this is long, whole log:
he Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers,
ICANN, is meeting this week in
Santiago, Chile. This non-profit
organization was tapped by the
U.S. Commerce Department to
take over administration of the
Internet's domain name system
the mechanism that assigns
the all-important dot-com names to Internet sites
around the world.
ICANN and its chairperson, technology consultant
Esther Dyson, have come under fire for handling this
responsibility. Critics have called ICANN
heavy-handed and unresponsive to concerns about
the lack of self-governance on the Internet.
Dyson will be joining ABCNEWS.com readers on
Thursday, Aug. 26 at 4 p.m. ET to answer questions
about ICANN and its latest actions from the Santiago
meeting. Post your questions now, and come back to
see what Dyson has to say.
Esther Dyson at 3:50pm ET
Hi! I'm here. will stand by until 4. I have 3.48 right
now.
greetings from Santiago!
Moderator at 3:52pm ET
Hello, Esther, glad you could make it! We'll be getting
started right at 4 p.m. ET, so if there's anyone who
hasn't
posted a question, go right ahead!
Moderator at 4:02pm ET
Well, why don't we get started. Esther Dyson, interim
chairperson of ICANN, thank you for joining us from
ICANN's meeting in Santiago, Chile. Before we start
posting questions, why don't you give us a quick run down
about what you and ICANN have been doing these past
few days?
Esther Dyson at 4:03pm ET
FWIW, I'm sitting here in Santiago, Chile, in the
university
auditorim where we have been holding our meetings. RIght
now I am sitting in on a meeting of ICANN's "names
council" (which fortunately I am not running!, linked up
over an Ethernet hookup to the Net. Subliminal message:
The rest of the world is getting wired!
Esther Dyson at 4:06pm ET
We held our first open board meeting this morning. Some
of
the decisions made (details at www.icann.org) include the
adoption/implementation of a Uniform Dispute Resolution
Policy to cover purportedly abusive registrations of
domain
names. We also adopted an independent review panel (for
disputes concerning *our* bylaws), and took steps towards
establishing our membership structure.
Peter Vos from [209.193.169.164] at 4:06pm ET
What is the current status on opening up the top level
domains to include the proposed .web, .store, .firm,
tlds?
Is there a time line associated with this or not?
TIA
Esther Dyson at 4:07pm ET
basically, we are now (finally) working on substantive
policies, rather than designing our own navel. And
overall,
the atmosphere here has been much more constructive and
friendly than in the past, despite what yo might read in
the
(other) press.
Esther Dyson at 4:10pm ET
TH etimeline for new domain names is that ICANN's
Domain Name Supporting Organization has a working
group to consider this issue - whether, why, how, how
many, when...... It won't happen this year, I assume,
because our next board meeting - when we could consider
this issue after recommendations and public comment - is
in
November.
Esther Dyson at 4:11pm ET
PS - is that Peter Vos from Austria (whom I know)? Or
some other Peter Vos?
darshan from [204.202.132.11], at 4:11pm ET
Whence does ICANN draw its authority? In other words,
who made you guys the domain name czars?
Esther Dyson at 4:14pm ET
Our authority comes from the Net itself. That's why our
proceedings sometimes look fractious! We need to foster a
consensus, then adopt policies reflecting that consensus,
and then enforce those policies through contracts, such
as
the contracts we currenlty have with the new .com
registrars. (Separately, we have some delegated authority
via contracts with the US government, mostly concerning
opening up the .com/.net/.org registry to competition
from
additional registrars (the incumbent is Network
Solutions).
Moderator at 4:15pm ET
No word yet from Peter...so we'll continue.
adrian stokes from [204.202.132.11], at 4:16pm ET
What's happened in Santiago to make the whole
domain-name policy system more open and democratic?
Esther Dyson at 4:18pm ET
AMong other things, we accepted the Non-Commercial
DOmain Name Holders constituency of the DNS). (SOrry
for all the acronyms!) ANd we held both an open meeting
*with* the public -lots of comments, suggestions, mostly
constructve criticism, moves towards consensus - and also
our long-awaited first open board meeting, with the
public
and press invited to watch -either in person or over the
Web. It went well!
Jim Hisle from [134.193.81.47], at 4:19pm ET
What are ICANN's plans for the individual holders of
Internet addresses? I have an address setup in the
process
of a small business development. I am concerned that my
selected name might be challenged internationally and I
would be at a great disadvantage. My domain name
currently is not trademarked in the US, but does have
some
similar matches internationally.
Jim
Esther Dyson at 4:20pm ET
We also pledged to include the views and interests of
individuals and non-commercial orgs in drafting the
precise
wording of the dispute- resolution policy.
Esther Dyson at 4:24pm ET
What do you mean by "matches"? Basically, if you have
registered the name already, and you have some legitimate
claim to it - for example, it's your own name or the name
you ahve been doing business under - the policy would
support your claim to it against that of anyone coming
along
later. (The lawyer sitting next to me says I should
stress
that this is not professional advice and you should
consult
your own counsel!)
Dan from [207.107.50.21], at 4:25pm ET
How do you measure consensus?
hard members or do you have more than
3000 people that agree with ICANN?
Esther Dyson at 4:28pm ET
That's one of the challenges. We consider the messages
we get over the Net (after substantial posting), as well
as
what people at our meetings say. We also check that a
variety of points of view are represented. That is, you
can't
go to a meeting of business people and get a consensus
there and use that, just as you can't base a judgment of
consensus on just a US community - since the Net operates
worldwide. There's a fair amount of judgement involved.
And most people don't "agree with ICANN" about
everything; we do most things issue by issue.....
LaRell from [143.166.99.43], at 4:29pm ET
Have there been any forward advances toward the
problem of running out of IP addresses to match up to
"Domain Names"?
Esther Dyson at 4:30pm ET
There's going to be a whole new addressing system called
IPv6 (vs. teh current IPv4) that will solve that problem
in
spades. Our Protocol Supporting Organization and Address
suppporting organization are shepherding that process.
New Approved Registrar from [207.213.224.105], at
4:31pm ET
How is the financing side of things going with ICANN?
Many new registrars (including ourselves) have agreed to
contribute the $1/domain to help sustain ICANN. How
does Esther feel about that $1 tax helping to finance
ICANN. Are any registrars blatantly against it or are we
pretty much in agreement?
Esther Dyson at 4:39pm ET
The financing side is going better, thanks to some loans
from MCI and Cisco among others (details on the site). We
appreciate your support - moreal and financial! - but let
me
stress that this is not a tax but a user fee. It is
proportional
to use and you don't have to pay it unless you register a
domain name. NSI is against it, but no one else (among
registrars) that I know of has protested violently.
Compared
to the $9 fee NSI charges for its registry services, it
looks
pretty reasonable. And compared to the former $70 per
year retail price before ICANN came along, it looks
positively cheap!
FWIW, we won't resolve long-term funding (as opposed to
loans and donations) until we have a larger board with 9
elected members in November. We now have a task force
consisting of registrars, registries, and other affected
parties
to figure out how to fund the organization long-term.
Patrick Greenwell from [208.225.97.66], at 4:40pm ET
The current unelected Interim board
has engaged in some very substantial decision-making
without either the board itself of the ICANN structure
being fully constituted, yet there is still no process by
which
to elect a board that is truly representative of
Internet users. When will such a process be in place?
Esther Dyson at 4:44pm ET
We're working hard to put it in place. The first nine
elected
board members shold be seated by November (as I said
above). The other challenge (in parallel) is the At-Large
Membership, and it is a challenge given an undefined
electorate, limited funds, etc. etc. We made a fair
amount
of progress here and the process should be in place over
the next few months. The *people* should be in place - at
least the first tranche - by next summer. ANd there will
be
nine of them by Septeber 2000, when the current members
will all have stepped down.
Moderator at 4:45pm ET
We've had a number of questions about a petition from
individual domain name owners that was submitted at this
meeting. Can you tell us what happened with that
petition?
Esther Dyson at 4:49pm ET
Yes. We deferred consideration of it because we had
promised to deal first with the initial seven
constituencies
we had decided to establish (by consensus) last March.
However, wehave been working hard (as in the dispute
resolution procedure policy I mentioned above) to make
sure the vies and interests of individuals get
considered.
Today, for example, the Intellectual Property
constituency
of the DNSO announced that it would accept - in fact,
welcome - individual members.
Carlito from [128.125.253.192], at 4:50pm ET
Jon Postel, "Father of the Internet" was one of the
dominating voices in this area. Do you believe that alot
of
the current controversy over ICANN would have been
avoided if Jon Postel was still alive?
Esther Dyson at 4:50pm ET
PS - We also invited Joop Teernstra, who proposed that
petition, to help us in reaching out to and establishing
our
At-Large Membership. I hope he agrees to do so! We need
all the help we can get in reaching that worldwide
community.
Esther Dyson at 4:56pm ET
any more questions??
Esther Dyson at 4:57pm ET
ps - moderator only - any sign of Mike ROberts?
Dennis Schaefer from [24.218.113.208], at 4:57pm ET
Yesterday I submitted a comment at your meeting stating
how disappointed I was that ICANN didn't represent
individuals and hadn't consulted them in adopting its
dispute
policy.
You said my concerns belonged to the noncommercial
group in ICANN. But they also had no voice in your
policy.
Shouldn't you really go back and do this right... before
ICANN begins to look like an organization captured by
business interests?
Dennis Schaefer
Cyberspace Association
Individual Domain Name Owners
www.democracy.org/idno
Moderator at 4:58pm ET
Esther: unfortunately, Mike couldn't logon here.
Esther Dyson at 4:59pm ET
Well, thanks a lot! Hope people fond it useful and
interesting. FWIW, you too are welcome to get involved
and help shape the consensus on all the topics above.
What
do *you* think about new gTLDs? how to fund ICANN?
etc. etc.
Moderator at 4:59pm ET
Actually, if you have the time, we do have one more
question.
Moderator at 5:00pm ET
It's listed above, from Dennis Schaefer.
Esther Dyson at 5:01pm ET
For Dennis - I did *not* say that indivs; concerns belong
in
noncommerical constituency. I am an individual and I have
a lot fo commercial interests. As I explained, we did and
will consider both invdivs and noncom interests in the
dispute resolution policy and elsewhere. Hpapy to
continue
this by e-mail edyson@edventure.com
Moderator at 5:01pm ET
Thanks, Esther, for taking the time to chat with our
readers.
And thanks to everyone who participated here today!
Esther Dyson at 5:02pm ET
You're welcome. thanks again. signing off - but will
check
once more for word from Dennis or others.
--
This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire
civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of
dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing.
Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny]