No Such Weblog | Contact

Last update: Sun Aug 17 22:48:44 CEST 2003





Board and GAC are meeting publicly in the hotel basement; the room was extended by some seats when it started filling.

Vint Cerf starts the session. Thanks GAC. Important part of ICANN process. Welcomes what he's seeing. Increase in interactions between GAC and other constituencies. There cannot be enough (and certainly not too much) communication between various parties. Cross-constituency activity important for ICANN's future. Twomey will talk about important decisions the board is facing; GAC input critical. Meeting will be important in history of ICANN; implementing ICANN 2.0. Significant bylaw adoptions; some other decisions which will color the future of the Internet. Underscores the importance and value of coordination, communication, and cooperation. Can't say that enough time. Internet does not work without it. Has become commercialized, of national interest to all around the table (i.e., GAC members). Needs cooperative environment. All efforts at creating cooperative environment vital.

Turns over to CEO, Paul Twomey. Report. Twomey finds it a little weired to sit on the other side of the table, now. Gives overview with long list of issues. Will turn over to NomCom chair Linda Wilson in the end of presetnation. Internals: Staff organization. Proposed buget. Doesn't come to CEO position as complete newcomer. Degree of complexity and work at staff level beyond even his expectations. More business-like structure for management of ICANN office functions. Walks through organizational chart and explains functions of various staff positions. Some positions currently advertised.

Budget. Just major changes to draft budget presented. Restructuring. NomCom support 2004. Travel to board meetings. Shifting June 2004 board meeting to next fiscal year. Received 240 comments to budget. 239 were spam. One was the wrong address.

WIPO II -- board has followed GAC advice on joint working group to assess implications of implementation. Joint working group -- membership announced in July. Work plan to be presented at next ICANN meeting. Text of board resolution. First part: Working group. Second part: Mission creep concern. Asking president and GC to analyze legal aspects of the relationship between ICANN's mission and the recommendations conveyed by WIPO.

Address registries. Ongoing discussions. Move on to substantial work. Require commitment of all to conclude. IDN implementation. Moved forward since Rio. Lot of work in last two or three months. During past week, five registries have committed to guidelines approved by board in Rio; deployment has commenced. Four out of five have contracts with ICANN. Under contracts, president has given permission to move ahead. .cn has no contract, but has given written commitment to guidelines. Vint: IDN work at IETF. IETF specifications are implementable. May still end up with ambiguities on what can be registered under rules. Technical specification does not eliminate all possible ambiguities. Consequence: Guidelines. Propose additional constraints to be developed, probably around languages, to eliminate as much as possible ambiguities. Issues are language- and script-specific. Hard work for each TLD intendeding to register in non-ASCII to develop rules which make sense. Cross-national efforts -- same languages used in multiple countries. Can't be done in vacuum. Practices and procedures will have impact on all users of Internet. In considering constraints, have to appreciate that every user is going to be affected by choice of constraint. None of us operates in a vacuum. Internet is connected. All affected. ...

Twomey again. gTLD work. Review lessons learnt from first seven test-bed TLDs. Sebastian Bacholet managing evaluation. Board may decide to put out RFP for new sponsored TLDs. ALAC; formation of at-large groups. Regional groups based around civil society groups. Expect to see overlap between at-large structures and civil society people governments already interact with. Review of geographic regions.

Independent third-party review of board actions. Staff reviews option for independent review panels. Three international arbitration providers. Will come back to board shortly to select arbitration provider.

WHOIS workshop. Thanks to GAC for taking leadership role. Thanks for flexibility in making this part of broader workshop. Workshop strikes Twomey as useful. Hear each other's perspectives. Starting point. Would hope that degree of engagement reflected by GAC involvement with workshop continues in moving towards policy solutions. Not in the interest of ICANN 2.0 to be on different sides of the solution.

General observations. ICANN staff welcomes outreach efforts of GAC. Five new GAC members. Welcomes GAC liaisons.

Questions. French representative. Notes on WIPO2. Understanding of GAC advice not the same. First, urged board to implement recommendations. Urged it to create committee how to implement, and how to solve implementation problems. Working group paragraph was introduced to address US concerns which weren't shared by others. Only third advice implemented. Must ask whether first two paragraphs of advice are not to be taken in consideration. Asks for explanation which would be in order according to new bylaws. Important, not just because of importance of question, but also because it's important precedent on application of new bylaws.

Twomey: Doesn't think inconsistence is necessarily there. Under bylaws, ICANN has to develop policy from policy-development process which involves supporting organizations. Starting working group is not inconsistent with board taking seriously first two paragraphs. Board just adopting GAC advice without going through PDP wouldn't be consistent with bylaws. Board decision not inconsistent with GAC advice. It's what board must do according to bylaws. Vint: In simple terms. Any time a policy matter is pursued by board, board has to consult with all constituencies. Development process that takes advice and makes sure interested parties have occasion to consider advice. Board has not come to decision on whether to follow GAC advice.

Different GAC rep. Working group, then another process. Complicated, long process. GAC had hoped for working group to be clearly defined in terms of desired outcome. Feeling that WIPO2 had been approved by GAC to overwhelming extent. Technical problems to be solved. Process should not unduly delay implementation of recommendations. Asks for assurance that ICANN moves ahead at convenient speed to get this implemented. Doesn't understand bullet point about legal questions.

Vint: Complicated process not unduly burdensome, but essential. Tension between wanting to come to closure, and desire for adequate consultation. Sometimes accused of rushing too quickly because someone wasn't consulted, sometimes accused because too much consultation. WIPO2 raises delicate question. Understanding that not even national law might support restriction or denial of registration of terms as recommended by WIPO. Non-implementable policy? That's the concern. Twomey: Concern by some board members during the meeting that ICANN was under pressure by a lot of the community (including GAC) about narrow mission. Stay within mission statement. Not uncommon to have constituencies give inconsistent advice. Focus on narrow mission statement.

GAC chair asks about announcement of working group. Twomey: End of this week, or end of July. (ccTLD redelegation question.) GAC chair about independent review. Relation to ombudsman office? Twomey: Three mechanisms for review of ICANN actions. Ombudsman, reconsideration, third-party review through external arbitrator. Cohen thanks GAC and Canadian representative in particular for help and cooperation.

ERC, ccNSO; presented by Kraaijenbrink and Pisanty. Pisanty speaks. Timeline of how ccNSO discussion has evolved. Oriignal time line aimed for completion in Dec 2002. Formed ccNSO-AG. Important for ERC. Ten postings for comments. ... Pisanty discusses the process which lead to recommendations in detail, including GAC comments. Kraaijenbrink: Result of bottom-up process. ccTLDs designed this structure. Respect to national sovereignity, local policy-making. At the same time, global responsibility for stability of the Internet. Beginning of real attempt of ccTLD community to work in ICANN framework. Demonstrate that every ccTLD manager feels responsible for global stability of Internet.

UK representative: ERC has -- at least in own mind -- gone quite a long way in direction of what GAC has said. Concerned that draft bylaws not nearly enough to reflect this. Serious concern that GAC opinion had been ignored in some of the most significant points. ERC expects response in too short a period. ... ccTLD community is a very important one for ICANN. Growing importance. Most difficult relationship with ICANN in the past. Overall view that any proposal had to be as inclusive as possible. Design in such a way as to encourage as many as ccTLDs to be involved in process as possible, so that whole community is fully represented. A lot of wording in the proposal is particularly difficult for European ccTLDs. Part of the problem is that wording is autocratic rather than (...?). Agreed policies -- concern that it's difficult for certain TLDs to agree to policies which aren't defined, or agree to pay fees whatever they be -- they are not defined. Underlying concern. Whole idea of binding policies without basic premise that there should be burden of proof that binding policies are actually needed. Best practices -- can achieve consensus deegree needed by community that way, better performance of community. Underlying concern: Binding policies can be used to exclude people from whole process. Technical, commercial impacts can have heavy effects on developing countries who haven't got necessarily all the resources. To not allow that sort of opening to developing countries at time of WSIS preparation seems concerning. ... Try and judge whether binding policies are necessary. Keep them to the minimum. Burden of proof concept. Important concept for Europeans. Basis of where laws get passed in EU. Try to do that as near to citizen as possible. Same thing needs to be applied here. General comments: Concern is that this should be a support group, yet it's not written in that sort of way; authocratic wording. Needs to be softened to make it easier to ensure that larger part of community is involved. Pick up wording that Vint used in the beginning of session: Cooperation, coordination. Wording in draft bylaws not particularly based on either of those two principles. Chairman thanks for succint summary.

Danish representative represents herself to procedural observations. Document received late. According to Shanghai results, new bylaws, there are procedures to facilitate cooperation between GAC and board. Seem to be put aside here. Should be reinstated. Advice given by GAC should be followed. If not, board should give reasoning, institute dialogue with GAC. Presentation in this meeting not sufficient as a substitute.

Hans Kraaijenbrink responds. First reaction concerns the reaction by Mr. Boyle (UK). Surprised because he heared promotion of complete deletion of GAC principles. Although board never took formal position on GAC principles, it recognized, also in policy-making, a responsibility for the stability of the Internet. That means with the support of ccTLDs around the world (including some important European ccTLD managers) that they could not follow direction in which ccNSO would not require commitment of those ccTLD managers who participate. Apparently, from Boyle's reaction, it's very difficult even amongst Europeans who speak the same language to have proper communications. Whole debate concentrates on use of word "binding". Apparently, in different cultures, to bind and to be bound have different meanings. Therefore, emphasized in reaction today that all the ccNSO structure asks -- if necessary, language in bylaws will tranlsated into better wording -- if ccTLD manager wants to become member and participate in ccNSO PDP which is under full control of ccTLD managers, will declare, will sign, an intention to abide by the policy developed through this process. Not trade association which makes recommendation. All proposal asks of ccTLD managers is to abide by policy. Not top-down, not autocratic, not demanding binding policy of ccTLD managers. Second observation on interaction on development of bylaws. Recognizes that new bylaws have firmer interaction between GAC, ICANN board, constituencies. Believes -- maybe he mis understood -- that every action of ICANN board should be brought to GAC and get a GAC stamp of approval; outlines process for GAC objections. Process applies to policy actions. Does not apply to other actions of ICANN board. Intensive communication between all parties (grateful for input from GAC's WG 4). Have taken concerns into account where appropriate.

GAC chair asks GAC members with pending questions on ccTLD process whether they further want to raise questions, asks for brevity. France. Approves what has been said by European colleagues. Three main problems. Scope. In projected bylaws, scope isn't defined, but process for defining scope is defined. Not satisfactory. Membership criteria not satisfactory. Binding nature. Problem not in relation between ccNSO decisions and national law. Problem of ICANN contracts with ccTLDs. Recalls that for European countries, ccTLD problems very fundamental -- gTLDs are American. Nuie (?). Handling of disputes? ccTLD delegation out of country? ccTLD manager voting on policies which may be against country's local law?

Alejandro: Any legal document may be seen as being phrased in autocratic language. ... Difficulty with trust among ccTLD managers. ... Point about future policies, fee structures not having been defined is strawman. Building organization for its members. Develop policies ccTLD managers are able and willing to follow. On Nuie concern: Voice of country has to be heard. ... Separate specific cases from the general. ...

European Commission (1 minute slot assigned by chairman): Initial question about framework, but will leave that for tomorrow. There are some things everyone in room shares. All feel this must succeed. All feel we need ccNSO which is successful. To be successful, all need to support it. All need to be able to feel they can identify it, it will work. What was heared was interesting from all sides. Pleased that working group will have other opportunity tomorrow. Confident something positive will come out of process in the end.

Canda (1 minute, too): Shares EC comments. Back to first principles. Joint process. Hopefully successful.

Linda Wilson presents NomCom results. Thanks to co-chair (Pindar Wong) -- opposite ends of globe, 24/7 operation. Will give brief summary. If speaks too rapidly, wave hands. Focus on NomCom as new part of ICANN. Key element of new structure. New way to fill portion of key leadership positions. Fulfill function independently of SOs, ACs, board. Charge to committee: Broad public interest of global interest, not any particular interest of any constituency, employer, organization. Developed and published procedures. Final selection of nomineees. Focus was on nominees who would be of highest integrity and capability. Commitment to place broad public interest ahead of any particular interest. Knowledge about how ICANN operates. Bylaw-specified criteria. Eligibility requirements, other considerations. Membership of NomCom bylaw-specified. Members act on behalf of global interest. No personal commitments to any entities. Membership structure of NomCom. Positions assigned to fill: Board, GNSO council, ALAC. Staggered terms, specified in bylaws; modified for initial transition period. Total of 16 positions over 19 terms. Complex challenge, needed to act quickly. Work guided by selection factors in bylaws. Summary of criteria on slide; referral to bylaws and conversations if questions. Critical criterium: Aim for individual of stature, integrity, fairness, open-mindedness, commitment to ICANN success. Cultural and geographic diversity. Functional diversity. Functional diversity to be achieved in the aggregate; not just nominees, but also groups to which nominees were sent. ICANN work carried out in English -- language capabilities! Bylaw-specified geographic diversity requirements for board, ALAC. No bylaw requirements with regard to GNSO council members; notice recent bylaw change on that (?). Nobody on NomCom can nominate themselves. No people with policy-making positions in natl. govts or intl treaty organizations. Skip over details. Focus holistic. Build slates. Looked at individuals and the materials they provided. Tried to aim towards building slates of individuals who were best qualified to put public interest of global Internet community over particular interests. Balance to other selection processes. Other considerations: Key challenges. Relevant experiences. Not just well-qualified, but best qualified. Multi-talented individuals. Mix of experience and skills in each of slates. Designed to make sure that bodies can act more effectively, with greater degree of trust and acceptance. Wrestled with value of continuity in transition between ICANN 1 and ICANN 2. Operating principle: Consensus-based decision-making. Don't move ahead unless consensus. Balance openness and transparency with respect for candidates. In many cultures, would be deemed inappropriate to invite yourself to serve. In other cultures, well within norm. Protect confidentiality and identity of individuals who put themselves forward. Code of ethics -- integrity, conflict of interests, confidentiality. Fairness and consistency. Conflict of interest -- disclose affiliations. CoI committee reviewed this question at every step of process. Cross-constituency approach. Flexibility to look at any information which arrives until very end of process. Theoretically, could have had new candidate until last day. Practically, reference checking would not have been possible. Important to let new candidates come in after deadline. Deadline was deadline for full consideration. Openness and Transparency slide. ... Only statements of interest considered, no attention to who recommended whom. Open and even-handed process. Mechanisms for public comment -- not very many comments, but quite a bit of spam, complaints that documents were lengthy, few questions of interest; lead to FAQs. Teleconferences with various constituencies, offered to all of them. Code of Ethics. Primarily worked through teleconferences and e-mails. Weekly teleconferences. E-Mail. Cross-consituency conversation with candidates. Pursue references. 20-hour Marathon face-to-face meeting. Review and evaluation focussed on aggregate qualities and strengths. Looked at each individual. Kept all candidates in consideration until final activity. Could assess whether candidate pool is sufficient in May; strength-metrices. Tools used for this decision were not used in final decision-making. References were frequently between candidates. Did not follow those. NomCom members were not formally consulted as references when given -- they were sitting at the table. Insisted in slate-development approach, consensus process. Unanimous vote in Boston. Some due diligence on nominees. ... Issues addressed or debate throughout process. ... Gender diversity raised frequently. Confidentiality. Continuity v. renewal. Deadline hard and fast or bring candidates in late? Scope of due diligence that volunteer committee could take on. Slide with names selected for board. Some people only chosen for 3-5 months. Part of staggering of terms. Distribution across regions. Three individuals continuing board members, one only for time between and annual meeting 2003. Two will continue for somewhat longer terms, but will have shortest terms. Will be able to be considered by another nominating committee. Experience etc. Committee that there were not more women in candidate pool. Many candidates had existing commitments which don't make it possible to commit necessary time and energy on ICANN. Wilson is not aware of any pressure put on committee.

Question from Papapavlou (EU commission): When meet new board members? Linda: Some here, some will arrive over course of meeting. Hope to be able to introduce them at the reception on Monday evening. Not in full control of agenda. Protocol issues about agenda. Spain: Why can person represent multiple countries, Bulgary and Macedonia? (Veni Markowski.) Linda: Not representation, dual citizenship. (Unnamed nominating committee member in the audience: There's a role outside of GAC.) GAC chair appreciates efforts. Cultural balance. Problem: How to get more women involved?

Sun Jun 22 14:13:30 EDT 2003 #





This is the personal blog of Thomas Roessler.

It's mostly used for comments regarding ICANN, and matters of ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization and At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC).