ICANN Board Discussion of .org Reassignment
(Accra, Ghana—14 March 2002)

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken of a discussion of .org Reassignment by the ICANN Board on 14 March 2002 at its public meeting in Accra, Ghana. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors.

Although this captioning is not authoritative, it may be helpful to those preparing proposals to become the successor operator of .org. Captioning for the full afternoon session of the Board meeting on 14 March 2002 is posted here.

ICANN Board Discussion of .org Reassignment
Accra, Ghana
Thursday Afternoon, March 14, 2002

[Earlier proceedings on other topics omitted.]

>>VINTON CERF: THEN I'LL TAKE IT THAT – I'LL TAKE IT THAT WE CAN INTRODUCE THIS RESOLUTION, WHICH I WILL READ FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAVE REQUESTED IT.

WHEREAS THE MAY 2001 DOT ORG REGISTRY AGREEMENT BETWEEN VERISIGN, INC., AND ICANN PROVIDES THAT VERISIGN WILL CEASE BEING THE REGISTRY OPERATOR FOR DOT ORG TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN AS OF 31 DECEMBER 2002;

WHEREAS AT ITS MEETING IN STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN, ON 4 JUNE 2001, THE ICANN BOARD REFERRED TO THE ICANN DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, DNSO, THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE SCHEDULED TRANSITION OF THE OPERATION OF THE DOT ORG TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN FROM VERISIGN TO A NEW ENTITY;

WHEREAS IN RESPONSE, THE DNSO CREATED A TASK FORCE WHICH PREPARED A REPORT THAT MAKES SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE DNSO NAMES COUNCIL ON 17 JANUARY 2002;

WHEREAS THE REPORT WAS POSTED ON THE ICANN WEB SITE ON 26 FEBRUARY 2002;

WHEREAS PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE REPORT WAS RECEIVED BY A WEB-BASED FORUM AND AT THE ICANN PUBLIC FORM HELD IN ACCRA, GHANA ON 13 MARCH 2002.

RESOLVED THAT THE PRESIDENT IS DIRECTED TO CAUSE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE REASSIGNMENT OF THE DOT ORG TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN TO BE PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AND ISSUED, WITH AT LEAST 30 DAYS ALLOWED FOR APPLICATIONS BY THOSE PROPOSING TO BECOME THE SUCCESSOR OPERATOR OF THE DOT ORG TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN;

RESOLVED THAT THE APPLICATIONS WHEN RECEIVED WILL BE POSTED ON THE ICANN WEB SITE WITH A MECHANISM ALLOWING PUBLIC COMMENT;

RESOLVED THAT THE PRESIDENT IS DIRECTED TO CAUSE THE APPLICATIONS TO BE EVALUATED AND A REPORT TO BE POSTED AND PROVIDED TO THE BOARD IN ADVANCE OF THE ICANN BUCHAREST MEETING IN JUNE 2002;

AND RESOLVED THAT THE PRESIDENT IS REQUESTED TO PREPARE AND PRESENT TO THE BOARD A PROPOSAL FOR APPLICATION FEE LEVELS BASED ON ICANN'S LIKELY COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH SOLICITING AND REVIEWING THE APPLICATIONS, MAKING THE SELECTIONS, AND ANY RELATED COSTS.

THEREIN IS THE READING OF THE DOT ORG REASSIGNMENT RESOLUTION.

I CALL UPON ANY WILLING BOARD MEMBER TO PUT THIS RESOLUTION ON THE TABLE.

>>VINTON CERF: AMADEU.

IS THERE A SECOND?

ROB BLOKZIJL.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF THIS RESOLUTION ON THE TABLE?

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: YES, SOME DISCUSSION.

THE ITEM I WANTED TO DISCUSS HERE IS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARD FROM THE DNSO NAMES COUNCIL.

YESTERDAY THEY MADE SOME QUESTIONS AND IT WAS (INAUDIBLE) AND THE MEMBERS WERE NOT HERE TO ANSWER.

IN ANY CASE, WE HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS, AND HERE WE DON'T SAY ANYTHING CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND WE ARE SUPPOSED TO, SOMEHOW.

AND I WOULD EXPLAIN WHY I OPPOSE SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I THINK WE SHOULD OPPOSE – OR AT LEAST HOW WE SHOULD INTERPRET THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.

FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THAT THE DNSO REPORT, WHICH IS A VERY GOOD PIECE OF WORK, IS TOO WEAK ON THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REGISTRY, BUT THIS CAN BE SOLVED.

IT'S NOTHING THAT WOULD BE IN CONTRADICTION WITH.

IT'S JUST THAT IT'S SIMPLY LACKING WITH RECOMMENDATION.

SECONDLY, AND MORE IMPORTANT, THE ASSUMPTION MADE IN THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REGISTRY COULD BE, AND IT SEEMS ALSO TO SUPPORT THAT, A REGISTRY THAT USES (SURPLUS FUNDS FOR DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES.

I OPPOSE THAT FOR A SERIES OF REASONS.

I DON'T THINK IT'S PRACTICAL.

WE HAVE THE EXPERIENCE WITH THE FAMOUS INTELLECTUAL INFRASTRUCTURE OUT OF THE DOT COM WORKING REGISTRY THAT WE HAD MORE PROBLEMS THAN AT ANY TIME.

SOLVED IT.

I DON'T THINK THE DNS SHOULD BE THE MECHANISM FOR FUNDING OTHER ALTERNATIVE INITIATIVES REGARDLESS OF HOW WELL-INTENTIONED THEY ARE.

AND ALSO THOROUGHLY, I THINK IT WAS ALEX WHO EARLIER POINTED IT OUT, THIS IS NOT BRINGING IN ANY SENSE MORE MONEY FROM PARTS OF THE WORLD TO THE – NONCOMMERCIAL GOALS.

IT'S SIMPLY TAKING MONEY FROM THE NONCOMMERCIAL REGISTRANTS TO FUND WHAT THE MANAGEMENT OF THAT REGISTRY BELIEVES ARE ADEQUATE POLITICAL ISSUES TO FIGHT FOR.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE DNS SHOULD BE A MONEY-MAKING MILL FOR ANY POLITICAL-ORIENTED, IN ANY SENSE, ACTIVITY.

I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE GOAL OF A REGISTRY.

AND I THINK WE WILL COMMENT ON THAT, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE THAT VERY EXPLICIT, THIS CHARGE VERY EXPLICIT.

WE WANT A REGISTRY THAT RUNS THE DOT ORG ON THE BENEFIT OF THE DOT ORG REGISTRANTS; THAT IS, THE NONCOMMERCIAL, IN THE LARGE SENSE, USERS OF THE DNS THAT CHOOSE TO USE THAT CONCRETE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.

AND THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAVE REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH WHICH I DISAGREE, AND I WOULD LIKE THAT WE MAKE THAT MORE EXPLICIT, THAT IT SAYS SOMEHOW THAT THE BASIC ACTIVITY OF THIS REGISTRY SHOULD BE THE MARKETING OF THE DOT ORG DIFFERENCE, IF YOU WANT.

FRANKLY, I AM SURPRISED THAT THE REGISTRY FOR NONCOMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES NEEDS TO HAVE AS ITS PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY MARKETING.

I THINK IT'S SOME CONTRADICTION.

SECONDLY, I REPEAT, I THINK THE MAIN ACTIVITY HAS TO BE TO RUN THE REGISTRY ON A COST BASIS, EFFICIENT, TECHNICALLY STABLE SITUATION, WHOLLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DNS AND DOT ORG REGISTRANTS, MOST ESPECIALLY.

SO I WANTED ONLY TO MAKE CLEAR THE POINT AT WHICH I DISAGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

NOT ALL OF THEM; JUST THE THREE POINTS.

AND I THINK THE BOARD SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IN THE REQUEST WE WILL DIRECT THE STAFF TO GO IN THAT DIRECTION OR SIMPLY FOLLOW THE WHOLE OF THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE NAMES COUNCIL.

THANKS.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AMADEU.

I THINK WE CAN FIND A WAY TO MAKE CLEAR OUR INTENT.

ROB BLOKZIJL.

>>ROBERT BLOKZIJL: YEAH, I WANT NOT SO MUCH TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED TEXT.

I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE BOARD AND STAFF UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM CREATING A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.

SO WE DON'T HAVE MUCH FREEDOM.

I'M TALKING FROM A TECHNICAL POINT OF VIEW.

WHOEVER IS GOING TO RUN DOT ORG IN THE NEAR FUTURE INHERITS AN EXISTING USER BASE OF ABOUT 3 MILLION PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS, SOME OF THEM INDIVIDUAL PERSONS, SOME OF THEM LARGE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE REALLY DEPENDENT UPON THE PROPER OPERATION OF DOT ORG. JUST TO NAME ONE, THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS TODAY COULD NOT DO ITS WORK WITHOUT THE REGISTRY DOT ORG.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: ICANN

>>ROBERT BLOKZIJL: ICANN, MAYBE.

THERE IS ALWAYS ICANN.NL.

WHICH IS RESERVED FOR ICANN, BY THE WAY.

SO THERE ARE NOT MANY ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE A DEMONSTRATED EXPERIENCE IN RUNNING A REGISTRY WITH 3 MILLION REGISTERED NAMES.

A REGISTRY WHICH HAS ABOUT 10, 12 SERVERS SCATTERED AROUND THE WORLD ON CRUCIAL SPOTS OF THE INTERNET.

THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN RUNNING A COUNTRY CODE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN, FOR INSTANCE.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ROB.

KARL AUERBACH ASKED TO BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO THIS RESOLUTION, SO KARL, YOU NOW HAVE THE FLOOR.

>>KARL AUERBACH: OKAY.

I HOPE THIS NEW PHONE BRIDGE IS WORKING.

THE RESOLUTION AS I READ IT SEEMS TO AVOID DEALING WITH THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE SO FOUGHT OVER, OR NOT FOUGHT OVER BUT SO MUCH DISCUSSED IN THE DNSO AS TO WHO COULD BE IN DOT ORG.

IN PARTICULAR, WHETHER IT WOULD BE OPEN ONLY TO NONCOMMERCIALS OR WHETHER IT WOULD BE OPEN, AS IT TRADITIONALLY HAS BEEN, TO EVERYONE.

AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE DNSO AND THE NAMES COUNCIL DID ADOPT SEVERAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING THE USE OF DOT ORG.

AND I THINK IT'S QUITE APPROPRIATE TO INCORPORATE THOSE PRINCIPLES INTO THE RESOLUTION ITSELF TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE ADOPTING THE WORK OF THE DNSO.

AND I DON'T WANT TO READ IT HERE ON THE PHONE.

IT WOULD TAKE A LITTLE WHILE.

BUT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME VERY SPECIFIC POINTS THAT THE DNSO HAS PUT FORWARD, AND PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE BEING THAT THERE WOULD BE NO ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

THE DOT ORG WOULD CONTINUE TO BE OPERATED WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT.

ESSENTIALLY, ANYBODY COULD BE IN IT WITHOUT DEMONSTRATING THAT THEY'RE NON-PROFIT.

AND I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THAT, BUT I'D ALSO LIKE TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE THE STATEMENT OF THE DNSO.

I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, HOWEVER.

>>VINTON CERF: OKAY.

THANK YOU, KARL.

I THINK THE WAY WE MIGHT APPROACH THIS IS TO TRY TO IDENTIFY KEY ISSUES THAT WE THINK SHOULD BE EXPRESSED IN THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION, IF WE FEEL THERE'S NEED FOR MORE GUIDANCE TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE STAFF.

A POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO CAPTURE THE SENSE OF THIS CONVERSATION THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AND TRY TO ASSURE THAT THE PRESIDENT TAKES THAT INTO ACCOUNT IN HIS PREPARATION FOR THE RFP.

BUT I'M NOT – KARL, I'M NOT TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF AMENDING THIS RESOLUTION TO ACHIEVE SOME OF WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING.

LET ME TAKE STUART AND ROB BEFORE WE COME BACK AROUND TO THIS QUESTION OF EDITING THE TEXT.

STUART.

>>STUART LYNN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YES, GUIDANCE FROM THE BOARD WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.

ONE WAY WE COULD DO THIS IS I CAN TRY AND DIVINE WHAT I SENSE IS HOW THE BOARD FEELS, ENSURE THAT THE STAFF INCORPORATES THAT IN THE RFP, BRING THAT BACK TO THE BOARD TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAVEN'T MISINTERPRETED THE WISDOM OF THE BOARD.

THE OTHER WAY IS FOR THE BOARD TO BE A LITTLE MORE PRECISE IN ITS GUIDANCE.

AND I'M NOT SURE WHICH IT IS.

I HEAR – (INAUDIBLE) IS PRESENT.

I'M VERY SYMPATHETIC TO WHAT AMADEU WAS SAYING ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THE REGISTRY SHOULD BE TO SERVE THE REGISTRANTS OF THE REGISTRY AND NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF WHAT'S EFFECTIVELY TRYING TO DEVELOP FUNDS FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW THE BOARD FEELS ABOUT THAT.

I DISAGREE WITH AMADEU, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, HIS NOTION ABOUT MARKETING.

NOT FOR PROFITS ALWAYS ENGAGE IN MARKETING.

UNIVERSITIES MARKET FOR STUDENTS AND THEY SELL FOOTBALL TICKETS, TOO, IN THE UNITED STATES, AND WHATEVER SPORTS YOU LIKE IN PERHAPS OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD.

SO MARKETING DOESN'T WORRY ME PERSONALLY, BUT THE OTHER PART DOES.

SO IN SUMMARY, I FEEL A LITTLE BIT AT SEA IN INTERPRETING THE WISDOM OF THE BOARD BUT I'M HAPPY TO PUNT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR MORE SPECIFICITY.

>>VINTON CERF: IN THE INTEREST OF NOT PROLONGING YOUR ABILITY TO GET THE RFP OUT, I THINK WE CAN TRY FOR A LITTLE MORE PRECISION.

ROB, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>>ROBERT BLOKZIJL: A WORD FROM THE PAST.

DOT ORG WAS CREATED AT THE SAME TIME AS DOT COM.

DOT COM WAS FOR COMMERCIAL ENTITIES AND DOT ORG FOR NONCOMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS, NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

AND WE SHOULD HAVE LEARNED FROM THE FACT THAT IN AN INTERNET SPACE THAT WAS INCREDIBLY MORE SIMPLE TEN YEARS AGO THAN IT IS TODAY, EVEN THEN IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO DRAW A CLEAR LINE.

AND THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IS THAT THERE ARE ABOUT CLOSE TO 30 MILLION REGISTRATIONS IN THE DOT COM AND ABOUT 3 MILLION UNDER DOT ORG.

UNDER DOT COM YOU WILL FIND, I'M SURE, IF YOU DO AN ANALYSIS, A LOT MORE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES THAN UNDER DOT ORG, BUT YOU WILL FIND NON-PROFITS UNDER DOT COM AND YOU WILL FIND PROFITS UNDER DOT ORG.

THE SECOND POINT IS I THINK IN ANY INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GIVE A PROPER DEFINITION OF WHAT IS A NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION.

SO DOING THIS ON THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL, IT'S AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK.

SO LESS RULES ARE BETTER THAN MORE RULES, I WOULD SAY.

>>VINTON CERF: LET ME TRY TO TAKE UP THIS POINT, AND KARL, I HOPE I WILL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS WITH THIS SUGGESTION.

I THINK THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE VERY SPECIFIC POINTS THAT THE BOARD MIGHT WISH TO MAKE TO THE PRESIDENT.

ONE OF THEM IS THAT THE NATURE OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT UNDERTAKES TO RUN DOT ORG DOES NOT HAVE TO BE NOT FOR PROFIT OR FOR PROFIT.

I THINK WE SHOULD BE NEUTRAL ON THIS POINT.

FOR CLARIFICATION, THE OFFER MADE BY VERISIGN OF THE $5 MILLION ASSISTANCE IS ONLY APPLICABLE IN THE EVENT THAT THE SELECTED ORGANIZATION IS A NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION; ESSENTIALLY, A NONCOMPETITOR.

HOWEVER, THERE IS NO CONSTRAINT, IN MY VIEW, ON ADOPTING, AWARDING THIS PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION TO A FOR-PROFIT; IT'S JUST THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM VERISIGN.

I SEE YOUR HAND, AMADEU, BUT I HAVE TWO MORE POINTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE.

I THINK THAT WE SHOULD EXPLICITLY RECOMMEND AGAINST ANY SPECIAL PROVISION FOR SUPPORT OF ACTIVITIES THAT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY RELEVANT TO OPERATING THE DOT ORG DOMAIN.

ANY NOTION THAT SOME PART OF THE FUNDING SHOULD BE DIVERTED FOR GOOD WORKS I THINK MERELY COMPLICATES THE JOB OF THE ORGANIZATION IN SOME VERY DRAMATIC WAY.

SO I WOULD SAY THAT WE SHOULD MAKE NO PROVISION FOR SUCH SPECIAL ACTIVITY.

I WOULD POINT OUT TO YOU THAT ANY ORGANIZATION IS FREE, FOR PROFIT OR NOT, TO EXECUTE GOOD WORKS.

WE DON'T NEED TO DIRECT THAT.

AND FINALLY, I WOULD TAKE ROB'S POINT THAT WE SHOULD EXPLICITLY RECOMMEND THAT THERE BE NO RESTRICTIONS OR CONSTRAINTS ON THE REGISTRANTS IN DOT ORG, PRIMARILY JUST GIVEN PAST HISTORY AND THE CURRENT STATE OF THAT TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.

SO I WOULD PROPOSE TO EITHER CAPTURE THIS SIMPLY AS A SENSE OF THE BOARD IN THE MINUTES OR PERHAPS EVEN TO RENDER THOSE THREE POINTS, ASSUMING THE BOARD IS AGREEABLE TO THEM, WITHIN THE TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION.

AMADEU HAD HIS HAND UP, THEN STUART, THEN ALEX.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: USE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE FOR DIFFERENT POINTS AND THE FIRST ONE SAID WE HAVE NO CONSTRAINTS, WHICH IS TRUE.

THE SECOND, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD EXPLICITLY ADDRESS, WHICH ADDRESSES YOUR OPINION.

AND THE THIRD ONE IS REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE REGISTRY OPERATOR, OR THE REGISTRY TO MAKE IT SHORT.

NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY LEGAL CONSTRAINT, BUT WE HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE OUR OPINIONS.

AND I THINK THAT I PERSONALLY, AS DIRECTOR, WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND TO STAFF TO SHOW PREFERENCE FOR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT REGISTRY, OR (INAUDIBLE) I WOULD LIKE A DOT ORG REGISTRY TO FUNCTION ON A COST-BASIS ANALYSIS OF THE PRICE.

WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME AS BEING A NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, BUT IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME.

>>VINTON CERF: STUART LYNN.

>>STUART LYNN: IN ADDITION TO YOUR THREE POINTS, MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE WAS A FOURTH POINT, I BELIEVE, THAT ESSENTIALLY ROB BLOKZIJL WAS RAISING, THAT THE PREFERENCE IS GIVEN TO ORGANIZATIONS WHO EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY – THAT IS, THROUGH SUBCONTRACTING – CAN DEMONSTRATE EXPERIENCE IN OPERATING A REGISTRY OF SCALE.

>>VINTON CERF: POINT IS WELL TAKEN.

ALEX PISANTY.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND, AS AMADEU HAS SAID, AS PART OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING THE REASSIGNMENT OF DOT ORG, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DNSO, BUT THERE'S DEFINITELY, IN MUCH OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ALREADY, THE POSSIBILITY THAT MUCH BETTER SERVICE TO A NONCOMMERCIAL COMMUNITY CAN BE AFFORDED BY AN EFFICIENT REGISTRY.

I TAKE THE WORDS OF JAMES LOVE, WHO HAS BEEN DISCUSSING THIS INTENSIVELY, FROM A CONSUMER POINT OF VIEW.

ALSO LOOKING FOR, FIRST OF ALL, EXCELLENT SERVICE, EXCELLENT PRICING.

AND IF THIS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE OTHER CRITERIAS EXPRESSED BY THE DNSO, THEN I THINK THAT WE SHOULD DO THAT.

THE BOARD SHOULD – WE SHOULD GET THE SENSE OF THE BOARD ON WHETHER THE FOREMOST REQUIREMENT WILL BE THE STABILITY, EFFICIENCY, GOOD OPERATION OF THE REGISTRY AS EXPRESSED BY ROB BLOKZIJL, PRICING AND CONSUMER SERVICE REQUIREMENTS, AND ONLY THEN CONSIDER, I MEAN, IF THINGS WERE STILL EQUAL, CONSIDER THE SUPERVENING POLITICAL STRUCTURE THAT THE DNSO REQUIREMENTS WOULD RECOMMEND, THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT TAKES CARE OF THE DOT ORG ITSELF.

>>VINTON CERF: IN ORDER TO NOT PROLONG THIS DISCUSSION OVER MUCH, I'M GOING TO SUGGEST SEVERAL – FIRST I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE CONVEY OUR VIEWS TO THE PRESIDENT BY WAY OF A SENSE OF THE BOARD RATHER THAN EDITING THE CONTENTS OF THIS RESOLUTION.

SECOND, I WOULD PROPOSE TO YOU THAT WE TAKE THESE SPECIFIC POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED SO FAR AND FIND OUT WHAT OUR – WHETHER WE HAVE AGREEMENT ON THEM OR NOT IN ORDER TO MAKE VERY CONCRETE OUR SENSE TO THE PRESIDENT.

SO I'D LIKE TO BEGIN WITH THE POINT THAT ALEX PISANTY FIRST SAID.

WOULD THERE BE ANY OBJECTION AMONG THE BOARD TO CONVEYING TO THE PRESIDENT THAT A WELL-FUNCTIONING DOT ORG IS PARAMOUNT, AND THAT THAT SHOULD BE A MAJOR CRITERION FOR THE SELECTION, SINCE WE HAVE 3 MILLION USERS WHO WILL BE AFFECTED BY ANY POOR-QUALITY PERFORMANCE?

SO EVIDENCE OF ABILITY TO PERFORM SHOULD BE A VERY HIGH – HIGHLY CRITICAL CRITERION IN THE SELECTION.

MAY I ASK IF THERE'S ANY DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT?

OKAY.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER KARL OR LINDA HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT.

>>KARL AUERBACH: YEAH, I'D LIKE TO JUMP IN HERE FOR A SECOND.

>>VINTON CERF: GO AHEAD, KARL.

>>KARL AUERBACH: IT'S HARD TO TELL ON THE PHONE WHETHER I'VE GOT A SPOT OR NOT.

I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU HERE.

I JUST WANTED TO, IN PART OF THE DISCUSSION THAT'S GOING ON, I'VE NOTICED WHAT I THINK IS SOME CONFUSION OR AMBIGUITY WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSON OR ENTITY TO WHOM THE OPERATIONAL CONTRACT WOULD BE AWARDED VERSUS THE CONCEPT OF WHO WOULD BE APPROPRIATE REGISTRANTS WITHIN THAT TLD.

AND I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY CLEAR TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THESE TWO CASES.

LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, I DON'T REALLY CARE WHETHER IT'S A NON-PROFIT OR FOR-PROFIT OPERATOR.

TO ME, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE AS LONG AS THEY DO GOOD-QUALITY WORK.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, LOOKING AT THE DNSO'S OUTPUT, I THINK THEY'RE CLEARLY EXPRESSING THE POINT THAT THE PEOPLE WHO REGISTER WITHIN DOT ORG SHOULD BE ABLE TO SELF-SELECT AND NOT BE SUBJECTED TO CRITERIA, EXTERNALLY APPLIED CRITERIA, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE APPROPRIATE REGISTRANTS IN THAT FIELD.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WE NEED TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THESE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU, KARL. I BELIEVE THAT THE BOARD HERE PRESENT IS MAKING THAT DISTINCTION. AND I WILL COME TO THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION IN JUST A MOMENT.

IN FACT, THE NEXT ITEM I WAS GOING TO BRING UP IS WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE REGISTRANTS WHO ARE PERMITTED TO REGISTER IN DOT ORG.

AND MY RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SENSE OF THE BOARD IS THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH RESTRICTIONS AND THAT IT IS AN OPEN, PUBLIC REGISTRATION, UNRESTRICTED REGISTRATION.

I MIGHT POINT OUT THAT BY DOING THIS, WE ELIMINATE AN ENORMOUS PROBLEM FOR THE OPERATOR WHO WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO MAKE VERY COMPLICATED DECISIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE REGISTRANT.

IS THERE ANY DISAGREEMENT FROM THE BOARD WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE PRESIDENT? AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: IT'S A PARTIAL DISAGREEMENT.

I THINK THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. ONE THINGS ARE WHETHER THE – ONE THING IS WHETHER THE REGISTRY IS RESTRICTED OR NOT IN ITS ACCESS, THAT IS, IF THE ELIGIBLE REGISTRANTS HAVE TO PROVE SOMETHING BEFORE. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THEY ARE NOT-FOR-PROFIT, BUT THIS IS IRRELEVANT. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THAT YOU ARE USING OR YOU WILL BE USING THE DOT ORG DOMAIN NAME FOR ANY GIVEN PURPOSE. THAT'S ONLY AN EX POST TO BE MADE.

SO WE ALL – I THINK WE ALL AGREE, AND THIS IS CONSISTENT ALSO WITH THE DNSO RECOMMENDATION, THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE PRIOR EXAMINATION OF CONDITIONS.

A DIFFERENT THING IS THAT I BELIEVE IT IS POSSIBLE – I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT IS NECESSARY, BUT I THINK IT IS PERFECTLY POSSIBLE, AND NOT CONTRADICTORY WITH YOUR REQUIREMENTS, THAT A DECLARATION REGARDING THE NONCOMMERCIAL USE OF THE DOMAIN NAME IS BEING MADE AS PART OF THE REGISTRATION AGREEMENT, AND THAT THIS, THEN, IS SPECIFICALLY USED IN SUBSEQUENT DISPUTES REGARDING THE DOMAIN NAME. THAT IS, THAT THERE IS A COMMITMENT OF A CERTAIN TYPE OF USE OF THIS DOMAIN NAME, AND THAT THIS EX POST MAY SERVE IN CASE THAT SOMEONE DISPUTES THAT THEY HAVE THE DOMAIN NAME.

I AM NOT SAYING I AM FAVORING THAT. I AM SAYING THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT, AND THAT'S MUCH MORE EASILY FEASIBLE.

>>VINTON CERF: I HAVE TWO PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, I HOPE, ON THIS POINT, ALEX AND THEN ROB.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: WHILE I UNDERSTAND DOCTOR – I MEAN, AT THE END OF HIS STATEMENT, AMADEU SAYS THAT THIS TYPE OF VERIFICATION OF NONCOMMERCIAL USE OF THE REGISTRATION WOULD COME ONLY IN CASE OF DISPUTES, I WOULD UNDERLINE THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT GOES INTO THE CONTENT OF WHATEVER IS REGISTERED AND NOT INTO THE DOMAIN NAME.

>>VINTON CERF: AND –

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: IN (INAUDIBLE) CONTEXT.

>>VINTON CERF: AND ROB.

>>ROBERT BLOKZIJL: YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS. BUT, AGAIN, LOOK AT THE HISTORY.

THERE ARE ABOUT 30 MILLION DOT COM NAMES AND ABOUT 3 MILLION DOT ORGS.

SO THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE COMMERCIAL WORLD IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROTECTING THEIR NAME UNDER DOT ORG. SO OTHER PEOPLE CAN USE NAMES WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT BE CONTESTED.

THIS IS HOW I INTERPRET THE VAST DIFFERENCE IN NUMBERS OF REGISTRATIONS.

>>VINTON CERF: IN ORDER – IN THE ORDER – I WANT TO GIVE AMADEU THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE REST OF THE BOARD WOULD WANT TO PURSUE SUCH A MECHANISM THAT WOULD ALLOW A COMPLAINT OR A DISPUTE TO BE LODGED.

I WILL POINT OUT TO THE BOARD THAT THAT MECHANISM STILL OPENS UP SUBSTANTIAL COMPLEXITY FOR THE OPERATOR OF DOT ORG. MECHANISMS FOR THOSE DISPUTES HAVE TO BE IN PLACE, AND IT JUST MAKES THINGS HARDER.

I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT FOR THOSE WHO ARE UNAWARE, THAT THE AGREEMENT WITH VERISIGN TO ENGAGE IN THIS DIVESTITURE OF DOT ORG IS TIMED TO A TIMETABLE WHICH COMES TO A CLOSE ON THE 1ST OF JANUARY, 2003, OR THE 31ST OF DECEMBER, 2002.

AND THERE IS LITTLE LATITUDE FOR US TO CHANGE THAT SHORT OF REOPENING THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT WITH VERISIGN, WHICH I WOULD RECOMMEND TO YOU IS NOT A VERY WISE IDEA.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THIS TRANSITION IN A VERY EXPEDITIOUS WAY, AND SIMPLIFYING THE TASK OF THAT OPERATOR SEEMS TO ME AN IMPORTANT CRITERION FOR OUR OWN RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO, AMADEU, IN ORDER TO DISCOVER HOW THE BOARD FEELS ABOUT THIS, LET ME ASK WHETHER THERE IS – TAKE A STRAW POLL HERE.

IF YOU VOTE "YES" ON MY QUESTION, YOU WILL BE ADOPTING AMADEU'S IDEA, WHICH IS TO HAVE A DECLARATION OF NONPROFIT USE FOR PURPOSES OF LATER DISPUTE.

IF YOU REJECT AMADEU'S PROPOSITION, THEN WE WILL BE BACK TO THE OPEN AND UNCONSTRAINED REGISTRATION.

SO LET ME ASK NOW FOR A SENSE OF THE BOARD SHOW OF HANDS.

HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD SUPPORT AMADEU'S IDEA?

AMADEU AND ANDY.

MAY I HEAR FROM LINDA AND KARL?

>>LINDA WILSON: I DO NOT SUPPORT IT.

>>KARL AUERBACH: NEITHER DO I.

>>VINTON CERF: OKAY. I WON'T ASK FOR A SHOW OF – WELL, WE MIGHT HAVE A MILLION ABSTENTIONS. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ABSTAIN FROM THIS STRAW POLL?

MR. COHEN.

>>JONATHAN COHEN: I DIDN'T HEAR THE BEGINNING.

>>VINTON CERF: I SEE. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT BY THIS, WE DISCOVER THAT THE BOARD'S SENSE IS THAT WE SHOULD KEEP AN OPEN REGISTRATION.

THE NEXT POINT HAS TO DO WITH THE DNSO'S OR NAMES COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE COULD CHOOSE A PATH THAT INVOLVES EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZING THE OPERATION TO DIVERT ANY EXCESS FUNDS TO GOOD WORKS. MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD IS TO CONVEY THE SENSE TO THE PRESIDENT THAT WE NOT DO THAT IN ANY EXPLICIT WAY, AND THAT THE ORGANIZATION BE FOCUSED ON MAKING THE OPERATION SAFE, SECURE, EFFICIENT, AND AS INEXPENSIVE AS POSSIBLE.

IF I – DO I HEAR ANY DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION?

THANK YOU.

AND, FINALLY, THE LAST ITEM IS WHETHER THERE IS ANY REASON TO SHOW PREFERENTIAL – TO SHOW PREFERENCE FOR THE OPERATOR OF DOT ORG, WHETHER WE SHOULD PREFERENTIALLY CHOOSE A NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR WHETHER WE SHOULD BE NEUTRAL ON THE POINT. AND BEFORE WE FIND OUT WHAT THE SENSE OF THE BOARD IS, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT ANY FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION IS CAPABLE OF SETTING UP A NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION. SO THIS DISTINCTION MAY BE ALMOST ILLUSORY.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I WOULD BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE HONESTY OF ANY OF THESE PROPOSALS.

>>VINTON CERF: HE SAID HE WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HONESTY OF A PROPOSAL WHICH CLAIMED TO BE A NOT-FOR-PROFIT BUT WHICH MIGHT HAVE A HIDDEN FOR-PROFIT ACTIVITY IN IT.

SO MAY I ASK ONCE AGAIN FOR THE SENSE OF THE BOARD. MAY I SEE IF ANYONE WOULD OBJECT TO CONVEYING TO THE PRESIDENT THAT WE ARE NEUTRAL ON THE NATURE OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT OFFERS THIS SERVICE? AMADEU, YOU WOULD OBJECT?

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: YES.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU. KARL AND LINDA, WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THIS, PLEASE.

>>LINDA WILSON: I'D LIKE TO LEAVE IT OPEN TO EITHER KIND.

>>KARL AUERBACH: YEAH, I'D LIKE TO LEAVE IT OPEN AS WELL.

>>VINTON CERF: ROB BLOKZIJL?

>>ROBERT BLOKZIJL: I WOULD LEAVE IT OPEN.

>>VINTON CERF: YOU WOULD LEAVE IT OPEN?

>>ROBERT BLOKZIJL: YEAH. I AM MORE INTERESTED IN GOOD SERVICES.

>>VINTON CERF: I BELIEVE THE SENSE OF THE BOARD IS THAT WE SHOULD LEAVE IT OPEN.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, WE HAVE CONVEYED IN THE MINUTES SOME VERY SPECIFIC GUIDANCE TO THE PRESIDENT.

DOES ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO CONVEY ANY ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE AT THIS TIME, BEARING IN MIND THAT WE WILL HAVE CONSULTATIVE OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE PRESIDENT OVER THE COURSE OF HIS PREPARATION FOR THE RFP?

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO MENTION WAS THIS LAST POINT WAS SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED BY THE DNSO IN ITS POSITION RECOMMENDING THAT INITIAL OPERATOR BE A NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION. I ONLY WANTED TO RAISE THE QUESTION TO THE BOARD THAT WE ARE, IN THIS CASE, GIVING DIFFERENT ADVICE, WHICH IS NOT A BAD THING, NECESSARILY, BUT SHOULD BE NOTED.

>>VINTON CERF: I WOULD POINT OUT THAT ADVICE IS ADVICE, AND THE BOARD IS MAKING THE DECISIONS. NII QUAYNOR.

>>NII QUAYNOR: JUST A QUICK COMMENT.

IT'S TRUE THAT WE HAVE TO RECOMMEND AN OPERATOR THAT IS CAPABLE OF HANDLING THE SCALE. BUT WE SHOULD NOT PUSH IT SO FAR TO THE EXTREME THAT WE LOSE OUT OR IT NARROWS DOWN THE POTENTIAL OPERATORS TO SOMETHING THAT I THINK WOULD BE TOO RESTRICTIVE.

THE PRIORITY SHOULD BE STABILITY OF THE NET AND OPERATION AND QUALITY OF THE SERVICE PROVIDED.

WE SHOULD ALSO BE REASONABLY OPEN TO ONE WHO IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IN SOME WAY THAT HE IS ABLE TO SCALE TO THAT LEVEL, SO THAT WE ARE ACTING TO EXPAND THE NET OF GOOD OPERATORS.

>>VINTON CERF: I THINK THAT'S NOT AN UNREASONABLE SENTIMENT TO EXPRESS, AS LONG AS WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT DEMONSTRATION OF CAPABILITY IS PARAMOUNT.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER DESIRES ON THE BOARD TO CONVEY SPECIFIC GUIDANCE TO THE PRESIDENT?

IN THAT CASE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I WOULD – I'M SORRY, GENTLEMEN – LADIES. YES, WE HAVE A LADY ON THE BOARD WHOM I CANNOT SEE, LINDA.

SO, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I NOW CALL ON YOUR VOTE ON THIS RESOLUTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11, 12, 13, 14 HERE. 15. DID I MISCOUNT? 15 HERE.

KARL AND LINDA?

>>LINDA WILSON: I FAVOR.

>>KARL AUERBACH: AND I'M IN FAVOR AS WELL.

>>VINTON CERF: IT IS UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT EFFICIENT AGREEMENT.

[Later proceedings on other topics omitted.]

Page Updated 14-Jun-2002 ©2002  The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. All rights reserved.