and I think it's appropriate.
>>Vinton Cerf: Are there any other comments? Stuart.
>>Stuart Lynn: Let me find myself in disagreement with the last two speakers. Let me try to spell it out quite clearly supposing it takes six months to implement this service. This resolution says it must consider, as I read this matter, couldn't consider acting on WLS, that is approving it, for another six months.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: It's very easy, Stuart. It means that they will have to make that implementation fast if they want the other service to take place.
>>Stuart Lynn: I think I have the floor, Andy. So let me start again, because I was interrupted. Supposing it takes six months to put redemption and grace in place. That means that we could not consider acting on WLS. That is approving it until, let's say, next January. That is causing – now let's suppose it takes six months once our approval given – I'm just using arbitrary numbers – for VeriSign to put the WLS in place once they get our approval. Then it creates a delay until next July. We're confusing approval with implementation. The way, as Lyman suggested, as I understand him saying, and certainly I'm saying we should approach this, is let's say we are – I don't know want to prejudge whether we'll approve or not but suppose the report of the task force comes in in a month and we were to act August 1. At that time we were to act, if we were to approve it, we approve the WLS service subject to redemption and grace being in place first, in which case WLS could go in place January 1 instead of July 1 next year. We have no business interfering in the marketplace unnecessarily in that way.
>>Vinton Cerf: Just one other observation. In the proposals that were made yesterday, an interim redemption and grace implementation was proposed by VeriSign as part of the WLS implementation. So in some sense, their proposal attempts to deal precisely with the issue that I think Andy is raising. It sounds to me as if the current proposal on the table does not do quite what it is that you want it to do, Andy, but let's find out.
Are there any other specific comments on this proposed amendment? I think the best way –
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: I just want to point out that I really want them to do the one step first and then the other. And so it's really what I mean.
>>Vinton Cerf: And that's what they propose to do. Sang Kyong.
>>Sang-Hyon Kyong: Yes, about intention of Andy's amendment, this resolution has actually – actually two parts, looks like. We are – by resolution, we are requesting Names Council to provide the final recommendation, one. And then it has a condition "so that," the last phrase, "so that the Board may act shortly thereafter." Seems to me that may be causing confusion. Action – this resolution sort of conditions it such that the Board is going to act shortly thereafter.
>>Vinton Cerf: This – yes.
>>Sang-Hyon Kyong: And if we remove that phrase, put a full period after this June 2002 parentheses, then this is a simple resolution requesting Names Council to present final recommendations by a certain date.
>>Vinton Cerf: I think if you – the problem here is very simple. The addition is commingling, as Lyman points out, two very different activities and they're not – so the sentence is not making sense.
Katoh-san.
>>Masanobu Katoh: The condition relating to the very last phrase, starting from – so that the Board may act shortly thereafter. Is that right?
>> Right, that's correct.
>>Masanobu Katoh: I'm just trying to understand.
>>Andy Mueller-Maguhn: The acting of the Board, that the acting of the Board shall be made after that.
>>Stuart Lynn: Just to be clear, because the language is very important, the language is the same, what I interpreted is that if it takes 6 months to implement the redemption grace, this Board couldn't even consider the topic until next January. That's how I would interpret the language as reading today.
>>Vinton Cerf: That's what we don't want to have happen.
>>Stuart Lynn: That's certainly not what I want.
>>Lyman Chapin: Would the intent of the amendment be preserved if we simply removed the final "so that the Board may actually thereafter," is that –
>>Vinton Cerf: I think that's what Sang Kyong was recommending.
>>Lyman Chapin: I'm not sure if you were, instead of what's in red on the screen, as an alternative, we simply remove that. But that was your intention.
>>Vinton Cerf: Stuart.
>>Stuart Lynn: I would propose that we vote up and down on the amendment as is. I don't think the problem gets solved by removing "thereafter" because it's still exactly the same problem. This has been discussed and talked about now for many, many, many months, and I think this Board, part of the last resolution, was trying to create an ICANN that knows how to act and act in a reasonable deliberate time frame. It is imminently reasonable for us to wait for the DNSO task force. It is not reasonable for us to keep delaying when it's not necessary to do so.
>>Vinton Cerf: A suggestion of the chair to Andy: we'll have a vote on the amendment as it stands, but perhaps for your benefit, if it's voted down and we leave the text as it was, when it comes time to review and decide what to do with WLS, any implementation conditions, which is what I think you're getting at, could be introduced. So you really have a clearer opportunity to make this point when we get to vote. So let's have a vote now on the currently proposed amendment.
I want to have hands this time so that I can see what's going on. So all those who are in favor of this amendment please raise your hand.
Andy. Okay. Are there any – all those who are opposed to the amendment. Are there any abstentions? I think the amendment does not go anywhere, so we strike it. And now I need to have a vote on the resolution, unless there are other issues. Rob.
>>Robert Blokzijl: Yeah. I have one small item. It's not even in the text of the resolution, but it was triggered by the, let's say, the title. I find it a little bit – I'm not happy with the fact that an introduction of a new service by, in this case, a registry needs contract amendments. I know why it needs – I know that's the current structure which we have, but I think in the interest of creating an easy marketplace, maybe this Board or a future Board in the new ICANN should spend some time rethinking whether every time somebody invents a new service we have to go through this whole process, ending up in rewriting contracts.
>>Vinton Cerf: Thank you. Let's see, I have Amadeu, Helmut, and Stuart.
>>Amadeu Abril i Abril: On the same line, in the complete contrary position, as you expected.
(Laughter.)
Well, I'm not sure whether I am anxious, as the resolution says, to consider it as concrete proposal, but it would be a clear testament for what we understand about our core mission and values and all agree to unanimously, because this is the very heart of our activities. And I'm not sure that we all have it clear in our mind where exactly – I mean how exactly to materialize these core values when it comes to DNS related services. My view is quite the contrary of Rob. I think that we should not interfere in any services, like he says, but there are a special part which are the core services relating to domain names of those running an essential infrastructure or facility in sole-service or monopoly like, or whatever name you find appropriate and not, you know, insulting, runs on behalf of the ICANN community, the Internet community for the public trust.
So what I do is something, registry under control with – as with ICANN that is in the core business of name services is, I think, in our particular scope. And I expect that we'll discuss how this affects the design of the DNS services and the rules of the market and not only saying that we like companies providing services. That we all agree. But we have a special contractual responsibility here.
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay. Helmut.
>>Helmut Schink: I agree in principle with Amadeu's deliberations, and I would like to add one point; that I see a certain possible problem with the competitive situation amongst the registrars of VeriSign for this service. I'm not quite sure whether the protocol between the registrars and the registries is currently open enough and publicly available to support the service, and therefore I would like to ask the DNSO to specifically check the availability of open standards that allow all the registrars to offer the same service without any competitive distortion.
>>Vinton Cerf: Thank you. Stuart.
>>Stuart Lynn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whether or not I agree with either of the last speakers, the – on Rob's point, I may sympathize. But the fact of the matter I want to make sure the Board understands is this: the fact is that by our existing agreements, to authorize this does require an amendment to the agreement. And I don't have the authority to do that. And so the Board needs to do it. Now, at some point in the future, that might change.
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay. Can we come back now to the resolution, though. Is there any further comment on the resolution itself? Linda.
>>Linda Wilson: I just wanted to know whether Helmut's suggestion was the addition of another resolution to this set.
>>Helmut Schink: I would be happy to find some text in the minutes of this meeting which request the DNSO to check the openness of standards.
>>Vinton Cerf: I think we can probably convey this without a formal resolution.
>>Louis Touton: Just – you meant PSO, not DNSO?
>>Helmut Schink: Oh, that's – I meant the DNSO.
>>Louis Touton: Okay.
>>Helmut Schink: Because this is the community which has to implement the service. And they need to express their view if they are happy with the standards as they are at the moment. And if they are not happy, there would be a request to the PSO, for instance, to implement something.
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay. Are we ready to vote on this? All those in favor of the resolution, please say "aye."
>> Aye.
>>Vinton Cerf: Are there any opposed? Are there any abstentions? One abstention, Andy. 16-1. Thank you very much.
Now we have – the next item on the agenda has to do with application fees for dot org. Stuart, perhaps I could ask you to introduce this resolution.
>>Stuart Lynn: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. At its April 22nd meeting, the Board tentatively approved an application or examination fee of $35,000 per applicant regarding the dot org transfer. At the time, we noted that since we didn't know how many applicants there were, and since there were some fixed costs and some variable costs, this was an estimate, but we didn't have an exact number. And the Board asked me to come back once we knew how many applicants there were, with a change in the number. We have looked at the data in the light of there being fewer applicants. There's a certain variable fee, which is about $6,000 per applicant, as it turns out, when you have 11 applicants. So we are recommending that the Board reduce the application fee to $29,000 and refund $6,000 to each applicant. So the motion that is on the screen at this time would have that effect. It would have the effect of restating the tentative fee to an actual fee of $29,000 and instructing me to refund $6,000 to each applicant.
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay. Is – did I hear a second for this? Linda. Okay.
So – can I ask now, is there any other question or comment on this resolution? I think it's pretty straightforward. Ready to vote on this? All those in favor of the resolution on rebates for the dot org application fees, please say "aye."
>> Aye.
>>Vinton Cerf: Are there any opposed? Jonathan – no? Just joking? Okay. Are there any abstentions? Okay. The motion passes unanimously.
The next item on the agenda concerns the establishment of an executive search committee. As many of you are aware, Stuart Lynn has announced his intention to step down as the CEO in March of next year, and that it's incumbent upon the Board to find another CEO to replace Stuart, who is close to irreplaceable, I think.
So the resolution would essentially establish a search committee. I would serve as chair, and the search committee membership would include Robert Blokzijl, Ivan Moura Campos, Masanobu Katoh, Nii Quaynor, and Linda Wilson. And we would begin the process of searching for a new CEO and engaging a search firm.
The proposal would be to come back to the Board with the – a recommendation for selection of a search firm, and, of course, eventually, to come back to the Board with some recommended candidates for Board consideration. So I would like to place this resolution on the table. And I call now for a second. Hans Kraaijenbrink seconds. Are there any questions or discussion items on this resolution?
Okay. All those in favor, please say "aye."
>> Aye.
>>Vinton Cerf: Are there any opposed? Are there any abstentions? Thank you very much.
Mr. Touton.
(Conferring.)
It's been proposed that we might take a break now, given that we are ahead of schedule, and perhaps people, some of them have been here for almost 3 hours. So let me propose that we take a 15-minute break.
>>Alejandro Pisanty: Doesn't seem like we have more than 15 minutes to go.
>>Vinton Cerf: It specifically was requested that we take a break. So let's have a break now. And we come back in 15 minutes.
(Break.)
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay. I'd like to call the meeting back to order. So will wandering Board members please take their seats.
>>Vinton Cerf: Okay, ladies and gentlemen. I call the Board back to order. The next item on the agenda concerns the Internationalized Domain Name Committee. And I would like to call upon Director Katoh to introduce this resolution.
>>Masanobu Katoh: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I reported that the public, you know – at the Public Forum yesterday, the committee reported its final report on the findings and the recommendation of IDN issues. And since this is a very complicated area and we are still waiting for the yet outcome from IETF work on the standard, think the Board should be prepared for the further, you know, studies and work with IETF and other Internet community to study this issue in the future. Therefore, should I move for this?
>>Vinton Cerf: Yeah. I would like you to put the resolution on the table. We'll get a second.
>>Masanobu Katoh: Yes. I'd like to, you know, well, put this resolution for your consideration.
>> Second.
>>Vinton Cerf: I see three seconds. So there's clear enthusiasm. I would like to read the resolution, partly because I think it's appropriate, but also, I was asked by one of the participants to do so because reading apparently is helpful. It's easier to read the transcribed information than it is to read up on the screen.
so with your permission.
Whereas, the ICANN Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Committee has completed work on a set of policy papers relating to the potential introduction of non-ASCII characters to the DNS, including most recently its discussion papers on Non-ASCII Top-Level Domain Policy Issues and Registry Selection Considerations for Non-ASCII Top-Level Domains;
Whereas the IDN Committee has submitted to the Board a Final Report on its activities, meeting its anticipated deadline of 30 June 2002;
Whereas the IDN Committee's documents have generated and benefited from significant substantive feedback from various interested organizations, experts, and users;
Whereas the Board has begun consideration of the substance and implications of the IDN Committee's papers and final report, but is not yet prepared to determine its next steps in this area;
It is resolved that the Board conveys its sincere thanks to the members of the ICANN IDN Committee for their diligent work and valuable contributions: Masanobu Katoh (Chair), Mouhamet Diop, Patrik Faltstrom, Qiheng Hu, John Klensin, Sang-Hyon Kyong, Stuart Lynn, Elisabeth Porteneuve, Mohd Sharil Tarmizi, and Vincent Wen-Sung Chen; and
Further resolved [02.89] that the Board asks the members of the IDN Committee to delay the Committee's formal termination until the conclusion of the October ICANN meeting in Shanghai, so that the committee can continue to monitor developments in the IETF, review further community feedback on its discussion papers and Final Report, and be available to advise the Board as needed in the area of internationalized domain names.
Let me confirm with chairman Katoh-san, will – are the committee members willing to continue to serve in this fashion?
>>Masanobu Katoh: I'm sure, you know, again on behalf of the entire committee, you know, we are very honored to continue to serve for the Board.
>>Vinton Cerf: Well, we're very grateful for that.
Stuart Lynn.
>>Stuart Lynn: This is an open and transparent organization, and therefore in the interests of complete honesty, whereas I appreciate being mentioned in the resolution, and I was formally a member of the committee, in fact, all of the work as a committee member was done by Andrew McLaughlin. And, of course, David Thompson provided staff support. And I would appreciate it if Andrew's name could be substituted for mine, and if we could do that going forward. Is that all right with you, Katoh –
>>Masanobu Katoh: how about in adding those staff, you know, support from David and Andrew? As a part –
>>Stuart Lynn: That would be fine. But I would feel guilty with such a generous acknowledgment when in fact the work –
>>Masanobu Katoh: You have been a very important input for us and I do appreciate your participation, of course, too.
>>Vinton Cerf: So perhaps, rather than wordsmithing this in the middle, we will amend with the – if you approve this resolution, we will ask you to approve some slight amendments to acknowledge the contributions of all who participated. Is there any further discussion of this amendment? All those in favor, please say "aye."
>> Aye.
>>Vinton Cerf: Are there any opposed? Any abstentions? That's unanimous. And thank you, again, Katoh-san for a very, very fine contribution.
I'd like to add one item on the agenda which was not in the list, but it has to do simply with committee meetings. And I'd like to call upon Jonathan Cohen, who may need his notes back. – no? you're okay? – to give us an update on the status of the plans for committee meetings in the future. Or Board meetings in the future.
>>Jonathan Cohen: Thanks, Vint. The committee met with itself and Stuart and Diane. And I just want to advise you that – and the community, that new specifications for meetings will be posted on the ICANN site probably next week. And those who have any interest in proposing a site for a meeting in the future should have regard to those new specs.
The rotation and number of meetings for 2003 had been set, and we're going to – your committee is going to proceed with that. If the Board in its wisdom should at a subsequent time decide to do something else, I guess it will. But we are going to be calling probably within a week for proposals for the meetings in South America and North America in the spring and early summer of 2003. We hope to give 30 days for those proposals, and hope to reach a decision by September.
There has already been strong and clear interest expressed by Brazil for South America, and by Canada for North America. But we certainly still invite any and all who are interested in those regions to get their proposals in in a timely basis, and all proposals received will be considered in an appropriate fashion.
As to Africa, which is the third country or region in the rotation, we're going to allow 90 days. First of all, because a year for that meeting would be until the fall of 2003. And secondly, to allow some of the countries which might take a little longer to hear about it or to prepare bids, to allow them that opportunity.
So we are hoping to receive those bids from Africa by the end of September or early October. And we are hopeful that a decision will be made by Shanghai or at the Shanghai meeting. Again, there has already been clear and strong interest expressed, again, by Cape Town in South Africa. But I repeat, we welcome any and all proposals from anywhere in Africa, and hope to hear from you.
As to 2004, it is the hope of this committee, or has been the hope, that at some point or another, sooner rather than later, that we would be able to start choosing meetings at least a year in advance because of the need for Board members and others to plan their lives, and also because of the difficulty that is involved in reserving hotels and other conference centers on short notice. However, I must tell you that for 2004, there has to be somewhat of a delay, because we do not want to preempt the results of the restructuring committee. I think that this Board needs to consider, and no doubt will, the number of meetings that it will hold in 2004. And in addition, may want to reconsider the format for meetings, that there is some need for discussion on this matter.
I am hopeful that this committee will engage the Board in some discussion on that matter during the coming months. And it is my personal hope that by Shanghai or shortly thereafter, that possibly those decisions about the number of meetings and the format will be decided, and so soon thereafter as that has been done, your committee will call for proposals for 2004. Thank you.
>>Vinton Cerf: Thank you, Jonathan. Are there any questions at all for – or issues for Jonathan at this point?
I would certainly like to endorse the idea, personally, of looking at our meeting structure to see if we can't allow more – more rational times for Board interaction, among other things. Okay. We've completed almost all of our formal work. We have a series of resolutions which i would like to bring to the Board's attention for action.
The first resolution has to do with our colleagues, Peter de Blanc, whom you heard yesterday has passed away. We have a resolution – Helmut?
>>Helmut Schink: Is there any item like any other business?
>>Vinton Cerf: No, there is no other business other than a series of resolutions to approve thanking people and so on. So I would like to do two things. There is this resolution, which I would like the Board to consider. And in addition, there's some contribution coming from the ccTLD community, which I also would like to have read. So let me start with this resolution for Peter.
Whereas the ICANN Board – I'm going to have trouble reading through this.
Whereas the ICANN Board notes with deep sadness the recent passing of Peter de Blanc, who was an active and constructive participant in the ICANN process in many roles, including as a member of the ccTLD constituency and as a representative of that constituency on the DNSO Names Council. Peter's service to the Internet community was longstanding, particularly his commitment to bringing the benefits of the Internet to new areas including his faithful service as administrative contact for the .vi ccTLD. Peter will be greatly missed as a citizen of the Internet, as a colleague, and as a valued friend.
Resolved that the ICANN Board recognizes the testament to Peter's service as noted in the 28 July letter from the ccTLD managers – I'm going to call on Elisabeth Porteneuve to read that letter momentarily.
that the – I'm sorry?
>>It's June, not July.
>>Vinton Cerf: 28 – oh, it's 28 june. Thank you.
Further resolved that the Board joins with the ccTLD managers in formally recognizing Peter's many outstanding contributions to ICANN;
Further resolved that the Board expresses its deep sympathies and condolences to Peter's family.
I would call upon Elisabeth Porteneuve to come and read the letter that was sent out to the ccTLDs.
>>Elisabeth Porteneuve: Thank you very much, Vint. To the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Bucharest, 28 June, from the country code managers:
Peter de Blanc, 17 November 1944-26 June 2002. Peter passed away on 26 June 2002. Until very recently, Peter was a regular attendee in ICANN, and he had actively participated in most of the worldwide ICANN meetings since the beginning. He served on the Names Council of the DNSO and also as the chairman of the administrative committee of the ccTLD constituency. He was the ccTLD manager for the US Virgin Islands, .vi. Peter died at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where he had been receiving medical treatment. Peter gave his time and heart to the ccTLD community. He was also a close friend to many of us in the ccTLD group and throughout ICANN. He was always motivated by a desire to assist country code managers in the developing nations and area, and also to ensure that the power of the Internet will be shared by everybody, both at home and worldwide.
One of Peter's outstanding achievements was to bring the Internet to the US virgin islands and to organize and (inaudible) the vip freenet service in the '90s, which was the first computer system in the Caribbean area. His service to the ccTLD community is a testament to his dedication. We ask the Board to join with us in formally recognizing Peter's outstanding contribution to ICANN, signed by myself on behalf of the ccTLD managers.
>>Vinton Cerf: Thank you, Elisabeth. I ask if there are any Board members who wish to say anything more on Peter's behalf. Linda.
>>Linda Wilson: (no audio.)
>>Vinton Cerf: No. I'm sorry. Thank you. The resolution is on the table. And Linda seconds. Thank you. Let me ask all of those who are in favor of this resolution, please say "aye."
>> Aye.
>>Vinton Cerf: I'm not going to – I'm not going to ask if there are any opposed. The resolution passes.
I would like to ask all of you to stand for a moment of silence for peter. Thank you. The chair will take a moment to compose himself.
Thanks to Hosts, Sponsors, and Staff
I have three more resolutions to put before you. I'd like to start with one which expresses our thanks to our hosts, sponsors, and staff in the conduct of this meeting at Bucharest. With your indulgence, I'd like to read this resolution.
Whereas, the preparation for and execution of the ICANN Bucharest meeting has been conducted in an exemplary fashion;
Whereas, the hospitality, facilities, attention to the needs of the participants, and extraordinary efforts to provide support have been without peer;
Now therefore the ICANN Board expresses its deep appreciation and thanks, on its own behalf and on behalf of all participants to the local hosts and organizers, most particularly the support and hard work of Minister of Communications and Information Technology Dan Nica, Professor Doina Banciu (General Manager of ICI Bucharest), Dr. Ing. Eugenie Staicut (Head of RNC Department-ICI Bucharest), Victor Ciuperca (ICI Bucharest), and the following ICI Bucharest staff who made the Bucharest meeting such an outstanding success: Christian Mitu, Dan Mihalcea, Florentina Onea, Dan Paraschiv, Mircea Cornea, Cristian Haja, Andrei Petrescu, Florin Mihalache, Adrian Belmega, Ion Dumitrascu, Ion Manea, Olga Olaru, Diana Petrescu, Cristian Radulescu, Mihaela Moholea, Madalina Zamfir, Ani Neacsu, Dragos Vlad, Andrei Niculescu, Irina Stoltz, Raluca Andrei, Alina Pruna, and Karina Berceanu.
The Board would also like to thank Connex, the main sponsor of the meeting, for its generous support, and in particular, the work of Alexandru Hurdubaie, Manager of Data, and their staff: Lucian Lupascu, Liviu Neaga, Dragos Dobre, Adrian Ciobanu, Alina Iordan, Cristian Duta, Florentin Mirea, George Popescu, Fadi Rida, Florin Druzian, Oana Fodoran. The contribution of Flamingo, the second main sponsor, is also deeply appreciated, and especially the assistance of its staff members: Ion Dinescu, Alexandru Carlan, Elena Barbu, Carmen Olteanu, Andreea Constantinescu, Adrian Cretescu, Liviu Popescu, and Mihai Jinga.
Additional sponsors whose support for the ICANN meeting is greatly appreciated include CENTR, Afilias Global Registry, The Global Name Registry, NeuStar, ANISP (National Association of Internet Service Providers from Romania), Cisco Romania, ccTLD Constituency Secretariat, UltraDNS, Oracle AG Romania, Ericsson, CPI, Intrarom, HP Romania, Software ITC, ATIC, PCNet Data Network, MCD Infonet, RomTeamSolutions, Xerox Romania, Computerland, and Shark Industries. We would also like to acknowledge the hard work of the staff of the Marriott Grand Hotel; the hotel proved an exceptional and hospitable location for the ICANN meeting.
In addition, the Board expresses its great appreciation to John Crain, Diane Schroeder, Theresa Swinehart, Mary Hewitt, Dan Halloran, Herbert Vitzthum; Joel Jaeggli; Johnny Erikkson; Laura Brewer; and Terri Darrenougue and the rest of the ICANN staff for their dedicated efforts in ensuring the smooth operation of the meeting.
I assume there is a second for this resolution – Hans seconds. All those in favor, please say "aye."
>> Aye.
(Applause.)
>>Vinton Cerf: the next resolution I have to put before you is a thank you to Andrew McLaughlin.
Whereas, Andrew McLaughlin has faithfully served the Corporation early 1999 as a consultant, as an employee, as Chief Policy Officer, as Treasurer, and, most recently, as Vice President and Chief Policy Officer;
Whereas, as of 1 July 2002, he will be resigning as Vice President and Chief Policy Officer, and will become a halftime employee;
Whereas, he will return to the Berkman Center at Harvard University to resume his academic career;
Whereas, the Board wishes to take note of his extraordinary contributions to ICANN over the years; and
Whereas, the Board is grateful for his willingness to continue part-time as an ICANN employee to facilitate an orderly transition;
Resolved that the Board deeply appreciates Andrew McLaughlin's dedication to ICANN over the years of his association, looks forward to a continuing collegial relationship over the coming months and beyond, and wishes him all the best on his return to academe and in the future.
And I call for a second to this resolution. Sang-Hyon Kyong. It is unanimously seconded. (Applause.)
>>Vinton Cerf: All those in favor please say aye.
(Applause.) (Standing ovation.)
>>Vinton Cerf: I have to admit to you, at one point it occurred to me to ask whether this change in your employment to half-time meant you would go from, you know, witty to half-witty or something like that. (Laughter.)
>>Vinton Cerf: The last resolution that I would ask the Board to endorse is a thank you to Karen Rose.
Whereas, Karen Rose will shortly leave her position with the United States Department of Commerce. Karen has been one of the unsung heroes of the evolution of the Internet community's processes for coordinating the assignment of key technical parameters, including the domain names. She was instrumental in the organization of the global discussions that led to the issuance of the Green and White Papers. She has been a tireless supporter of community's efforts to implement the concepts of the White Paper, including the establishment and recognition of ICANN and the introduction of competition in domain-name registration services. Throughout this time she has been a vital ambassador among the many and diverse constituencies whose cooperation has been essential to ICANN's development as a global, private-sector, consensus-creation body, and most impressively, she has done it with grace and good humor in frequently highly contentious circumstances.
Therefore the ICANN Board, on behalf of the worldwide Internet community, expresses the deepest appreciation and respect for the critical contributions of Karen Rose to ICANN and to the concept of global private-sector coordination of the assignment of the Internet's technical parameters.
I call for a second to this. It's unanimously seconded. All those in favor, please say aye.
>> Aye.
(Applause.)
>>Vinton Cerf: there being no further business for the Board, I would call for a motion to adjourn. Hans moves. Is there a second? Lyman. All those in favor of adjourning, please say aye.
>>: Aye. I assume there are no opposition to this. For those – Hans – Amadeu has a question. (Laughter.)
>>Amadeu Abril i Abril: Don't ask.
>>Vinton Cerf: the Board members who were interested in lunch will find it in their Boardroom over in the other building – or the other room. So thank you all very much for coming, and we will see you all again at the next meeting in Shanghai.
(11:25 a.m.)
>>John Crain: Before you all go, there's one last thing that's not really a Board thing, from the local hosts.
Connex. Some of you filled out a raffle. I'm going to hand it over to Victor who has been our local engineer here and he's going to introduce the people, and he's probably going to ask one of the Board members to draw the tickets.
>>: Thank you. We thank our sponsor Connex who make possible all this technical stuff around us. We will draw the winners of three prizes that they give. It's a watch, a shirt, and a wireless hub. For transparency, may I ask a member of the Board to make the first drawing. Stuart, do you want to make it? Stuart Lynn.
>>: Is it only output or can I put my –
>>: Too late, too late.
>>Stuart Lynn: And the winner is Bruno Piaruli.
>>: he's here, Mr. Bruno P – .? Bruno?
>>Vinton Cerf: Surely we can find –
>>: We have to ask the Board to decide if he is not in the room, is he still eligible for a prize?
>>: Yes, yes.
>>: We need a resolution.
>>: Is bruno here or –
>>Vinton Cerf: Excuse me. A question. Did you make the terms of this that you had to be in the room or was there an e-mail address or something?
>>: I'm not sure. Let's see the form.
>>Stuart Lynn: There is an e-mail address.
>>: There is an e-mail address, but we can't send the prize through e-mail.
>>Vinton Cerf: I would suggest that you e-mail him to let him know he won.
>>: Yes, but we have to give him the prize. As long as he's in Romania.
>>: He's somewhere outside.
>>: We'll keep the prize for him. So we decide that the prize would be postponed for later when we find Bruno. Okay?
>>: Yes, yes.
>>: So what he won? He won a shirt. I hope it will fit on him. Okay.
The second for a watch. Okay. Who is going to draw? Any volunteer?
>>Amadeu Abril i Abril: Only one?
>>: Only one.
>>Amadeu Abril i Abril: Can you read that for me, please.
>>Stuart Lynn: And the winner is Stina Groteroc. (Applause.)
>>: Oh, we have a winner in the room. That's good. Our pleasure. And for the big prize, may I ask you to give the big prize? That's, I call, transparency. He just mixed it all, to make sure.
>>Vinton Cerf: My microphone has died. All right, I'll use the other one. There's no name on this one. (Laughter.)
>>John Crain: That was mine.
>>Vinton Cerf: Anonymous has won.
>>: I call that privacy protection.
>>Vinton Cerf: There's no name on this one, either.
>>: Jeff Williams.
>>Vinton Cerf: Right. Aha, Greg Ruth from Genuity. Where's Greg? There he is.
(Applause.)
>>Vinton Cerf: Congratulations, your prize is here. Okay, that is all. Thank you very much for attention.
(Applause.)
(Proceedings conclude at 11:25 a.m.)