No Such Weblog

Two resolutions. 1. Approve spending $ 8,000 + something for reimbursement to ICANN on teleconference costs. Budget committee doesn't have power to approve spending above $ 5,000. Council approves. 2. Consequences of procedures relating to constituencies not paying their dues. During 2001, NCDNHC failed to pay dues. NCDNHC filed "show cause" notice. Budget Committee recommends that Names Council waives sanctions. No request or recommendation that dues be forgiven. No implication for 2002 dues. Philipp Sheppard: Formally discuss at next conference call.

Just one thing: Read the report, and comment. Also, one follow-up remark on the presentation held at the NC session: When you look at question 17.d and add up the numbers, you'll see that > 75% of responses were interpreted to be about opt-in or stricter protection of data, an additional 10% were classified as generally calling for stronger privacy protection. That's pretty similar to the results from question 16.

Note: I missed part of this presentation. Task Force works on survey; separate surveys for registrants and intermediaries. Work was slow - reform process and WLS took lots of ressources. Work plan: Revisit survey concept. Get more registrant experience (including from at-large). Have drafted documents. Task Force to think about uniform deletion policy.

Note: The audio feed has been failing occasionally, so this is not necessarily complete.

Grant Forsythe gives presentation as BC representative to Transfers Task Force. Process. Gather information from people, constituencies. Four major areas of concern: Registrant concerns, competition, registrar concerns, registry concerns. Legitimate frustration by prospective registrants, concern by existing registrants. Competition is not a concern for specific company interests, but concern that participation in market should be open to any company. Existing services would be eliminated by introduction of WLS - reselling a single standardized service is NOT a preferred substitute for competing choice. TF has not been able to conclude report; draft recommendations: 1. The ICANN Boards movewith all haste to implement and actively enfoce the proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Delted Names policy and practice. 2. The ICANN Board rejects VeriSigns's request to amend its agreement to enable it to introduce irs proposed WLS. 3. The ICANN Board rejects VeriSign's request to trial the WLS. WLS does not address deletion and lapsing domain name issues. TF recommends that board rejects WLS proposal. Should the board not accept recommendation, there are four contingency recommendations. 1. Implement RGP first. 2. Lower price. 3. Inform registrant. 4. Transparency on WLS subscribers, like WHOIS.

Cochetti: Procedurally confused. Draft preliminary report. Not status of Names Council document. Don't forward to board? Sheppard: Board has set deadline. Status reports / work in progress requested. Ken Stubbs: So we looked at exactly the same set of recommendations sent to Board at 10 June? Grant Forsyth: My presentation is current TF work, for NC information. Based on proposal from June 4; no objections received. M. Cade: This will be recommendations out of task force. H. Feld: Hopes that RGP can move ahead without waiting for WLS. Ken Stubbs echos this. J. Scott Evans (?): Price recommendation discussed. Understands monopoly concerns. Trademark interests hope that high price could deter speculators.

Elisabeth Porteneuve: In favor of number of aspects, including ccTLD SO; provision of staff. ccTLDs prefer "ccSO" in spirit of bottom-up discussion. Continuing dialogue. Will produce written paper on various details. ccTLDs remain committed to funding ICANN. Wish to make several observations. Like to know exact cost of various ICANN items relating to various SOs. ccTLD group willing to pay for ccTLD-related matters. ccTLD group has been considering that if ccTLD IANA function requests whatever number of stuff, will agree to pay for this. Rservations about cross-subsidizing between various ICANN activities. Observation: gTLD space is space where ICANN develops policy rules. Cost of this is related to domain name cost. In each ccTLD there is local policy-development, and cost for this is borne by ccTLD. ccTLDs not prepared to have Nominating Committee appoint members to ccTLD council. Are prepared to work closely with GAC. Do not believe that appointed liaison officer is efficient way.

Ken Stubbs: Blueprint an additional step in the right direction of funding and staff for stable operation. Agree with NomCom and streamlining. Need additional clarification about increased per-registration fee. [audio gap] Need judicative contract interpretation and enforcement. Proposals weak in this regard.

Note: This one owes much to support from Alexander via ICQ.

Harold Feld: Non-commercial presence in ICANN is shrinking. Only 5-6 of them in the room at any given time. Foundations which have funded travel to ICANN meetings in the past are no longer doing so. They think that it's not a reasonable investment. [audio gap] Deals are cut behind closed doors. Believe it's important for non-commercial voice to be heared within ICANN. Personally believes that they can and do have an impact in ICANN process. ... Not happy with direction of evolution and reform. Greatly concerned that input isn't heard and not given equal weight. Very few ressources to participate in face-to-face meeting. Consideration should be paid to comments submitted via e-mail. [audio gap] Wish to remind board of critical principles: 1. Individuals have important role to play. Need formal place within structure. 2. Top-down processes run risk of imposing unpracticable solutions. (?) Bottom-up processes critical. May be slower, but products more sustainable. 3. ICANN was intended as instrument for Internet coordination without direct governmental supervision. Concerns with blueprint: Currently only one individual representative among 19 members of nominating committee without At-Large and with GA as cross-constituency forum. Note, however, that there is $0.25 additional domain charge which is imposed on individuals. Users asked to provide funding, but denied representation promised in 1988, reaffirmed in Cairo compromise, recommended by ALSC. Board guiding policy-development bears danger that illusion of consensus is created; controversial policies may sneak in. Governments invited, individuals pushed out is wrong way. Commends blue-print in these elements: Recognize non-commercials and academics, and doesn't throw them together with individual interests. Glad not to have been forgotten, but concerned that voice is diluted within structure.

Cary Karp: Two aspects of blue-print require change. Request different way of discussion for those constituencies which have contractual relationship with ICANN. Registries and registrars can more easily be aggregated than any of the other constituencies. Cochetti: Both speaking on behalf of constituency which operates unanimously. Section 5 of blueprint suggests non-binding arbitration. Constituency finds approach inadequate. [incomprehensible] Jordyn Buchanan (?): GNSO constituencies ought to have voice which should be heared beyond gTLD policy. Separation of SOs.

Ellen Shankman: [audio gap] J Scott Evans: Can't come forward with formal position. Constituency members who looked at material encouraged that board listens to various voices. Glad about evolutionary instead of revolutionary approach. Concern that many solutions come at a cost. How exactly should cost be recovered?

Tony Holmes: Will make statement tomorrow. Pleased to see step back from more radical original approach. Many things they don't like. Prefer different board make-up. Concerns about viability of nominating committee, still have reservations. Board terms. Don't want nominating committee appointees on SO councils. Would consider one non-voting GAC member on the DNSO (council?). At-large has made considerable progress. If four unaffiliated persons on NomCom, they should come from At Large. One of the largest problems with ICANN: Lack of support. [...]

Marilyn Cade: Extensive consultation. Lateness of delivery of paper makes complete response difficult. Value greatly the fact that board members made themselves available yesterday. Paper departs from whitepaper in key areas. Adjustments can be made. Framework where details can be worked out. Funding: Businesses represent significant user community in using and buying names. No one is more affected by instability. BC on record: 2/3 of funding from gTLDs, 1/3 from RIRs and ccTLDs. Mission: Policy development. Support language in statement. Oppose outsourcing of ICANN functions. On nominating committee: Concerns about implementation. Support concept for selection of board members. Don't support nominating committee for SO councils. Could imagine at-large sending reps to gTLD council. Support strongly separate ccSO. Expect ongonig dialogue on matters of mutual interest. Better engage in dialogue than appoint someone. 19 people on nominating committee will have great difficulty. If four unaffiliated persons on NomCom, they should come from At Large. (Consistent with ISPs.) No justification to change of number of board members. Movement forward in electing board members, as opposed to earlier top-down approach. Board authority: Policy-approval, not policy-development. Lead to believe that board agrees on this. Generally: If board doesn't like policy, pass it back to SO for another attempt. Emergencies: Interim policies. Governmental participation: GAC and rest of ICANN are relatively new at this. Believe that there is better way for consultation than appointing liaisons. Need methodology for bringing issue to GAC, and consult with GAC. Have the right people on both sides for particular issues. Core value: Stability. Private-sector leadership can be successful. Has been remarkably successful.

Harold Feld has introduced this on behalf of NCDNHC. A number of bidders made presentations to NCDNHC. Briefing helpful. But: Concerned that there is need to fully participate in evaluation of applications. Constituency believes to have expertise. Board should instruct staff to work closely with team headed by NCDNHC, including volunteers from other constituencies. Portion of funds collected from applicants should be given to NCDNHC, so they can do due diligence and produce input to ICANN board for consideration of applications. Would seek foundation funding to assist in this significant undertaking. Hopes that NC would at least make request to board. Further: Request that board makes .org decision during open telephone conference. Because questions regarding conflict of interests have been raised, this is particularly important. At the very least record meeting, and place recording on web page. Wants stable delegation, avoid law-suits. Last point is adopted by NC.

J Scott Evans (IPC): Experience from new gTLD process, discussion with applicants. NCDNHC could do this too. Doesn't want NC recommendation. Board has fiduciary duty. No need for special procedure.

Roger Cochetti: Necessary to evaluate ability of applicants to reach out into non-profit sector. If reach-out, may remind them (board? applicants?) about NCDNHC. Even absent such procedures, can remind board of existence of this constituency.

J Scott Evans: Excellent suggestion to remind them. But much different than what Harold has suggested.

M. Cade: Not just non-commercials in .org.

Bruce Tonkin: Asking for public comment more appropriate; .org incredibly diverse.

Harold Feld: 1. JSE: Request grows out of gTLD delegation experience. Treatment of DNSO report by board. Found difference between having consultive relationship and asking staff to work directly work with constituency. Will do their best in the time frame allotted to provide input to decision-making process. In this particular instance: Consistently identified as ("most") interested constituency, greatest expertise in how non-profits are run. Board should direct staff, so experience can effectively be shared. Money request: Useful that money paid for evaluation should be used by NCDNHC to evaluate aspects within constituency's expertise. Will enhance process, prevent questions as to the legitimacy of the process.

P. Sheppard is going to remind board of interested constituencies.

The notes I took during today's Names Council meeting in Bucharest (which I attended through the realaudio/video feed) are available in the blog items below. If you want to have something which is sorted chronologically (and not blog-wards), and can reasonably be bookmarked, you can go to the Bucharest Protocols version of the notes. Misunderstandings are mine, of course, and I encourage anyone who notices any misleading notes to e-mail me.

Bret Fausett is providing coverage of the current .org re-delegation presentations; I'll drop out of the webcast again in a couple of minutes. If I interpret the webcast correctly, there's also some professional real-time scribing going on, so we should see an archive of what's being said in these presentations in a couple of days (I'm optimistic).

The one presentation which I partially saw and listened to (until the audio feed went away) was the one by DotOrg Foundation. One of their "interesting" elements (and one of the first things mentioned in the presentation) seem to be some kind of Validation services. Quite frankly, I neither understand how these are supposed to work, nor do I understand what they'd mean for simple, individual .org domain name holder like myself. Maybe someone in the know can shed some light on this?

Alexander Svensson has sent in a summary for the Bucharest Protocols.

I was curious enough about this to finally take the time to thoroughly read that part of the application. If I understand this correctly, "validation" is suggested to be a separate service which could only be purchased by .org registrants. Registrants themselves would make certain statements subject to third-party validation (examples given include category of organization, financial policies and practices, governance structures, and the like). The validation status would be available online, and the organization would have the right to put a "DotORG seal" onto its web page, with a link to validation results. Included with the package would be an SSL server certificate.

In Germany, there is a saying: "The opposite of 'well done' is 'well meant.'" Applied to dot-org, this means that I get somewhat skeptical when a proposal like GNR's (which looks technically solid - after all, they do run a registry already) indirectly promises funding to the NCDNHC, and wants to have that constituency's leadership on a so-called Steering Committee. In fact, I'm wondering how this mixes with the NCDNHC's demand to play a more active role in the evaluation of the proposals. Conflicts of interest, anyone?

Note that I don't have any objections against the travel funding suggested (indeed, that's an extremely good idea which should be pursued by more of the wealthy players in the ICANN process), or against philantropy in general - but some of this just looks too well-targeted in this particular context.

Writing from the point of view of an individual .org domain name holder, I hope that the board will mostly base its decision on the .org redelegation on the technical merits of the respective proposals (and on business stability), and use the community aspects of proposals only as auxiliary factor in its decision-making.

Bold (and possibly even risky) experiments with TLDs are fine - as long as they happen with new TLDs, and every registrant knows what's possibly going to happen. With a well-established TLD such as dot-org, there's considerably less room for experiments.