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 Links and information may be outdated or incorrect.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 Public Forum in Rio de Janeiro Real-Time Captioning
27 March 2003
Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the ICANN Board Meeting held 27 March 2003 in Rio de Janiero, Brazil. 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 Public Forum
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Tuesday, 25 March 2003
8:40 a.m.
Contents:
President's Standing Committee on Privacy
GNSO Recommendations on Transfers
GNSO Recommendation on Whois Accuracy and Bulk Access
Delegation of Authority to Notify GAC Chair of Policies Being Considered
Alejandro Pisanty: We are going to try to start just have to be certain that we have a quorum here.
So on the telephone, I understand that we already have on the telephone line Sang-Hyon Kyong. Are you there? Sang-Hyon Kyong, are you already on the telephone line?
Sang-Hyon Kyong: Yes, I'm here.
Alejandro Pisanty: Very good. Hello.
Sang-Hyon Kyong: Hi.
Alejandro Pisanty: Lyman Chapin, I understand also that Lyman Chapin is on the phone. Are you there?
Lyman Chapin: Yes, Alejandro, I'm here.
Alejandro Pisanty: Okay. And we will have you both authenticated by your voice print.
Your biometric indicator so we know it's you.
Karl Auerbach: You also have me, Karl.
Alejandro Pisanty: Karl Auerbach, there you are. Real early for you.
Karl Auerbach: 4:30 in the morning.
Alejandro Pisanty: And is Linda Wilson present?
Is Linda Wilson present on the phone?
Is Linda Wilson present on the phone? Mouhamet Diop? Mouhamet Diop, are you on the phone?
And Jun Murai? Could he happen to be on the phone?
Okay.
John Crain: They can hear you very clearly.
Alejandro Pisanty: Present here in the meeting room, we have Amadeu Abril i Abril, Helmut Schink, Francisco da Silva, Hans Kraaijenbrink, Stuart Lynn, Katoh-san, Nii Quaynor, Andy Mueller-Maguhn, Alejandro Pisanty.
And we are expecting Jonathan Cohen at any moment. So we have a quorum.
We have Ivan Moura Campos already present.
So we have a quorum and we will begin this we will start the session. This meeting is called to order.
And we will start this session sorry, one more bit.
Do you have Louis, do you have the agenda?
President's Standing Committee on Privacy
Alejandro Pisanty: The first point in this meeting is our first point here will be addressing privacy issues.
And I don't know if a Board member would like to start this discussion.
Andy Mueller-Maguhn: So we had
Alejandro Pisanty: Andy Mueller-Maguhn.
Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Should I read the resolution as well?
We had this issue of privacy coming to the Board at different points. And I raised already in Shanghai the idea of chartering a privacy committee. The Board informally already agreed to start such a committee as an advisory committee to the CEO. But, of course, to keep it narrow mission, so it doesn't mean that ICANN becomes the privacy watching entity, but that this committee shall watch the implications of the handling of personal data by ICANN policies, so by existing and upcoming ICANN policies. We have resolution language that maybe I just read? We have it on the screen already.
So it's the President's Standing Committee on Privacy.
Whereas, ICANN's mission is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and to ensure the stable and secure operation of the those systems, particularly domain names, Internet protocol addresses and autonomous system numbers; and protocol port and parameter numbers, as well as coordinating the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system and policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions;
Whereas, although ICANN's mission does not encompass privacy issues generally, its existing policies and proposed policies being considered that relate to matters within the scope of its mission often have implications for personal privacy;
Whereas, the President and Board could benefit from the advice of a group responsible for monitoring the implications of existing and proposed ICANN policies on the handling of personal data;
Resolved that the President is directed to appoint a President's Standing Committee on Privacy, to be responsible for monitoring the implications of existing and proposed ICANN policies on the handling of personal data. The President is directed, in consultation with the President's Standing Committee, to develop a detailed charter for the standing committee, and to submit it to the Board for its approval.
So the idea is to start here in Rio de Janeiro with this directing the President to appoint that standing committee to the co, populate it through the next weeks, and in Montréal, have a charter and a population for approval of the Board to transform this as a standing committee to the Board.
Alejandro Pisanty: The motion now, Andy?
Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Right. This is a motion.
Alejandro Pisanty: So is there a second?
Francisco da Silva: Yeah, I'll second it.
Alejandro Pisanty: Francisco seconds.
Is there discussion? Do any Board members want to talk about this? Amadeu Abril i Abril.
Amadeu Abril i Abril: Okay. I fully support the idea of this standing committee for general issues. And then I guess, Andy, that this would be articulated with the participation of experts and concrete task forces and working groups for concrete issues in the different areas of ICANN policy that would be not the standing committee as a whole itself.
The only question is a question that's not for today, but in populating this committee, we should take into account the different questions. The first is the worldwide complexity of privacy. And the second is that even if that perhaps is difficult, we should have also policy experts that somehow are closer than in their understanding of the issues of ICANN competencies, that is, DNS, IP use, and the other limited areas where we are competent. Because in fact, if not, this could become easily (inaudible) unrelated with our core functions.
Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Absolutely.
The idea is, indeed, to populate the privacy committee with specialists in privacy, including, of course, technical understanding of the ICANN issues. And then, on a case by case or issue by issue base, make task forces. The first task force is likely going to be a Whois task force, and there include, let's say, stakeholders in that area to ensure also the understanding of the complexity of that specific issue in the framework of privacy.
Karl Auerbach: This is Karl. I have a question.
Alejandro Pisanty: Karl, come in.
Karl Auerbach: Somebody needs to say "go ahead." This is a half duplex line.
Alejandro Pisanty: Go ahead.
Karl Auerbach: Okay.
Later on in today's agenda, there is the a recommendation on Whois accuracy. And this is a matter that pertains to privacy. How do these two relate? Do we hold the second the report on accuracy in abeyance until this committee exists and gets going or just how are we to work these sort of things? As a procedural matter?
Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Karl, I absolutely agree. But let's get to that point when we are at that point.
Karl Auerbach: Okay.
The second half of my question, then, is, we already have a committee on security. Here's one coming up on privacy.
At what point do we say that we're taking things out of the so mechanisms and moving it more to a Board level of advisory committees? For example just because as an easy target, the notion of accuracy cuts across IP address registrations as well as DNS registrations.
What's the metric we use for saying privacy isn't something we handle with respect to domain names, but, rather, it's something for a standing committee?
I'm just trying to understand when it's appropriate to create a standing committee or and when it's appropriate to leave something for the SOs.
Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Creating a standing committee does not mean we take it away from the other entities or stakeholders or however we call that at the ICANN policy making process. It just means we have a concentrate point here to give advice on the privacy implications, that, of course, that advice being taken in the ICANN policy making process and not standing out of it.
Karl Auerbach: Okay.
I guess one last question is just since I can only hear the resolutions, I can't read them, is how are we going to pick the members of this committee?
Andy Mueller-Maguhn: The members of the pop I mean, it's likely that I am going to chair this committee, and the members of the committee as well as the charter will be get will be put for Board approval at the Montréal meeting.
Karl Auerbach: Okay. So you're going to come up with a list of names or is the President going to do that?
Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Right. If I understand, the correct procedural requirement is that the first population is a provisional one coming from the President. So that will be likely Paul. But to make it a standing committee to the Board, it requires Board approval anyhow.
Karl Auerbach: Mm hmm.
That's my set of questions for the moment.
Alejandro Pisanty: Thank you, Karl.
Anybody else?
And I'll see that you get didn't you get by e mail, Karl, the text of the resolutions?
Karl Auerbach: Last time I was able to check resolution was about 6:00 p.m. Colorado time. So I haven't if it came in after that, I haven't seen it.
Linda Wilson: Here they are now, Karl.
Karl Auerbach: Yeah. I just don't have connectivity at the moment.
Alejandro Pisanty: Okay. Any more discussion here?
Can we put this in for a vote?
All those in favor of this resolution, please say "aye."
Aye.
Alejandro Pisanty: Votes against?
Abstentions?
One abstention.
Jonathan Cohen comes into the meeting, joins the meeting, and abstains.
The resolution passes with one abstention.
The second point on the agenda is Board meetings in 2004.
Is there any director with a point to make here?
Karl Auerbach: Just could someone read what's the proposed resolution?
Alejandro Pisanty: We're waiting for an eager reader, Karl.
Karl Auerbach: Okay.
Alejandro Pisanty: Jonathan Cohen.
Jonathan Cohen: Your meetings committee has determined that for 2004, there will be three meetings. The motion authorizes the President to make arrangements for the March 2004 ICANN meeting to be held in Rome, Italy. That the President be authorized to make arrangements for the June 2004 meeting to be held in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. And that the President is authorized to make arrangements for the November/December 2004 meeting to be held in Cape Town, South Africa.
Alejandro Pisanty: Is that the motion?
Jonathan Cohen: That's a motion.
Alejandro Pisanty: Is there a second?
Helmut Schink: Second.
Alejandro Pisanty: Any further discussion?
Vote?
Ivan Moura Campos: Just there seems to be a typo in the name of Kuala Lumpur. It's lu.
Jonathan Cohen: Yeah. It's listed as Lampur, but it's Lumpur.
Alejandro Pisanty: That will be corrected. Any further discussion, the participants on the phone?
Linda Wilson: No. It looks fine.
No. Looks fine to me.
Alejandro Pisanty: We'll have a vote. Those in favor of this resolution, please say "aye."
Aye.
Alejandro Pisanty: Votes against?
Abstentions?
Resolution passes unanimously.
GNSO Recommendations on Transfers
Alejandro Pisanty: Our next point in the agenda comes from the GNSO and it's the GNSO recommendation on transfers.
Will anybody want to introduce this point?
I will.
As you know, the GNSO has been working for a long period on the issue of transfers of domain name registrations.
I will read the resolution here. I will skip the words "whereas" from each paragraph, but they're understood in the right places and this will be available for reading.
At its meeting on 20 February 2003, the GNSO Council voted unanimously to accept the Final Report of the GNSO Transfers Task Force and to forward it to the ICANN Board as a consensus-policy recommendation;
The report was posted on the ICANN web site on 4 March 2003, with a call for public comment;
Various public comments were received and considered by the Board;
The report was discussed at the ICANN Public Forum session held on Wednesday, 26 March 2003, with public comment received;
Article XI, Section 2(1)(h) of the bylaws provides that the Board will notify the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee of proposals raising public policy issues on which the ICANN Board seeks public comment;
The Board believes that the GNSO Council recommendations may involve public policy issues;
Resolved that the President is instructed, on behalf of the Board, to notify the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee of its consideration of the policies recommended in the Final Report of the GNSO Transfers Task Force as proposed policies; and
Resolved further that the Board expresses its intention to act on the GNSO Council's recommendation to adopt the recommendations in the Final Report of the GNSO Transfers Task Force at its next meeting, anticipated to be held by teleconference in late April 2003.
Does someone want to move this or should I. Amadeu (raising hand).
Alejandro Pisanty: Is there a second?
Francisco Silva.
Discussion?
Andy Mueller-Maguhn.
Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Sorry. I didn't want to move it. Maybe you change that in the minutes. What I wanted to say, that this could agree that this involves public policy issues and that the GAC that the chair of the GAC has to take this into consideration, but watching that the time frames have already taken place in this resolution, I would ask to change this resolution to give the GAC, let's say, a 30 day period to bring up, if existent, issues to be taken into consideration at this resolution or otherwise pass it.
So this would be a change in the first resolved. Maybe, Louis
Louis Touton: Let me just ask a question about that.
The second part of this resolution, you'll note, calls for the Board to act on this in late April 2003, which is probably about 30 days, slightly less than 30 days, perhaps.
So adding 30 days into the first resolution would require a change in the second resolution, perhaps to consider it at the may meeting instead of the April meeting.
Andy Mueller-Maguhn: So does this mean that the April 2003 is the time of the decision (inaudible).
Louis Touton: That's what the second resolution is intended to say, that there will be taken up at the Board's teleconference in April, probably in very late April. And the bylaw provision involved simply says that the Board, after notifying the GAC chair, will consider any advice that the GAC provides in a timely manner so that the holding of the meeting, obviously, would limit what the timeliness was.
Andy Mueller-Maguhn: Okay. I was just worrying about the missing definition of "timely manner."
(inaudible).
Andy Mueller-Maguhn: If this is ensured, then this is good enough.
Alejandro Pisanty: Okay. Amadeu.
Amadeu Abril i Abril: These recommendations are exactly the sort of thing that one would expect from the ICANN process coming from the GNSO, so I must welcome that.
In the future probably the PDP, the policy development process, will help adjusting the timing of all these processes.
As I said, as this is something that was that critical for the proper functioning of the DNS, the domain name portability, the portability to transfers, that's critical. And that this has been really worked out with the GNSO, I would refrain from some technical issues, because I am afraid we will see down the road there are too many exceptions in favor of the registrars being able to hold a transfer.
But, anyways, it's a dramatic improvement over the current situation, so I heartily support.
Regarding the resolution, and besides the problem that Andy really pointed, you can scroll a little bit up to the last "whereas." I have a problem.
Indeed, I'm in favor of referring that to the GAC for comments. We are in the transition between the old and the new procedures. Just in case there are some policy issues.
I'm not convinced that there are. I simply suspect that perhaps the GAC could consider that there are.
So I would propose changing that, because I am not at all in agreement that it appears to show that there are policy issues. I think it may involve policy issues, and this is why we are referring.
Alejandro Pisanty: I think that proposal is a friendly amendment. Okay.
So the people on the phone, do you have any points to raise about this?
Karl Auerbach: Yeah. This is Karl, following up on Amadeu's comment.
The assertion that there's these public concerns, I would like to see them enumerated rather than merely referred to in the vague way. I think we should establish a practice of trying to be more explicit about the issues that are public and that the GAC should comment on. I mean, this is early in this process, so I think we should start establishing good ways of doing it now. That's why I'd like to see an explicit list.
Jonathan Cohen: I don't think it's appropriate to do that in a motion or a resolution.
Karl Auerbach: This is Karl again.
I think we need to constrain the scope of the matters we're handing to the GAC. We say they're public interest. But that's for wide interpretation. Virtually everything we do, I mean, even highly technical things, has some residual public interest aspects.
Linda Wilson: It seems to me that it's valuable for us to tell GAC what public interest issue we see. That doesn't constrain GAC from broadening it, because they're in the business of looking after public interest and may see something we haven't seen.
But I think it and I don't know that it has to be in the formal resolution. But I do believe that it's useful to be clear about what we are we think we're transferring over.
Karl Auerbach: I like that formulation.
Alejandro Pisanty: Any further discussion here?
Okay. It seems that we will be ready for a vote here.
I would Karl, personally, I would mention that I think that we should try to be more careful in this sense. This was for the case of this resolution, it what has been mentioned are, for example, consumer concerns. But we would be wrong in rehashing this whole thing right now.
Karl Auerbach: Maybe we would --
Alejandro Pisanty: So I would like to put it for a vote.
Karl Auerbach: Let me just follow up on your comment. Because we're establishing a process here for a new procedure. And maybe we should suggest that when the sos bubble up something like that that they attach what they think are the list of public aspects.
Alejandro Pisanty: Amadeu.
Amadeu Abril i Abril: Just one comment regarding the policies involved here.
As a matter of fact, domain name transfers are paramount to domain name portability, which is the cornerstone of competition in the domain name registration market for gTLDs. And competition policy has been consistently identified as a public policy issue. And this was the reason why we considered that this may involve policy issues, even if it's a minor implementation of a policy that's already granted.
Alejandro Pisanty: Is that okay for you, Karl, now?
Karl Auerbach: Basically, anything on this is okay with me. I'm just trying to start building a framework for us to use in the future.
Alejandro Pisanty: Yes.
I think we all take note of your suggestion, which is a very good one, which is that if someone thinks particularly, if possible, when we get resolutions proposed from the supporting organizations that could have these public policy implications, if they can be explicitly put forward by the SOs, it will be most helpful and we'll try to craft the thing more formally later on.
Any further discussion on this point?
Then we go to a vote.
All those in favor of the resolution as worded with the friendly amendment?
Please say "aye."
Aye.
Aye.
Alejandro Pisanty: Those against?
Abstentions?
Okay. So it passes unanimously.
And we move forward.
GNSO Recommendation on Whois Accuracy and Bulk Access
Alejandro Pisanty: Next resolution the next matter in the agenda has to do with the Whois accuracy and bulk access.
Jonathan.
Jonathan Cohen: GNSO recommendation on Whois accuracy and bulk access.
Whereas, on 20 February 2003, the GNSO Council accepted a Final Report of the GNSO Council's Whois Task Force on Whois Data Accuracy and Bulk Access to Whois Data and forwarded it to the Board as a consensus-policy recommendation;
Whereas, on 11 March 2003 the report was posted on the ICANN web site on 11 March 2003, with a call for public comment;
Whereas, various public comments were received and considered by the Board;
Whereas, the report was discussed at the ICANN Public Forum session held on Wednesday, 26 March 2003;
Whereas, the Board has considered the various comments by members of the Internet community at the Public Forum session;
Resolved that the Board adopts the four consensus-policy recommendations contained in the Final Report of the GNSO Council's Whois Task Force on Whois Data Accuracy and Bulk Access to Whois Data;
Further resolved that the President and General Counsel are authorized to take steps to implement those policy recommendations though amendments and notices, as appropriate, pursuant to ICANN's agreements with gTLD registry operators and registrars.
So moved.
Alejandro Pisanty: Second? Hans Kraaijenbrink. I have a question.
Alejandro Pisanty: Yes, Karl.
Karl Auerbach: Yeah. This is not a comment on the merits, but on the question of what it was.
As I read the report, it had both asserted consensus policies and also a separate set of recommendations. And while the resolution was being read, I heard a mention of consensus policies and also reference to the resolutions.
Is this I mean, the recommendations.
Are we is this motion trying to adopt both or only the consensus policies or what?
Louis Touton: Karl, this is Louis. Let me try to respond.
Looking at the language of the resolution, it clearly adopts only the four consensus policy recommendations in part one of that report.
Karl Auerbach: Okay. Thanks.
Alejandro Pisanty: Further discussion?
Amadeu. Thank you.
Alejandro Pisanty: First
Sang-Hyon Kyong: In the second whereas clause, 11 March 2003 appears twice.
Louis Touton: Yes, Sang. I have made that change.
Sang-Hyon Kyong: Would one of those.
Louis Touton: I have corrected that by deleting the first one.
Sang-Hyon Kyong: Okay. Good.
Alejandro Pisanty: Amadeu.
Amadeu Abril i Abril: Strangely enough, this resolution has caused most of the lobbying to which I have been submitted during the last days.
Both sides have called me, talked to me on the coffee breaks, sent me lots of e mails. And one part of those mails were saying, "the Board must approve this. But, anyway, this is minor, this is nothing, it won't change anything. It's not what we want, but you have to approve it."
The other side is saying, "you can't approve it. You know, by the way, these amendments mean nothing, so why approving them?"
Really, the temptation to send all of them back, say, well, what's the battle here, it's just a question of who wins, if everybody agrees this is nothing, was very big.
But by the way, we still have some proposals that even if it's not what we expected from the Whois reform, at least it's something that improves, three or four very small points in it, it improves the current situation, I will support it.
But still, message back to the GNSO. Contrary to the transfer thing, this is far from what anybody would expect regarding sensible, sound Whois discussion.
Karl Auerbach: This is Karl. I'd like to respond to that.
Alejandro Pisanty: Yes.
Karl Auerbach: I'm not sure that this improves the situation at all. Because of the fuzziness of accuracy, people who have been concerned about privacy have had some leeway of coming up with a way of masking some of their personally identifiable information.
What I see is this is going to develop a secondary industry of identity hiding registrars. Not our registrars, but things like lawyers who are registering on behalf of clients or people who register on behalf of unknown third parties. So the data won't get any better.
The goal of achieving more accuracy in the databases I think is actually going to get worse.
Alejandro Pisanty: Any further discussions?
Karl Auerbach: Yeah, again, this is Karl. Backing way up to the top, I have substantial reservations about the way this thing was put together, the procedures that were used to put it together. But addressing the merits of it, this is a major deal. I mean, this affects privacy in capital letters across the Board, glowing red neon.
And I don't see that we can adopt this without waiting for word from our newly forming privacy committee.
I think this should be, if anything, adopted but held in abeyance until the privacy our new privacy committee gets a chance to form and think about our policy approach our privacy approach, because to me, this is this is a major step where we are in wholesale ways violating the privacy of citizens and people across the world.
Alejandro Pisanty: Are there other participations for this?
Karl, I would like to mention that we have had extensive discussions here yesterday during the public forum, and of course there has been a lot of sorry a lot of buzz around this.
I will bow to Lyman who I am told is trying to participate. And continue later.
So Lyman. Lyman Chapin, are you there?
John Crain: Lyman, you may have your telephone on mute; I'm not sure.
Karl Auerbach: All his wisdom is disappearing into the mute button.
Alejandro, you may summarize what you thought Lyman was going to say.
Alejandro Pisanty: Lyman, are you there?
John Crain: We seem to have a technical issue here. I have him on im, but he's trying to speak to us and we can't hear him and he's the only one.
Stuart Lynn: I think we've lost his contact information or it's inaccurate, and therefore he's inaccessible.
Alejandro Pisanty: I'm sorry, I don't know what Lyman was going to say, and I'm sure he will I hope we'll hear from him in a moment.
What I was starting to say is that there have been extensive consultations done for this issue. In particular, we've seen and I firmly believe that the resolution as stated can pass.
Since we already have the privacy committee and it will put a lot of pressure to get this committee going, surely this will be one of the first issues they will look at. And it would seem that the relatively minor changes this produces in practice will and the time frame in which we will be operating mean very little impingement on the risks of privacy which you and many of us are concerned about.
We can --
Karl Auerbach: Well, again --
Alejandro Pisanty: move on and be assured this will be addressed most briefly.
Go on, Karl.
Karl Auerbach: I don't see we should solve this problem in two independent halves. Privacy is tough but also a very important issue. And this accuracy issue to me is really a way we're putting imprimatur on the question. I don't see where Whois data should be public at all has ever been addressed clearly, so I find the premise underlying this whole report, this accuracy report is missing, and that we cannot adopt this report without understanding why we are even publishing Whois at all. And that's an issue for this privacy security committee.
So my suggestion is that we create an amendment to this which we go ahead and adopt this subject to that the actual implementation of this proposal is held in abeyance until the privacy committee can be formed, get up to speed, and actually give us its recommendations on how we should deal as a global matter on privacy, and as a specific matter on how we should deal with privacy in respect to Whois.
So my suggestion is accept this, but make it contingent upon us coming up with a privacy policy so that we can adopt one half but not put it into effect until we adopt the other half of the equation.
Lyman Chapin: Alejandro, can you hear me now?
Alejandro Pisanty: Yes, Lyman.
Lyman Chapin: Can you hear me now?
Yes.
Lyman Chapin: Good. I just had the operator re jigger the line.
I wanted to make the point that what we are looking at here is not a wholesale approval or stamp of approval on the entire Whois task force report. If we have a report consists of two reports, there's a very limited part one which contains these four consensus recommendations and then there's a much more what I'm sure Karl would call problematic and I think I would agree with him.
At the moment, the resolution that's on the table is to adopt the four consensus policy recommendations that are in the first part, which although I think they probably have some implications for the new privacy committees are at least innocuous with respect to the kind of issues Karl just raised.
I would be reluctant for us to get into the issues in the second part of the report in resolutions at this point prior to giving the privacy committee an opportunity to take a look at this issue in its larger context.
But I feel it's important for us to recognize that we've been through a process here that is supposed to be the one that we prefer, which is to ask the relevant parts of the community to come up with recommendations. And in a sense, it's not that we shouldn't be exercising our oversight role, but I don't see how, at this point, with the number of resolutions on the table, that have emerged from this process, from the DNSO task force process, how we can do anything other than either you know, certainly discuss them, but either accept or reject.
And trying to sort of pick them apart and have this kind of discussion in real time in the context of a Board meeting doesn't seem to me will get us anywhere.
Karl Auerbach: This is Karl. Let me respond to that. If these are insignificant matters then holding them pending until we come up with the answer to the whole question seems to be not a major concern, then.
I mean if these are truly minor, then what's the harm in waiting? .
On the other hand, I do not consider these minor.
Lyman Chapin: Karl, the issue is not that they are minor. The issue is that they have been presented to the Board through a process that, at least in its framework, is the one that we deliberately put in place to develop these kinds of develop positions on these kinds of issues.
If we have a problem with the way in which the task force operated in other words, we think that they did not, you know, responsibly consider all available opinions, you know, the whole long list of things that they were supposed to do
Karl Auerbach: I believe that's true.
Lyman Chapin: That may be true, and if so, that's the type of challenge that would make sense at this point in the process.
Karl Auerbach: But I also feel if we adopt things, we ought to adopt answers to whole questions, whole answers to whole questions, not this little one step at a time kind of approach where we nibble away at the question and never see how big a meal we've eaten until we're completely done.
Amadeu Abril i Abril: Karl sorry.
Alejandro Pisanty: The discussion by the participants on the phone, to also now Jonathan and Nii and Amadeu on the list.
Jonathan Cohen: Thank you. I think it's really too bad that Karl hasn't been able to attend so many meetings. And again, at this one, he missed the opportunity to hear the comments in the public forum and to attend the Board sessions where this was discussed at length and to engage in conversations with the community at length, and that engage the community in entirely duplicated conversation that we've heard at some length last night and before.
I think it was made clear by Mr. Mueller in his statement, taking more or less the same position as Karl, that there wasn't a problem in his mind publicly with any of these recommendations, but rather he was concerned with the underlying policy, et cetera, et cetera. And we've certainly taken note of that. But I think Lyman's point, I think, is extremely persuasive, and again was discussed by the Board; and that is that you have a GNSO task force that, acting appropriately within ICANN's rules, considered this matter at great length, received many public comments, et cetera, et cetera, put it to the Board as a supermajority recommendation, with only three persons abstaining or disagreeing out of 24. And I think we have no business interfering with it.
On the same logic that has been mentioned about privacy, which is obviously an important issue. However, if the underlying policy is to be a reason for stopping what we're doing, we're going to have to stop everything.
Karl Auerbach: I want to respond.
Jonathan Cohen: We shouldn't be doing gTLDs, shouldn't be doing anything because there isn't one of these points that doesn't potentially have something to be said by a privacy task force, et cetera. And that's simply not reasonable.
It will, in its due course, be formulated, it will review what it considers to be properly ICANN policy, and whether there's any issue within the framework of that policy that we ought to consider, and the Board will then duly consider it at the time.
These are
Karl Auerbach: Let me respond.
Jonathan Cohen: these are important, very small amendments, and I think we are spending far too much time today, sadly, on this discussion rather than resolving to pass it.
Thank you.
Karl Auerbach: Let me respond to this.
Alejandro Pisanty: Karl, can we have Nii, please.
Karl Auerbach: Well, Nii
Alejandro Pisanty: Thank you.
Nii Quaynor: I'm going to echo something similar to what has just been said. My thinking here is that a large problem usually can't be solved together because it's too complex. So if a part of it has been resolved, we should find a way to move forward with that.
Of course, maybe we could consider some amendment that calls for a synchronization point or review point so that we can at least proceed with what we have.
So that's the thinking here.
Alejandro Pisanty: Amadeu.
Amadeu Abril i Abril: In the same line, the first part is just sending a e mail. By the way, will have a clear effect. When 85% of the registrants will receive the e-mail from the registrar saying this is the data containing the Whois, they will simply discover that the Whois exists, because the average registrant simply doesn't know.
So at that time, they will raise the issues of, you know, privacy and other that are here.
The second part, Karl, is mostly relieving the registrars from the obligation to license bulk Whois for commercial purposes. So relieving that obligation has no implication for privacy. It will be the contrary, and is a step n the good sense, of the sense frankly, I've been advising most registrars to practice civil disobedience with the idea to license it for commercial purposes.
What Jonathan and many others said, and what I said the first instance, indeed we don't see the future of what we want from Whois, what are the goals and what should be achieved through Whois, both access, zone files or other mechanisms. And indeed, this is the problem. But the concrete things we have on the table, as already said, have the support of the task force, have the support of GNSO. May be minor but in any case are improvements, so that's it.
Karl Auerbach: Let me respond to Jonathan first.
Obviously he was referring to secret meetings which I do not know about. I mean, this is the meeting. This is our meeting. What was held in hallways is not our meeting.
Secondly, I have been involved heavily with the public. I spent four hours on the phone in the last two days, lots of e mail.
Third, as far as the policy bubbling out of the GNSO, I hardly considered that fully formed from the affected parties. The victims here happen to be the people who are excluded.
We're talking about the people who have children who are going to effectively have the names, addresses, phone numbers, e mails of their children published on the net. In the United States we have this thing called Megan's law which we publish the names of sexual predators so families can know who lives in their neighborhood. This is Megan's law in reverse.
I don't know when ICANN is going to have a chance it's going to come up, we're going to be asked to apologize to a parent whose child has been molested by someone who discovered the name and address of the child through the Whois database. That's the kind of thing we're doing here. We're encouraging and requiring people to participate to expose their children and their lives to danger. That's the seriousness of what we're doing here.
Don't tell me I have not been in communication because I have not been at the meeting. I have probably been more connected than anyone else on this Board than probably Andy. And I'm angry at that assertion that was made.
Alejandro Pisanty: Jonathan.
Jonathan Cohen: Karl, that's an impassioned plea and I don't think there's anybody on the Board who doesn't understand the importance and seriousness of the importance issue but I think you are not on the point. You need to stick to the issue.
Karl Auerbach: This is the issue. We are adopting essentially a policy that says everyone the price of participating on the Internet must give up their personal, identifiable information to any and all pornographers, spammers and molesters.
Alejandro Pisanty: Any more discussion? I've been discussing this with people in my constituency, noncommercial constituency of the GNSO.
We have extensive discussion of this during this meeting. You correctly said, what goes on the record, this is of course what happens in the open meeting but there has been a lot of discussion here, and I would say there is general agreement that the level of change that this resolution brings is limited and not unacceptable. It's a small change to a not very good policy, not very well liked policy, but has to be changed, is going to be changed in a more extensive manner.
I have Ivan asking to take part, and I think we should we're basically converging and knowing what our positions are here, so Ivan.
Ivan Moura Campos: Yes, it's just if you follow Karl's suggestion, we may be establishing a dangerous precedent here in the sense that if any Board member doesn't like a decision or suggestion made by the bottom up process in ICANN, we might try to refer that to a Board committee or to some other group until things are shaped more in my or any other Board member's taste. Thank you, Amadeu.
So there is this I'm a little bit surprised. Inasmuch as I understand Karl's point and his preoccupation and his passion about the issue, we have to be reminded that this came up through the bottom up process that we have in ICANN. And that should I mean, either we believe in this or we don't, and then we have to start from square one.
Alejandro Pisanty: Stuart.
Karl Auerbach: Where were the public involved in this process? I mean, the people whose names are there, yes, they can make comments but they have no votes.
Ivan Moura Campos: Who are the public, Karl?
Karl Auerbach: It's the names of the mothers and fathers who we're talking about in this database.
Alejandro Pisanty: Stuart?
Stuart Lynn: Thank you, Alejandro. I do understand Karl's passion about this issue. It's a very, very difficult, serious issue. The tradeoffs between these things are very, very complex.
We do have a bottom up process in which anyone can get involved in the discussion.
I want to interpret Karl's point a little bit differently. I don't think he said the public have not been involved in the process. It may well be the public in large numbers are not aware of what goes on.
It's quite probable that 95% of registrants have no idea about Whois data or what exists.
If there's a silver lining from a privacy point of view to what has come up through the bottom, it's that at least through this process, every registrant will know that their data is being used in a Whois database, and that the consequences of not doing so is they can lose their registration.
If, indeed, there is the deep public concern that Karl suggests is out there, this at least will make that much more manifest. And that will make it to a position that the bottom up process will have to listen to that, and, if necessary, refine the policy.
I understand the concern. It's a very, very important concern. But I also understand that the vast majority of the public out there probably doesn't understand what's going on, and one result of this is at least it makes it very transparent. Thank you.
Karl Auerbach: But they have no formal role except to comment. They have no votes in this.
Alejandro Pisanty: Karl, may I speak and try to bring this to a vote.
The reason we ask particularly now in the newly established policy development processes, the reason we ask to know the whole vote, the whole story of how the GNSO or other so resolutions are brought forward is to be able to know if a minority opinion or a minority position has been considered, has been voted upon, and to be able, at the Board level, to discern whether we still give it some different weight than the supporting organization has.
In this case, this has been considered, it has been discussed extensively with the proponents of both the majority and the minority position, and it seems that all parties are in reasonable agreement after the extensive discussions here in the public forum to put this forward, and it may not mean this that is been steamrollered. Everything has taken into account the quite limited implications, and mostly what I think will happen after here is we'll have a much stronger call, and this will be important for the privacy committee, to really start working in the deeper parts of the policy that are being addressed here, while these minor changes can pass.
I will now put this to a vote. Those in favor of the resolution will please say aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Alejandro Pisanty: Could you identify yourself, the one on the phone, the voice on the phone?
Lyman Chapin: Yes, Alex, it's Lyman.
Alejandro Pisanty: Lyman in favor. Other votes from the distant participants?
Linda Wilson: Linda votes yes.
Alejandro Pisanty: That's a for?
Linda Wilson: Linda. Yes, yes.
Louis Touton: Hold on a moment, Alejandro. Dr. Kyong, are you here?
Sang-Hyon Kyong: Yes, I'm here.
Alejandro Pisanty: What's the sense of your vote, direction of your vote?
Sang-Hyon Kyong: I vote for. .
Louis Touton: And just for the record, Linda, how long ago did you join?
Linda Wilson: I've been on since the beginning.
Louis Touton: Okay.
Alejandro Pisanty: We have Karl, Linda, Sang and Lyman since the beginning of the call.
Okay. Votes against?
Karl Auerbach: Karl against.
Alejandro Pisanty: And abstentions?
Okay. So the resolution passes and we'll move on to the next point in the agenda.
Karl Auerbach: What was the count, by the way? .
Alejandro Pisanty: Repeat, please.
Karl Auerbach: What was the count on that because I didn't hear
Louis Touton: Karl, the count was 13 in favor, one opposed. Under the bylaws, this resolution would pass unless 9 directors were opposed.
Karl Auerbach: Mm hmm, okay.
Lyman Chapin: Alejandro, is it possible to break in for a moment here?
Alejandro Pisanty: Repeat, please.
Lyman Chapin: I wanted to ask a procedural question. Is it appropriate at this point to introduce a resolution that is related to this agenda item but is not on your list? Or do you want to wait until you finish the rest of the resolutions on the agenda?
Alejandro Pisanty: Why don't you tell us what it is about to see if we can remand it to all other business at the end or we urgently introduce it here.
Lyman Chapin: What I'm suggesting is I'm a little bit uncomfortable with leaving this issue in the record as simply a vote recorded on a resolution. I think that the issue is significant enough that it would be very good --
Operator: Vint Cerf joins.
Lyman Chapin: very good as an expression of the Board's concern for this matter that we introduce some resolution, and I'm not sure what the form of that should be under the circumstances, but some resolution that notes there are significant issues of the tradeoff between the demands in the privacy space and we expect the new privacy committee in particular to consider the full report from the Whois task force, and that we expect to consider this issue at a later date.
I don't want to leave it just hanging that we have that we have not been aware of and taken appropriate note of the issues that are on the table.
Vinton Cerf: This is Vint Cerf joining the bridge. I'd like to make a suggestion.
Jonathan Cohen: I don't think it's appropriate to make that in a resolution. I think the notes of the Board meeting as recorded will adequately reflect that.
Alejandro Pisanty: Vint.
Lyman Chapin: Jonathan, that's exactly why I asked the procedural question. I'm not sure if it was proper to capture it in the form of a resolution, and I suspect you're right, a resolution isn't the right way to do it. But I did want to make sure that we have at least remanded the issue to an advisory committee. In other words, our privacy committee. We have all these committees that are supposed to be advising us, and this is one area in which, clearly, some additional thinking and additional discussion has to take place.
Vinton Cerf: This is Vint Cerf, could I make a comment?
Alejandro Pisanty: Yes, please comment, Vint.
Vinton Cerf: I'd like to suggest that you don't need a formal resolution. I also suggest that discussion will surely have brought all of this to Andy Mueller-Maguhn's attention. As he forms the work tasks for the advisory committee, I think that he'll be able to follow up on this quite handily. We can expect a report from him at the next meeting coming up in Montréal, if not before, as to as to progress being made in several sectors on this issue of privacy.
Lyman Chapin: Someone will have to get that message to Andy because I noted he left the Board meeting about half an hour ago.
Vinton Cerf: I can guarantee you that message will get to him.
Lyman Chapin: I have no doubt it will.
Linda Wilson: Vint, could I pipe up here? This is Linda. Alejandro, may I speak?
Alejandro Pisanty: Yes, please.
Linda Wilson: I like Vint's suggestion, but as I understood the resolution on the formation of the privacy standing committee, nothing is really happening except forming it until the meeting in Montréal.
So I worry that we may be setting up expectations about what will be accomplished that aren't consistent with the resolution. (inaudible) misunderstood the resolution.
Vinton Cerf: Since I've only just joined the meeting, let me suggest what my line of thinking here.
I believe that leading up to the Montréal meeting, Andy is going to have to formulate a plan of work for the committee, and it would be very sensible, in my view, for him to include in that plan of work consultation with parties who are concerned about privacy in various dimensions, particularly the discussion you just had.
So I think you can anticipate at least his homework will have been done, although perhaps a committee will not have been fully convened.
Alejandro Pisanty: Okay. So I think that the minutes will show this discussion will show at least significant raised of this discussion, and Andy indeed has left the meeting room and I can only loyally try to report that we had an extensive discussion about this issue and resolution with him, which of course is not on the record but he was generally in approval of the approach that's been taken here and has a sense of urgency for the privacy committee deriving precisely from this type of discussion.
Delegation of Authority to Notify GAC Chair of Policies Being Considered
Alejandro Pisanty: I would like to introduce a practical point also here, which is that on issues like this, we should really not be waiting for the Board meeting to start to communicate to the GAC, whether there are public policy issues or not, and to propose that the authority to notify the GAC of policies being concerned which may have implications for public policy be delegated to the chair sorry torques the CEO, to the President.
So I will introduce I will move the following resolution.
Whereas, Article XI, Section 2(1)(h) of the bylaws states:
The Board shall notify the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee in a timely manner of any proposal raising public policy issues on which it or any of ICANN's supporting organizations or advisory committees seeks public comment, and shall take duly into account any timely response to that notification prior to taking action;
Whereas, awaiting individual action by the Board in giving notice at each stage of public comment within the ICANNs process for adopting policies would result in significant delays in the process;
Resolved that the Board delegates to the President the authority to give notice by the Board to the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee under Article XI, Section 2(1)(h) of the bylaws of proposals deemed to raise public policy issues.
Is there a second for this motion? Hans? Any discussion? Participants on the phone?
No, nothing.
Alejandro Pisanty: Repeat, please.
Karl Auerbach: What was the concern that raised this resolution? What's the problem we're solving here?
Alejandro Pisanty: The point is that we don't we shouldn't wait for the Board to notify the GAC of things that are going on for the Board or within the SOs or the committees, so we delegate this to the President, which is a better way to go about it.
Vinton Cerf: This is Vint.
Alejandro Pisanty: Yes, Vint.
Vinton Cerf: For Karl's benefit, the point was that in the new bylaws, the Board is officially supposed to notify the GAC of issues that would be of interest to the Board. And we'd like to speed up the process.
Karl Auerbach: Okay.
Alejandro Pisanty: Can we put this up for a vote?
All those in favor, say "aye."
Aye.
Alejandro Pisanty: Those on the phone, if you are going to say "aye," could you say "aye" louder.
Aye.
Alejandro Pisanty: Thank you. Those against?
Abstentions?
Karl Auerbach: Karl, I'm going to abstain because I just haven't had time to think about this one.
Alejandro Pisanty: Okay.
Alejandro Pisanty: Next point in the agenda is on the Board's Governance Committee. Hans.
Hans Kraaijenbrink: Thank you, Alex.
I would like to move the following resolution.
Whereas, in resolution 03.23 the Board established a Board Governance Committee as a Committee of the Board as provided by Article XII, Section 1 of the bylaws;
Whereas, in resolution 03.24 Hans Kraaijenbrink was appointed as the initial chair of the Board Governance Committee and Amadeu Abril i Abril, Jonathan Cohen, Masanobu Katoh, Francisco da Silva, and Linda Wilson were appointed as additional members;
Whereas, in resolution 03.25 the Board Governance Committee was directed to evaluate what its charter should be, prepare a recommended charter and submit it to, and obtain approval of, the Board;
Whereas, the Board Governance Committee has prepared and circulated to the Board a recommended charter, and the Board agrees that this appropriately delineates the mission and responsibilities of the Board Governance Committee;
Resolved that the Board approves and adopts the document attached as Appendix A as the charter of the Board Governance Committee;
Further resolved that Mohamet Diop is appointed as a member of the Board Governance Committee.
I have to add to this a minor modification in the charter, because with the addition of Mouhamet Diop as a member of the committee, it should read in section 2, composition, that the committee shall comprise 3 and not more than 7 directors as determined, and that is shown on the screen.
Can I ask for a second?
Masanobu Katoh: I second.
Alejandro Pisanty: Katoh-san seconds.
So the resolution is open for discussion.
Vinton Cerf: This is Vint. I'd just like to support the resolution.
Alejandro Pisanty: Any further discussion here?
Vote. Amadeu, is that the vote?
Amadeu Abril i Abril: (inaudible).
Alejandro Pisanty: Go on, go on.
Amadeu Abril i Abril: Two things regarding the charter.
The first I personally would have preferred that the conflict of interest committee was here, but it's not at this time.
The second is, if the public (inaudible) charter will discover there are things in vague language, for instance, regarding things like not only interim procedures, but proposing mechanism for the selection of the officers within the Board and populating the committees, chair, vice chair, others on the committees.
The thing is that some people here believe that the committee should not only propose the procedures, but propose the (inaudible). Some others believe it only should propose the procedures and find some other way to populate the names in the for those procedures.
It's simply an explanation for all those that will read the charters attached to the resolution.
Alejandro Pisanty: Any further discussion?
Karl Auerbach: This is Karl.
Alejandro Pisanty: Yes. Go ahead.
Karl Auerbach: I have a concern that this thing doesn't know who its master is. It's the committee will serve as a (inaudible) to the directors and to the chief executive officer. I think this committee should be focused on serving the Board and not the CEO, and not the directors as individuals, but refocused on serving the Board as a collegiate body.
Twice in this thing, it's mentioned it's acting as a resource to the CEO. And I do not think that's proper.
Vinton Cerf: This is Vint. I'd like to speak to that.
Alejandro Pisanty: Yes, please.
Vinton Cerf: Karl, I think the point here is that there are committees that need to be populated, and some of them report to the CEO, and as a consequence, this committee could be of assistance in that regard.
Karl Auerbach: I didn't quite follow.
Vinton Cerf: There are committees that have to be populated and chaired that report directly to the CEO. This committee, the Governance Committee, can be of assistance in helping to populate those committees. And I think that's all that is intended here.
Karl Auerbach: Is that populating other committees part of the role of this committee?
Vinton Cerf: Yes, it is. At least that is the charter as I remember it.
Linda Wilson: I don't think so, Vint.
I think this is focused on the Board and its operation. That doesn't but it could serve as a resource to the CEO if the CEO wanted some thought that there was something this group could say that would be helpful.
But it doesn't its role has to do with Board committees.
Vinton Cerf: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm mixing up the the nominations committee with the Governance Committee. I apologize.
Karl Auerbach: Now I have a much clearer sense of what you were saying.
Alejandro Pisanty: Okay. Any further discussion?
Can we put this up --
Lyman Chapin: Alex, this is Lyman. This is probably not something that needs to be fixed or changed at this point, but I will point out if this is intended to be a charter that's going to last for a while, someone might want to go through and change "will" to "shall" and do make a number of other changes that would just put it in the right form.
Alejandro Pisanty: Hans, would you take those an friendly amendments or do you want to consider them more in the
Hans Kraaijenbrink: What I would like to propose is that this charter is used by this committee in this Board until no Board exists and then the new Board can adjust the charter as Lyman proposes and also make or delete references to transitions.
So I would like to ask you to agree to the text as it stands.
Thank you.
Lyman Chapin: Hans, that's fine with me, yes.
Alejandro Pisanty: I will I would like to ask if Mouhamet Diop has already joined the call. It appears that he would be on the call.
Mouhamet Diop: Yes, Alejandro.
Can I just make a comment?
Alejandro Pisanty: Yes, please.
Mouhamet Diop: Okay. I just want to say that I am really willing to be in that committee and just want to say that besides this group of responsibilities, there is some major issue we will discuss further after the creation of this committee concerning many issues I have raised in my e mails to the Board members concerning the international representation of ICANN and to be more involved with that organization. Just want to say that I am really willing to serve.
Alejandro Pisanty: Thank you, Mouhamet. Can we bring this now to a vote? Is there any further discussion?
All those in favor of the resolution as it stands.
Vinton Cerf: Aye.
Alejandro Pisanty: Say "aye" please.
Aye.
Alejandro Pisanty: All those opposed?
Karl Auerbach: Karl opposed on the basis that it doesn't focus on the Board.
Alejandro Pisanty: Any abstentions?
No abstentions. So resolution passes one vote against.
Alejandro Pisanty: And the next item on the agenda is concerned with the membership in the security committee.
This is a resolution to meant to add a member to this committee, which will be johan ihren.
The resolution reads:
Whereas, in resolutions 02.63 there's an 03 missing here, Louis?
02.63 and 02.65, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee was established as an advisory committee under Article VII, Section 3 [now Article XI, Section 1] of the bylaws, with Dr. Stephen Crocker as chair and the following persons as members: Alain Aina (Consultant), Jaap Akkerhuis (SIDN), Doug Barton (Yahoo!), Steve Bellovin (AT&T), Rob Blokzijl (RIPE), David Conrad (Nominum), Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE-NCC), Mark Kosters (VeriSign), Allison Mankin (ISI), Ram Mohan (Afilias), Russ Mundy (Network Associates Laboratories), Jun Murai (Keio University), Frederico Neves (registro.br), Ray Plzak (ARIN), Doron Shikmoni (ForeScout, ISOC-IL), Ken Silva (VeriSign), Bruce Tonkin (Melbourne IT), Paul Vixie (ISC), and Rick Wesson (Alice's Registry);
Whereas, from time to time it may be desirable to augment the membership of the committee;
Resolved, Johan Ihren is hereby appointed to serve as a member of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee.
Is there a motion to put this on the table?
I will move.
Louis Touton: I'm sorry. Who moved?
Alejandro Pisanty: I think Helmut moves, and Ivan seconds, to be more precise.
Louis Touton: Okay.
Alejandro Pisanty: Is there any is there any discussion about this resolution?
Louis Touton: Alejandro, let me just note that it's expected, based on Steve Crocker's indication to me, at least, that there will be other revisions in the membership of the committee that will be requested in the near future, but he thought it was appropriate to add Johan at this time.
Alejandro Pisanty: I will say so noted, but since you are taking the notes, I am sure it's noted.
Louis Touton: Yes, sir, it will be noted.
Alejandro Pisanty: So can we put this up for a vote?
All those in favor, say "aye."
Aye.
Alejandro Pisanty: Opposed?
Abstentions?
Passes unanimously.
Internationalized Domain Names
Alejandro Pisanty: The next point in the agenda is internationalized domain names.
Masanobu Katoh: I'd like to introduce the following resolutions.
Whereas, the Board has repeatedly recognized the importance of adding to the domain-name system Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) capabilities to enhance the accessibility of the domain-name system to all those using non-Roman alphabets;
Whereas, ICANN's agreements with the operators and sponsors of top-level domain registries provide that ICANN authorization is required to begin accepting registrations of domain names with hyphens in the third and fourth positions;
Whereas, a broad range of registries, experts, and other stakeholders in the ICANN community have been working hard for several years to develop registry-level registration policies and rules, in anticipation of the completion of standards-track IDN protocols by the IETF;
Whereas, a three-part protocol suite defining a standard for internationalized domain names in applications was published as RFCs 3490, 3491, and 3492;
Whereas, the participants in the Internationalized Domain Name Registry Implementation Committee (IDN-RIC) have been working together with ICANN staff to develop a commonly agreed statement of Guidelines for the Implementation of Internationalized Domain Names, a draft of which was presented at the ICANN Public Forum on 26 March 2003;
Whereas, collaborative work on the draft Guidelines is continuing, with the affected registries under contract indicating their general agreement with the draft's approach, subject to further editing and communications with the Internet Architecture Board;
It is:
Resolved that the ICANN Board endorses the IDN implementation approach set forth in the draft Guidelines for the Implementation of Internationalized Domain Names for implementation of IDNs;
Resolved further that the President is authorized to implement the Guidelines by authorizing registration of IDNs in registries with agreements with ICANN on the basis of those Guidelines;
Resolved further that the Board recommends the Guidelines to other registries, and encourages broad participation by registries, language experts, and others in consultative, collaborative, community-based processes to study and develop appropriate language-specific IDN registration rules and policies.
And so moved.
Alejandro Pisanty: Is there a second for this motion?
Nii.
Is there discussion? On this point?
Karl Auerbach: Karl. I just have a question.
Alejandro Pisanty: Yes, Karl.
Karl Auerbach: Yeah, RFCs as they go through the standardization process will be assigned new numbers and the like. Does this language accommodate the updates as they occur?
Masanobu Katoh: I think so, yes.
Alejandro Pisanty: Or does it need any modification? Louis.
Louis Touton: Karl, this is a question back to you, what do you mean by RFCs being assigned different numbers? The usual procedure of the RFC editor is that once a document is published, it has a number and it's frozen in content.
Karl Auerbach: Also the standardization process
Louis Touton: From proposed standard to something more robust?
Karl Auerbach: Yeah. It'll get a new RFC number. And I was just wondering how we accommodate that.
Vinton Cerf: This is Vint. Could I make a suggestion?
Alejandro Pisanty: Yes, please.
Vinton Cerf: One way to deal with that would be to make reference to the existing RFCs and then perhaps add the text "and their successors." Would that be helpful?
Karl Auerbach: Satisfy me.
Alejandro Pisanty: Would that be okay Katoh-san?
Masanobu Katoh: I think that's a good friendly amendment.
Alejandro Pisanty: Any further discussion?
Louis Touton: Yes, Alejandro.
Just pursuing that, I think that's a very good suggestion, Vint. In fact, it probably affects the draft guidelines and is an appropriate revision to those. And as I look at it, doesn't probably affect the language of the resolution itself.
Alejandro Pisanty: Amadeu.
Vinton Cerf: Okay.
Amadeu Abril i Abril: So it's only to know that fully supporting these guidelines, still not all the picture regarding IDN name. Besides the guidelines for the registries, still the Board has to deal, and hopefully we will do that shortly, with contractual and procedural questions regarding existing test beds, conversions, technical (inaudible) how to introduce this service, what sort of procedures are guaranteed for the day this service is implemented, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So there is a much larger picture than what is here yet.
Alejandro Pisanty: Thank you, Amadeu.
Is there any further discussion here?
Vinton Cerf: Yes, this is Vint.
Alejandro Pisanty: Yes, Vint.
Vinton Cerf: There is there are several resolutions embodied in this action. There's a comment in the first resolution which says that the draft guidelines I'm sorry we endorse the IDN implementation approaches set forth in the draft guidelines for the implementation of internationalized domain names as they may be amended in further consultation with registry operators for implementation of issued domain names.
Would it be appropriate to also acknowledge that the technical standards might evolve?
This is coming back, again, to this the matter of the reference to the RFCs.
I'm just concerned that we make very clear that in this resolution we're not binding all of the action to the existing RFCs.
Alejandro Pisanty: Katoh-san and then Nii.
Masanobu Katoh: I think
Vinton Cerf: You could
Masanobu Katoh: the first point of the six guidelines cover some additional ones. But I
Vinton Cerf: A simple way to deal with this would be to simply say, after "as they may be amended in further consultation, registries operators or evolved as a consequence of new technical standards."
Alejandro Pisanty: Would that be okay?
Masanobu Katoh: Fine with me, yes.
Mouhamet Diop: Or new evolution of the standard.
Alejandro Pisanty: Okay, Nii.
Nii Quaynor: Yes. I'd just like to note that the consultative process needs to be a little bit more extensive in that certain languages are much better understood than others. And, in fact, in some of the emerging communities, very little is known about their languages. And it's therefore unclear what kinds of problems they might pose in the future.
And so some real efforts should be placed on bringing them on Board.
Alejandro Pisanty: Okay. Again, the minutes will show this. And we should start pushing for that to happen effectively, as well as Amadeu's point is also, I think, note taken, and we trust that you will put this forward.
Katoh-san.
Masanobu Katoh: Yes. You know, since Louis is working on those minor refinement of the additions the additions made by Vint,
Louis Touton: Katoh, after discussing it with Mr. McLaughlin, I think this is the language we would suggest be accepted perhaps as a friendly amendment.
Vint, for your information, it now reads in the clause you were reading from:
"as they may be
Linda Wilson joins.
Louis Touton: as they may be amended in further consultation with registry operators or evolve in view of new technical standards." .
Vinton Cerf: That I would be satisfied with that language.
Alejandro Pisanty: And you will take it that way, Katoh-san?
Masanobu Katoh: This is fine.
Alejandro Pisanty: Up for a vote now. All those in favor, say "aye."
Aye.
All those opposed, manifest themselves.
Abstentions?
Okay, resolution passes unanimously.
Alejandro Pisanty: And we move further now to an administrative matter, which is the check-signing authority. The point here is that as of the end of this meeting, Paul Twomey will be taking office as President of the corporation. The administrative matters have to be duly assigned to him, and in particular, comes to a very practical issue of signing checks for payments that have to be made.
So I don't know if someone wants to introduce this resolution. Otherwise, I will.
Helmut.
Helmut Schink: So the text reads like:
Resolved that the Vice President and General Counsel, Louis Touton, may authorize disbursements of the Corporation's funds, and sign checks of the Corporation, in amounts of $ 10,000 or less;
Further resolved that, upon his taking office as President of the Corporation, Paul Twomey may authorize disbursements of the Corporation's funds, and sign checks of the Corporation, in amounts of US$ 50,000 or less;
Further resolved that, upon his taking office as President of the Corporation, Paul Twomey may authorize disbursements of the Corporation's funds, and sign checks of the Corporation, in amounts exceeding US$ 50,000, when so authorized by action of either the Board, the Finance Committee, or the Executive Committee. Such approvals shall be given upon a showing that they are within the President's authority; and
Further resolved that the authorizations to disburse funds and to sign checks as set forth in Board resolutions 01.30 through 00.33 shall cease to be effective as of the adoption of this resolution.
Vinton Cerf: This is Vint. There is clearly a problem there. It probably should be 01.33. Louis, can you confirm?
Louis Touton: Yes, that's correct. And I have so amended it.
Karl Auerbach: Another trivial bit. I didn't hear U.S. dollars on the very first dollar amount on Louis's limit.
Louis Touton: Karl, it is, in fact, in the text.
Karl Auerbach: Okay.
Alejandro Pisanty: Is there a second for this? Amadeu.
Vinton Cerf: This is a second from Vint Cerf.
Is there any discussion? Helmut?
Helmut Schink: Yes, I have one question.
I assume that currently Stuart Lynn is authorized. And I'm not quite sure what the resolutions 1.30 to 1.33 say. Are they authorizing Stuart Lynn? If this is the case?
Louis Touton: Helmut, they are virtually identical to these four resolutions except it's Paul Twomey this says "Paul Twomey," that said "Stuart Lynn." and the resolution numbers from the prior authorization that were being revoked were different.
Alejandro Pisanty: Stuart.
Stuart Lynn: Yes. By my calculations, Helmut, there's about 15 minutes left that I can sign any checks that you would like me to sign. Thank you.
(laughter.)
Alejandro Pisanty: So we'll put this for a vote.
All those in favor, say "aye."
Aye.
Alejandro Pisanty: Opposed, manifest yourselves.
Abstentions?
Karl Auerbach: This is Karl. My only I'm voting no, but on the basis of I don't think the Finance Committee ought to have the authorization rights.
Alejandro Pisanty: Okay. Lyman, I am told by John Crain that Lyman wants to make a comment here.
John Crain: I think Lyman's having the same problem. Lyman, if you can hear me, please call the operator again and see what they can do.
Lyman is going to talk to the operator. So I don't know how long this is going to take.
Karl Auerbach: Well, we're making good progress.
Alejandro Pisanty: I am sending Lyman ICQ so that if he can write what he has to say, I will speak it out to the meeting.
Pending that, I will Lyman, you do hear us?
Lyman Chapin: Alejandro, can you hear me now?
Alejandro Pisanty: Yes.
Lyman Chapin: Just a very what I hoped is a very quick question for Louis.
In the third paragraph of the resolution, it refers at the end, it says "such approval shall be given upon a showing that they are within the President's authority."
I think I know what that means, but it's the only place in which the word "approval" is used as opposed to "authorization."
I just wanted an explanation of what such approvals are in that context.
Louis Touton: Give me a moment, Lyman, to look at this.
Lyman Chapin: Okay. Thanks.
Louis Touton: It, in fact, should say "such authorizations." .
Lyman Chapin: Okay. That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure that I understood it correctly.
Vinton Cerf: This is Vint. It seems to me that if the President has to write a check for a million dollars, it might be some question whether this was appropriate or not. And if it wasn't appropriate, we have no we have no intention of authorizing him to do it. That's all.
Alejandro Pisanty: Does this change anything materially?
Louis Touton: No. This is just really a a correction of wording.
Lyman Chapin: I assume that this sentence is actually in there for the opposite of the reason that Vint just mentioned, which is to it essentially says that the the Board, the Finance Committee, the Executive Committee shall not withhold authorization if the President's authority is such that, you know, that he's entitled to do this. In other words, it's the reverse of that.
Vinton Cerf: I see what you're getting at.
Louis Touton: Yes. And just to elaborate, there's two separate concepts that are sometimes confused.
One is the authority of the President to spend money under budgetary authorizations. And there's a separate requirement that's in the check-signing resolution that's really a not intended to implement the budgetary authorization mechanism, but, instead, to be the place where sort of a failsafe at the banks and so forth in terms of money walking out the door, not because it's an unauthorized fund, but because it's not something that as a failsafe is looked over the shoulder at.
Vinton Cerf: The point here, this is Vint, is if it's within the budget, it's proved and that's the indication of authority.
Louis Touton: Indication of the authority and sort of instruction to the Finance Committee and Executive Committee as to what what they are supposed to be looking at when they consider that.
Vinton Cerf: Right.
Lyman Chapin: Okay. Thank you, Louis. That makes sense.
Alejandro Pisanty: So you're all happy with what you voted for?
As long as Paul's happy with it.
Sang-Hyon Kyong: This is Sang-Hyon. May I speak?
Alejandro Pisanty: Yes, please.
Sang-Hyon Kyong: I go back to the comment that Karl made two minutes ago. In the the second or third or whatever the third resolution clause, the Finance Committee being there seems to be something that's difficult for me to understand. The Finance Committee's mission, responsibility is making recommendations to the Board on financial matters. The it does not seem quite right to have it to give it the authority to to make authorizations of something like this.
Linda Wilson: May I speak?
Alejandro Pisanty: Linda, then Louis.
Linda Wilson: I think these are very good points. I think we're maybe going beyond the charter of the Finance Committee in putting it in as an authorizing agent here. I think its advice is to the Board and its advice is to the President and CEO, but it in the past has not been an authorizing body. It may be as we go forward that is a role that might be added to the charter. But I don't think it is currently in the charter.
Alejandro Pisanty: Louis and --
Louis Touton: Linda and others, this resolution is, in fact, a copy of the one that's been in effect for the last two years. And the Finance Committee has had that authority, though never invoked.
I should mention that at the Audit Committee meeting earlier this week, they went the Audit Committee carefully went through its charter. And one of the things that they resolved to take up as an early action item is to review the authorization structure, the check authorization structure. So I would anticipate that in the next two or three months, they will probably come back to the Board with a proposal to revise this whole system.
The point of this resolution was simply to take care of the immediate them that, after this meeting, it will no longer be appropriate for Stuart Lynn to sign checks, and it should be appropriate for Paul Twomey to sign checks.
Karl Auerbach: This is Karl. It sounds like we might have recognized a problem with the resolution we just passed. Would it be appropriate to re open it or to ask to put forward a resolution to see if there's an agreement that we should remove the Finance Committee from the list?
Vinton Cerf: This is Vint. The suggestion given that it's essentially status quo and has not appeared to cause any trouble, why don't we allow the Audit Committee to make its evaluation and then make recommendations to alter the resolution. This again falls into category as making policy on the fly as opposed to thoughtful consideration, although I do appreciate the concerns expressed by Linda and others.
Alejandro Pisanty: I think that note is taken of all these concerns, and we hope that those that have the concerns will put their I would not say their money after the words but the action to promote whatever changes they perceive needed, and we move forward in this meeting.
I'm going to make a slight change in the no, okay.
I want to make a procedural note, Louis. Jonathan Cohen has informed me that he mistaken probably by my action or my way of addressing this, he was voting in favor of the resolution, first resolution we had on the table today.
Louis Touton: The one concerns the privacy committee?
Alejandro Pisanty: The ones concerning the privacy committee. He was voting in favor.
Louis Touton: So noted.
Alejandro Pisanty: I will move now to the next item we have set in the agenda which is a motion of thanks to Stuart Lynn.
I will first say before introducing this as a formal resolution that we are, in a few minutes, we are going to be initiating the period of Paul Twomey as President and CEO of ICANN.
There are some words I would like to say in this order, not to be anti climatic.
There has been a lot said. The press and the community has had a lot to say about Paul Twomey recently, and I would like to add that many of the Board members are aware of additional merits that he has brought into this job, a sensitivity to international context. Very little is made in his in the publication of his vitae of the work he has made with refugees, the work he has made at the NGO level, and this brings us a very rounded vitae here and a very able CEO and President and CEO.
That said, I would want to turn to what will be for me also a very emotional moment, because thanking Stuart Lynn for the effort he has made for ICANN will be cannot be made enough. There is not enough ways of thanking Stuart for the service and for the personal sacrifice he has put in here.
I've been blessed by the opportunity as a vice chair to of the Board and as probably a sometimes hyperactive director, meddling in what should may be not be in my purview, to be close to the way Stuart has handled the job. And I can bear witness to the level of patience, of tolerance he has brought to in response to the reviling. Sometimes not interrupt the chain of insult and reviling and bad mouthing that the President and CEO of ICANN has to take, especially when he dare speak back and where he dare address the substantial problems that he perceives in the organization.
I had met Stuart Lynn rather a long time before he was even proposed to the for this position. It was an extraordinarily blessing and surprise he was making himself available. For me it was pleasant because I knew of the very good work he had previously done in other areas of the network. And it has been a continuing pleasure to work closely with him.
The resolution formally says as follows:
Whereas, Dr. Stuart Lynn was drafted to serve as President and CEO of ICANN in March 2001;
Whereas, Dr. Stuart Lynn has served in this position with energy, vision, and distinction,
Now therefore, the Board of ICANN resolves:
(1) that the ICANN community has benefited enormously from and deeply appreciates the devoted service of Dr. Stuart Lynn as President and CEO over the last two years;
(2) that the foundation Dr. Lynn has laid for the reform of ICANN has set the organization on a constructive and progressive course for the benefit of the ICANN community;
(3) that Dr. Lynn has surely earned the opportunity to return to the retirement that service to ICANN interrupted; and
(4) that we wish for him continued success in all his endeavors, opportunity for relaxing and interesting travel, enjoyment of hobbies, family, and friends, long life, and all good things that bring satisfaction and peace.
I would add to this a very warm thanks, thank you, to Barbara and to all his family who have from whom we have continuously borrowed Stuart at unexpected times, at ungodly hours, for teleconferencing, for travel, for unexpected changes in schedules and so forth where not even slightly aware of the impact that this must have had on all of new Stuart's family.
And I would like to know if someone is disputing me, the motion, and we'll move faster. I note hands. Is there a second for this motion?
Linda Wilson: Second.
Vinton Cerf: I recommend we adopt by acclamation.
Alejandro Pisanty: Yes.
(standing ovation).
Stuart Lynn: I think there are only two speeches I'd be capable of making at this time. The short one is thank you, and the long one, thank you very much.
(applause).
Vinton Cerf: We're clapping out here on the telephone, too.
Alejandro Pisanty: Next point in the agenda is a motion of thanks to Joe Sims. I don't know if yeah, Hans.
Hans Kraaijenbrink: Thank you, Alex. May I, as one of the initial directors, boardsquatters, move this motion.
Thanks to Joe Sims.
Whereas:
In early 1998, before there was an ICANN, the University of Southern California sought legal advice in connection with the creation of a private, not-for-profit organization to manage the domain name system. For reasons never fully explained, Joe Sims thought this would be an interesting project. And, for reasons we have all come to understand and appreciate in the intervening years, Jon Postel thought Joe would be an interesting partner and guide in the undertaking.
Since that time, Joe Sims has worked in countless and tireless ways to support and promote this first experiment in global, private-sector management of the technical and administrative functions of the Internet domain name system. Joe has been a source of wise counsel, essential perspective, and humor (biting and otherwise) at every critical juncture in ICANN's development and his principled, pragmatic, and direct approach to problem solving has seen ICANN through crisis big and small. There have been many instances in which, without his determination and exhortation, progress would not have been made. The antithesis of a silver-tongued politician, Joe Sims has earned our respect, trust, admiration, gratitude, and friendship.
As we close this first formal year of evolution and reform, Joe has elected to turn his attentions elsewhere. We will miss Joe's day-to-day involvement in ICANN and pause to thank him for his crucial contribution to this undertaking. We may still have a lot to do in this interesting world we live in, but we owe much of what we've accomplished since 1998 to Joe Sims.
Resolved that the Board expresses its gratitude to Joe Sims for his efforts above and beyond any reasonable expectation since 1998;
Resolved further that the Board offers to him its sincere good wishes for success in his continuing work outside the ICANN focus; and
Resolved further and that the Board expresses the hope that he will maintain contact with the Board so that on occasion his advice might still be available.
And I move that we accept this by acclamation as well.
Karl Auerbach: I do not accept that.
Linda Wilson: Second.
Alejandro Pisanty: Repeat, please.
Karl Auerbach: I Karl do not accept the proposal to accept it by acclamation and I do have a question about the resolution. It's a question to Louis.
Louis Touton: First of all, there should be a second before discussion.
Linda Wilson: Second.
Alejandro Pisanty: Everybody in present in the meeting seconding.
Karl, please come in.
Karl Auerbach: Okay. My question is does this resolution constitute a possible waiver of any claims that we may, as a corporation, have later? .
Alejandro Pisanty: Karl, many of us have the perception that you joined the Board to engage in a feud with Joe Sims.
Karl Auerbach: I'm asking a very definite question
Alejandro Pisanty: He's leaving without a waiver to satisfy the continuation of your feud?
Karl Auerbach: This is very valid to the corporation, because I believe we may have real, legal claims and I want to know if this is constituting a waiver of those claims.
Vinton Cerf: Karl, this is Vint Cerf, there is no waiver contained in this resolution.
Karl Auerbach: Okay. If that's the understanding of the Board, fine.
Vinton Cerf: And I move that we adopt this resolution.
Alejandro Pisanty: I'll put it to a vote.
Linda Wilson: Second.
(applause) (standing ovation).
Alejandro Pisanty: I will add to that that as I entered the Board from a public university, very politically inclined organization, heard and read what was said in the ICANN sphere, I was almost expecting one of the characters about whom I was most intrigued was Joe Sims. And I have to add there are enormous lessons in the ICANN world of how things can be done with a combination of principles, pragmatism and guts. And I hope that example is followed by whoever succeeds joe in the functions he performs for the ICANN Board.
Next point
Louis Touton: Alejandro, not to be a stickler but I don't have the vote recorded.
Alejandro Pisanty: It's by acclamation.
Karl Auerbach: I'm voting no, so however that fits.
Alejandro Pisanty: Note taken. And Karl, I really wish that you find a way to vent your rage to --
Karl Auerbach: I was asking --
Alejandro Pisanty: that will not interfere with everybody else's perception here.
Karl, I count on you on seconding this, the next motion, which will be thanks for meeting assistance.
(laughter).
Alejandro Pisanty: Is there someone who is jumping? Stuart.
Karl Auerbach: I think our meeting people are saints.
Stuart Lynn: Okay.
Whereas, ICANN has successfully completed its early 2003 meeting in Rio de Janeiro;
Whereas, the planning and execution of the meeting has been conducted in exemplary fashion;
Whereas, the gracious and warm hospitality, splendid facilities, strong support, and close attention to fulfilling the needs of participants have all been truly magnificent;
It is therefore resolved:
The ICANN Board expresses its deep appreciation and thanks, on its own behalf and on behalf of all participants, to the Brazil Internet Steering Committee and its associates, especially: Antonio Tavares, Hartmut Richard Glaser, Vicente Landim de Macedo Filho, Jose Alexandre Bicalho, Luis Bonilha, and Raphael Mandarino Junior.
The Board also extends its thanks to all sponsors of the meeting, including Embratel, Intelig, VeriSign, LACNIC, Telemar, Itautec, Microsoft, Public Internet Registry (.org) and Nudomain.
The Board thankfully acknowledges the unstinting hard work of the staff of the following companies who have assisted the Brazil Internet Steering Committee in making this meeting such a great success: Multi-travel for event organization; Hoffman for audio-visual equipment; and the Hotel Sofitel for this magnificent facility.
The Board expresses its great appreciation to John Crain, Diane Schroeder, Theresa Swinehart, Mary Hewitt, Dan Halloran, Anne-Rachel Inne; Steve Conte; Barbara Roseman, Denise Michel, Michael Evans, Laura Brewer; and Terri Darrenougue and the rest of the ICANN staff excluding Stuart Lynn for their dedicated efforts in ensuring the smooth operation of the meeting.
Karl Auerbach: I'd like to amend and have you included in that list.
Linda Wilson: Agreed.
Alejandro Pisanty: I think we put this again for a vote for all the organizers.
(applause).
Alejandro Pisanty: There appears to be no other business in the agenda for the day, so we can dismiss this meeting. We'll see you again foreseeably in Montréal.
Amadeu can surely find us a motion, but I think his thirst for coffee may prevail. Thank you everybody, and see you next time.
Linda Wilson: Bye.
Vinton Cerf: Bye bye.
(10:30 a.m.).