Minutes
Regular Meeting of the Board
13 March 2001
INTERNET CORPORATION FOR
ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
13 March 2001
A meeting of the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was held on Thursday, 13 March 2001, at the Melbourne Exhibition & Convention Centre in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
The following Directors of ICANN were present: Vint Cerf (chairman), Amadeu Abril i Abril, Karl Auerbach, Robert Blokzijl, Ivan Moura Campos, Jonathan Cohen, Phil Davidson, Frank Fitzsimmons, Ken Fockler, Masanobu Katoh, Hans Kraaijenbrink, Sang-Hyon Kyong, Andy Mueller-Maguhn, Jun Murai, Alejandro Pisanty, Nii Quaynor, Michael Roberts, Helmut Schink, and Linda S. Wilson.
Also present at the meeting were Louis Touton, ICANN's Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary; Andrew McLaughlin, ICANN's Chief Financial Officer; and Joe Sims, of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue. The meeting was open to the public.
The chairman, Vint Cerf, called the meeting to order at 9:03 am local time (22:03 UTC on 12 March 2001).
Dr. Wilson moved, with Mr. Cohen's second, that the Board adopt the following resolution:
Resolved [01.14] that the minutes of the meetings of the Board for 25 September 2000, 17 and 31 October 2000, and 16 November 2000 (organizational meeting), are hereby approved and adopted by the Board as posted.
The resolution was adopted unanimously.
Recommendations of Reconsideration Committee
Mr. Kraaijenbrink moved, with Mr. Katoh's second, that the Board adopt the following resolution:
Resolved [01.15] that the Reconsideration Committee's Recommendations RC 00-6 and RC 00-7 are adopted for the reasons stated in those recommendations.
The resolution was adopted by a 17-0-2 vote, with Dr. Kyong and Mr. Mueller-Maguhn abstaining.
Mr. Kraaijenbrink moved, with Dr. Blokzijl's second, that the Board adopt the following resolutions:
Whereas, on 26 August 1999, in resolution 99.79, the Board established an ad hoc group to be charged with developing the objectives and proposing structures for future policies in the area of numbering, especially as required to meet global market needs and taking into account the convergence of information technology services and networks;
Whereas, an Ad Hoc Group on Numbering and Addressing was convened for discussion of these issues by way of a web-based public comment forum established for that purpose under the guidance of an editorial group;
Whereas, in the time since establishment of the forum various participants have made useful contributions to the web-based public comment forum on numbering and addressing issues, including an extensive report posted by Mark McFadden and Tony Holmes on 8 March 2001;
It is therefore
Resolved [01.16] that the Board refers the 8 March 2001 McFadden/Holmes report to the Address Council of the Address Supporting Organization for further consideration and development of recommendations as appropriate by that body;
Resolved [01.17] that the Board declares the work of the Ad Hoc Group on Numbering and Addressing completed;
Resolved [01.18] that the Board requests the ICANN staff to arrange for continued on-line archiving of the substantive postings of the Ad Hoc Group for a suitable period of at least one year; and
Resolved [01.19] that the Board thanks Mark McFadden, Tony Holmes, and the editorial group for their significant contributions to the work of the Ad Hoc Group.
The resolutions were adopted by a 16-1-2 vote, with Mr. Auerbach voting against and Dr. Kyong and Mr. Mueller-Maguhn abstaining.
Membership of At Large Membership Study Committee
Mr. Kraaijenbrink moved, with Dr. Wilson's second, that the Board adopt the following resolution:
Whereas:
[1] The chair and vice-chairs of the At Large Membership Study Committee have submitted to the Board a set of individuals to be members of the committee.
[2] The Board is pleased to note the strong credentials and diverse backgrounds of the nominated individuals.
[3] The Board has been notified that the chair and vice-chairs of the Committee may, in dialogue with the community, consider submitting to the Board for approval one or more additional individuals as committee members to provide missing skill sets, subject to the constraints of the committee's budget.
[4] It is resolved that the Board approves Pierre Dandjinou, Esther Dyson, Olivier Iteanu, Ching-Yi Liu, Thomas Niles, and Oscar Robles as members of the At Large Membership Study Committee.
Mr. Mueller-Maguhn stated that he felt that there is a need for more geographic diversity on the committee. He proposed adding "and geographic diversity" after "missing skill sets" in clause [3]. Dr. Blokzijl agreed that geographic diversity was an important value in all of ICANN's work, but did not feel that it should be singled out. Mr. Mueller-Maguhn withdrew his amendment, but the Board stressed that cultural and geographic diversity are important skill sets to be included.
Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired whether additions to the committee would be submitted to the Board. Dr. Cerf indicated that any changes should be. On further discussion, it was agreed to change "approval" in clause [3] to "ratification" and also change "approves" in clause [4] to "ratifies".
The Board then voted on the resolution as amended, which read:
Whereas:
The chair and vice-chairs of the At Large Membership Study Committee have submitted to the Board a set of individuals to be members of the committee.
The Board is pleased to note the strong credentials and diverse backgrounds of the nominated individuals.
The Board has been notified that the chair and vice-chairs of the Committee may, in dialogue with the community, consider submitting to the Board for ratification one or more additional individuals as committee members to provide missing skill sets, subject to the constraints of the committee's budget.
It is resolved [01.20] that the Board ratifies Pierre Dandjinou, Esther Dyson, Olivier Iteanu, Ching-Yi Liu, Thomas Niles, and Oscar Robles as members of the At Large Membership Study Committee.
The Board unanimously adopted the resolution.
Budget for At-Large Membership Study Committee
Dr. Cerf raised the topic of funding for the At-Large Study Committee. He noted that a resolution had been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Finance Committee and the At-Large Study Committee.
Dr. Wilson moved, with Mr. Kraaijenbrink's second, that the Board adopt the following resolution:
Whereas, Article II, Section 5 of the ICANN Bylaws provides for a comprehensive study of the concept, structure and processes relating to an "At Large" membership of ICANN;
Whereas, in resolution 01.11 the Board established a temporary Advisory Committee, known as the "At Large Membership Study Committee," to undertake this study;
Whereas, the At Large Membership Study Committee has presented to the Finance Committee a proposed budget for the study;
Whereas, the Finance Committee has reviewed that proposed budget and has made recommendations to the Board that funds be appropriated accordingly;
It is therefore
Resolved [01.21] that the President is authorized to expend funds of the Corporation in support of the At Large Membership Study in an amount not to exceed US$ 450,000 (of which US$ 100,000 has already been authorized by the Board) on direction of the Chair of the At Large Membership Study Committee, with the expectation that the Chair and members of the At Large Membership Study Committee will continue to expend these funds carefully in support of the accomplishment of the charter of that Committee.
Mr. Mueller-Maguhn inquired about the availability of additional funds for the At-Large Study Committee. Dr. Wilson noted that, if the At-Large Study Committee needed additional funds, it could address an additional request to the Finance Committee, but that limitations on available funds would constrain the ability of the Finance Committee and the Board to respond favorably to an additional request.
The Board unanimously adopted the resolution.
Proposed Revision to VeriSign Agreements
Dr. Cerf then raised the issue of the proposed revisions to the VeriSign agreements. He noted that the Board would take no substantive action at this meeting, but that it would consider a procedural resolution to schedule a telephone conference call to discuss the matter.
Mr. Cohen remarked that the rhetoric concerning the proposed revisions to the VeriSign agreements had been quite emotional. He stated his view that emotion should be set aside, and the question of whether to continue with the current agreement or to pursue the renegotiated agreement should be dispassionately considered. He stated his view that the proposed renegotiated agreement added certainty to the industry and would result in a generally increased availability of capital to companies in the registration business.
Mr. Mueller-Maguhn felt that the Board should receive the views from the constituencies, as well as additional legal advice, before proceeding. He felt that ICANN should make clear that it follows a policy that registries and registrars should be separately owned. Mr. Abril i Abril discussed the competitive aspects of the issue, with the help of a Powerpoint presentation. He stressed the need for the Board to be responsive to DNSO input in order to build legitimacy of the process. While the DNSO process has its flaws, it should not be bypassed. He argued that the common understanding, if not ICANN's written policy, is for separation of ownership of registrars and registries.
Mr. Auerbach acknowledged that Mr. Cohen's argument was sophisticated, but pointed out that Network Solutions/VeriSign had already enjoyed the role of registry for .com, .net, and .org since 1993. While he felt that in other circumstances the matter should be fully referred to the DNSO, he expressed doubt that the DNSO was currently prepared to handle the matter. Mr. Cohen stated he also felt the matter should be sent to the DNSO, but on an accelerated schedule in view of the imminent contractual deadlines.
Mr. Katoh regretted that there is not more time to carefully consider the issues, and to follow a full bottom-up policy-development process. He viewed it as the Board's responsibility to decide the matter on the merits of what is best for the Internet community, rather than delaying and letting the contractual schedule pass.
Mr. Fockler expressed his hope that the DNSO would provide whatever guidance it could in the time available. Dr. Wilson viewed the presence or absence of a policy on registry/registrar separation to be a matter that should be susceptible to a factual answer, based on documentation.
Dr. Campos supported reference to the DNSO. He discounted some of the criticism of the current process, noting that the staff's initiative in negotiating a revised agreement to present as one option for consideration by the community and the Board had been a constructive step. Various Board members discussed whether the renegotiated option could be further revised. In view of the looming contractual deadlines, some Directors stated that they did not believe that to be contractual.
Dr. Cerf reviewed his assessment of the option of the renegotiated agreement. He cited several benefits he believed the option presents over the current agreements. He suggested that the Board schedule a telephone call for 2 April 2001, which would give VeriSign adequate time to move forward on either track, but would also give the DNSO some time to consider and give advice.
Mr. Fockler moved, with Dr. Schink's second, that the Board adopt the following resolutions:
Whereas, a proposal has been presented to the Board for various revisions in the agreements among ICANN, Network Solutions, Inc., and the United States Department of Commerce that were approved on 4 November 1999 in resolutions 99.132 and 99.133 and were signed on 10 November 1999;
Whereas, the Board intends to consider what action, if any, to take on this proposal in its meeting to be scheduled for 2 April 2001 at a time to be confirmed;
It is therefore
Resolved [01.22] that the Board requests all members of the Internet community, including the Names Council and any of the constituencies and other participants in the Domain Name Supporting Organization, to provide comments on the substantive merits of the proposal no later than 31 March 2001;
Resolved [01.23] that the staff is directed to maintain through that date a web-based public comment forum for the purpose of receiving such comments.
The Board unanimously adopted the resolutions.
At this point in the meeting, Dr. Cerf departed, noting his thanks to outgoing President Michael Roberts for his service to the Internet community and his favorable anticipation of working with incoming President Stuart Lynn.
Dr. Pisanty then assumed the role as chair of the meeting and declared a brief break in the meeting. After the break, discussion of the proposed revisions to the VeriSign agreements continued. Dr. Pisanty noted that comments from the Board could assist members of the community in tailoring their comments to be most helpful to the Board.
Mr. Kraaijenbrink urged that the Board's consideration should focus on which option would be best in three years time. He drew upon his own experience in the liberalization of markets in the telecom industry, in which changing market conditions as liberalization progressed have convinced the competition authorities that the originally contemplated separation requirements (between equipment sales and telephone operations) are no longer relevant. He felt that strong "firewall" separations between registrars and registries was likely to be sufficient to preserve robust competition. He wondered whether any governmental competition authorities had serious concerns with the competitive aspects of the proposed renegotiated agreement. Absent such concerns, he felt that the benefits of the renegotiated agreement to the Internet community should prevail.
Mr. Auerbach noted that the NSI agreement was originally for five years, and consideration was now being given to extending the agreement again. He felt that the renegotiated agreement only makes sense if there is to be very dramatic expansion of the number of TLDs. He questioned the value to the Internet community of the claimed benefits of the renegotiated option.
Mr. Fitzsimmons felt that the resolution was appropriate because the DNSO should have an opportunity to express its opinion, but nonetheless the process should be completed within the time available under the present contractual structure. He expressed a desire to hear more about the advantages and disadvantages of the renegotiated agreements over the present agreements.
Mr. Roberts urged the Board (which he would leave at the end of this meeting) to base its decision on whether to agree to revise the agreements on its review of the relative benefits of the two options before it.
Mr. Touton suggested that the Board consider the following resolutions on the topic of new TLD agreements:
Whereas, in resolution 00.89 the Board selected seven proposals to operate or sponsor top-level domains for negotiations toward appropriate agreements between ICANN and the registry operator or sponsoring organization;
Whereas, in resolution 00.90 the Board authorized the President and General Counsel to conduct those negotiations on behalf of ICANN and, subject to further Board approval or ratification, to enter into appropriate agreements;
Whereas, the base agreements have been negotiated with the four selected unsponsored top-level domain registry operators (NeuLevel, Afilias, Global Name Registry, and RegistryPro);
Whereas, the base agreements and many of the associated appendices, as completed and agreed by the negotiators, have been posted for public comment;
Whereas, the Board has received a presentation from the General Counsel and the proponents on the progress and results of their negotiations;
Whereas, comments from the public have been received on a web-based public comment forum and at a Public Forum held on 12 March 2001;
Whereas, the Board has considered the posted agreement and appendices, the presentations, and public comments and finds that approval of the agreements is necessary and appropriate to further ICANN's purposes;
It is therefore
Resolved [01.24] that the President and General Counsel are authorized and requested to complete negotiation of the remaining unsponsored top-level domain appendices as soon as feasible and to post the resulting appendices on the ICANN web site, along with any minor corrections or adjustments to the base agreement and appendices as already posted;
Resolved [01.25] that the Board shall be notified of the complete posting of the agreement and appendices for any of the four unsponsored top-level domains (.biz, .info, .name, and .pro) and after that notification seven days shall be allowed for Board members to make any additional comments to the President and General Counsel;
Resolved [01.26] that in the absence of the request of any Board member to the contrary based on policy considerations, the President is authorized to sign the posted agreements after the conclusion of those seven days; and
Resolved [01.27] that upon signature of the agreements the President is authorized to take such actions, including causing reports to be made to the United States Department of Commerce, as appropriate to implement the agreements.
Mr. Kraaijenbrink moved, with Dr. Kyong's second, that the Board adopt the above resolutions.
Mr. Abril i Abril expressed his personal opposition to TLD agreements that do not require clear ownership separation for registries and registrars. Mr. Auerbach stated that he did not consider the negotiated agreements perfect, but he expressed his support for the resolution in view of the desirability of moving forward with new TLDs. Mr. Mueller-Maguhn stated his concern regarding Appendix O, which requires a public Whois service. He also expressed his concern about subsection 5.2.3, which provides for a successor registry operator to pay a potentially large fee to a replaced registry operator. Mr. Auerbach wished that the DNSO could provide timely advice on the agreements, but felt that the DNSO would not be able to do so. Mr. Cohen stated his view that the DNSO, in deciding not to comment on the agreements, maturely decided that it was best to allow the process to move quickly to accelerate the introduction of new TLDs.
The resolutions were adopted by a 17-0-1 vote, with Mr. Mueller-Maguhn abstaining.
Mr. Kraaijenbrink moved, with Mr. Cohen's second, that the Board adopt the following resolutions:
Whereas:
[1] The Board has received the DNSO Review report from the Names Council, and other materials on the subject.
[2] The Board also is informed that the Names Council has planned to address the results of the review in its business plan for 2001, beginning with an interim committee to establish terms of reference for further action.
Therefore it is resolved that:
[3] The Board asks the Names Council and other sources to separate their proposals into those that improve operations of the DNSO as it is constituted today and those which may result in changes in the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.
[4] The Board encourages input related to changes that improve operations of the DNSO as it is constituted today no later than 16 April 2001. The remaining set of actions will be scheduled at the end of that period.
Dr. Wilson inquired whose actions were referred to by the final sentence of clause [4]. That sentence was amended to reflect that the Board would take the actions.
Mr. Mueller-Maguhn proposed that the Board vote to introduce an individual domain-name holders constituency to the DNSO, according to Article VI-B, Section 3(d) of the bylaws. Mr. Auerbach supported the creation of such a constituency. Mr. Touton noted that the bylaws require notice to the community and consideration of comments before the Board can on its own initiative create a new constituency for individual domain-name holders. Dr. Kyong spoke in favor of permitting the DNSO itself to first consider the question of whether such a constituency should be created, with the Board reviewing that initial determination. Dr. Pisanty expressed support for this approach.
The Board then voted on the resolutions as amended:
Whereas:
The Board has received the DNSO Review report from the Names Council, and other materials on the subject.
The Board also is informed that the Names Council has planned to address the results of the review in its business plan for 2001, beginning with an interim committee to establish terms of reference for further action.
Therefore it is resolved that:
[Resolution 01.28] The Board asks the Names Council and other sources to separate their proposals into those that improve operations of the DNSO as it is constituted today and those which may result in changes in the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.
[Resolution 01.29] The Board encourages input related to changes that improve operations of the DNSO as it is constituted today no later than 16 April 2001. Further Board action on the basis of that input will be scheduled at the end of that period.
The Board adopted the resolutions by a 17-1-0 vote, with Mr. Auerbach voting against.
Mr. Davidson gave a report of the Audit Committee on five topics:
1. The Audit Committee has reviewed its charter and has no proposals for revision.
2. The Audit Committee considered the need for a process for Directors' access to records and, after considerable discussion, requested staff to prepare a proposed process and present it to the Audit Committee in 45-60 days for consideration.
3. The Audit Committee recommends a set of resolutions concerning check-signing authority (as shown below) in view of Dr. Lynn becoming ICANN President at the conclusion of the meeting.
Disbursement and Check Signing Authority
Following up on item 3 of Mr. Davidson's report, Dr. Schink moved, with Dr. Kyong's second, that the Board adopt the following resolutions:
Resolved [01.30] that the Vice President and General Counsel, Louis Touton, and the Chief Financial Officer, Andrew McLaughlin, and each one of them, may authorize disbursements of the Corporation's funds, and sign checks of the Corporation, in amounts of US$ 10,000 or less.
Further resolved [01.31] that, upon his taking office as President of the Corporation, M. Stuart Lynn may authorize disbursements of the Corporation's funds, and sign checks of the Corporation, in amounts of US$ 50,000 or less.
Further resolved [01.32] that, upon his taking office as President of the Corporation, M. Stuart Lynn 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.
Further resolved [01.33] that the authorizations to disburse funds and to sign checks as set forth in Board resolutions 00.35 through 00.38 shall cease to be effective as of the adoption of this resolution.
The Board unanimously adopted the resolutions.
Continuing with the fourth point in the Audit Committee report:
4. Mr. Davidson reported on the schedule for the audit for 1999-2000. The Audit Committee's conclusion is that it is important to begin the audit process earlier this year. The Committee therefore suggests that authorization to retain auditors be given now.
Mr. Fockler moved, with Dr. Blokzijl's second, that the Board adopt the following resolutions:
Whereas, the Board has received a report of the Audit Committee recommending that KPMG, LLP, be engaged to conduct an audit of the Corporation's financial matters for the fiscal year ending 30 June 2001;
It is therefore
Resolved [01.34] that KPMG, LLP, are appointed to conduct the annual financial audit of the Corporation for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001, for a fee not to exceed US$ 28,000 and to conduct selective reviews of ICANN's financial management for an additional amount not to exceed US$ 10,000; and
Resolved [01.35], that the President is authorized to enter an engagement letter with KPMG, LLP for this purpose.
The Board unanimously adopted the resolutions.
Continuing with the fifth point in the Audit Committee report:
5. Mr. Davidson noted that ICANN holds funds for the DNSO and disburses them according to the DNSO's directions. Although this process has been handled informally in the past, the Audit Committee feels it is important to regularize the process.
Mr. Kraaijenbrink moved, with Dr. Blokzijl's second, that the Board adopt the following resolution:
Whereas, the Audit Committee has reviewed and reported to the Board on the practices by which ICANN receives, handles, and disburses funds contributed to the support of the Domain Name Supporting Organization;
It is therefore
Resolved [01.36] that the President is authorized, until further action by the Board, to maintain a separate bank account for holding funds contributed to the support of the Domain Name Supporting Organization, to place in that account funds contributed for that purpose, and to make disbursements from that account upon authorization of the Names Council or its designee.
Mr. Auerbach noted that he had heard that the DNSO was considering moving the funds to a separate entity. He stated that there should be a well-documented process for ICANN's handling of the funds. He also noted that there are constraints on how ICANN can expend funds, which could cause difficulties if the DNSO gave instructions to expend monies contrary to those constraints. Mr. Touton noted that the resolution only authorized the President to disburse DNSO funds according to DNSO authorization, and that if a particular DNSO authorization constituted an inappropriate (illegal, etc.) payment the President was able to refuse, based on his general duties to ICANN, to make the payment.
The Board unanimously adopted the resolution.
Mr. Touton briefly reported on the status of the independent review process. The Board adopted an independent review policy in early 2000. The supporting organizations are in the process of selecting six individuals to appoint a nine-member independent review panel. Once the supporting organizations complete their selections, a series of steps will follow leading ultimately to full operation of the panels. Dr. Wilson asked the likely schedule for completion of the process of naming an independent review panel. Mr. Touton expressed his view that the process was proceeding, though some significant delays had been experienced. The sense of the Board was that efforts should be made to expedite the completion of the process of establishing the independent review panels. Mr. Auerbach abstained from this discussion in view of a pending request for independent review submitted by him.
Mr. Katoh inquired about the process for review of the Uniform Dispute-Resolution Policy. Mr. Touton stated there were two options available to the Board: (a) wait for the DNSO on its own to conduct the review and to give the Board its recommendations or (b) ask the DNSO to conduct the review and make recommendations on a stated schedule. It was agreed that the topic should be discussed in more detail at a future meeting. Mr. Katoh reported that he had heard of various proposals, including from representatives of the World Intellectual Property Organization, for revision of the UDRP, which should be considered. Mr. Katoh also noted the need to extend the UDRP to more prevalently involve proceedings in languages other than English.
Agreements with ccTLD Managers
Mr. McLaughlin reported on progress toward achieving agreements with ccTLD managers. He suggested the following resolution be adopted to spur the process:
Whereas:
Since the last ICANN meeting in November 2000, ICANN Directors and management have significantly increased the amount of time and effort dedicated to contractual discussions with ccTLD managers.
Successful ccTLD/ICANN meetings have been held in Honolulu, Geneva, and Melbourne, bringing the ccTLD community notably closer to consensus on the nature and elements of appropriate agreements with ICANN.
It is resolved that:
[Resolution 01.37] ICANN management is directed to press forward with continued vigor toward the completion of draft legacy agreements, and to pursue, as needed, acceptable ccTLD agreements in triangular situations.
Mr. Fockler stated his gratification that the process had moved into a diplomacy and negotiation phase. Mr. Fockler moved, with Dr. Wilson's second, that the Board adopt the resolution. It was adopted by a 16-0-2 vote, with Mr. Auerbach and Mr. Mueller-Maguhn abstaining.
Internationalized Domain Names
Dr. Kyong moved, with Mr. Kraaijenbrink's second, that the Board adopt the following resolutions:
Whereas:
The ICANN Board has begun to receive inquiries about its role and views with regard to the various efforts to internationalize the domain name character sets supported by the domain name system. In addition to the IETF's working group on internationalized domain names, several other initiatives to use non-ASCII characters for domain names have begun, including the VeriSign testbed for the .com/.net/.org registries, trials of non-ASCII character sets by ccTLD registries, and the marketing of internationalized domain name pre-registrations by private corporations and others.
The ICANN Board on 25 September 2000, approved a set of resolutions (00.77 to 00.80) relating to the VeriSign testbed. In those resolutions, the Board recognized the importance of the Internet evolving to be more accessible to those who do not use the ASCII character set. The Board emphasized that the internationalization of the Internet's domain name system must be accomplished through open, non-proprietary standards that are fully compatible with the Internet's existing end-to-end model, and that preserve globally unique naming in a universally resolvable public name space.
In advance of the Melbourne meetings, ICANN called for public comment on five general topics:
- Internationalized Domain Name Standardization and Testbed Deployment Process.
- Intellectual Property Considerations in IDNs.
- Relationship of Character Sets for Internationalized Domain Names to Their Parent Languages.
- Public Education and Outreach on IDNs.
- IDNs and ICANN Registry/Registrar Agreements.
Within the ICANN process, there has been increasing interest in – and concern over – issues surrounding internationalized domain names.
At its Melbourne meeting, the DNSO Names Council has adopted a business plan calling for the establishment of a task force to develop consensus policies for the implementation of internationalized domain names.
In its Melbourne communiqué, the Governmental Advisory Committee has reported that it will be forming a working group on internationalized domain names "to examine and report on issues for consideration."
The Board understands that the Root Server System Advisory Committee has begun discussions of the possible implications of these efforts for the operation of the root servers.
It is resolved:
[Resolution 01.38] The Board expresses its concern over likely confusion about the nature and implications of the numerous existing internationalization testbeds and pre-registration services, and urges wider and more intensive education and dialogue among the global Internet community.
[Resolution 01.39] In order to promote better understanding of the technical and policy issues surrounding the internationalization of domain names, the Board designates an internal working group consisting of Masanobu Katoh (chair), Vint Cerf, Karl Auerbach, and Ivan Campos to identify the various internationalization efforts and the issues they raise, to engage in dialogue with technical experts and other participants in these efforts, and to make appropriate recommendations to the Board.
[Resolution 01.40] The Board asks that the working group submit a report on its efforts at the next Board meeting in June.
Mr. Katoh stated his expectation that the report in June would be an initial report; Dr. Kyong confirmed that this was his expectation as well.
Mr. Abril i Abril stated that there are some urgent matters that should be completed before June, including a report by the Executive Committee and the staff on the circumstances that led to the adoption of resolution EC01.6 and clarification of how the first-come/first-served principle would apply to the VeriSign IDN testbed.
Mr. Auerbach expressed concern that the VeriSign testbed is in fact a market foray, rather than a carefully controlled testbed. He hoped that clarity would emerge as to whether participants in the VeriSign testbed will in fact be grandfathered into post-testbed IDN registration activities. Dr. Murai noted that implementation of IDNs presents many technical challenges, but that other challenges may take longer to resolve. He noted the need to focus on user education about IDNs. Mr. Fockler expressed his support for the resolutions, but noted that ICANN is (currently) not an Internet users protection organization and should make that clear to users. Mr. Cohen felt the Board had a duty to investigate matters quickly and pass information on to users.
Dr. Campos inquired about the expectations for longevity of the working group. He noted that resolution of all IDN issues could be a protracted process. Mr. Katoh stated his view that the group should be focused on better understanding the present circumstances. Mr. Davidson, Dr. Murai, and Mr. Auerbach expressed the view that the working group's task was directed at collecting information.
A vote was taken, and the resolutions were adopted unanimously.
Mr. Cohen reported on the just-completed, first meeting of the Meetings Committee. He announced that an ICANN meeting will be held in Montevideo, Uruguay, from 6-10 September 2001, subject to confirmation of schedules. The Committee also discussed whether there should be three or four meetings each year. At least for 2002, the Committee will recommend four meetings to enhance outreach. Planned locations are in Africa (28 February - 4 March 2002), Eastern or Central Europe (13-17 June 2002), Asia/Pacific (5-9 September 2002), and North America (5-9 December 2002).
Mr. Abril i Abril voiced his support for three meetings per year, to promote better preparation. Mr. Kraaijenbrink stated his view that promotion of outreach is best accomplished by four meetings each year. Mr. Roberts reported that the 2001 annual meeting is scheduled for 12-15 November 2001.
Thanks to Local Hosts and Sponsors
Mr. Fockler moved, with Dr. Schink's second, that the Board adopt the following resolutions:
[Resolution 01.41] ICANN is grateful for the excellent work of our local hosts, and for their tireless—and voluntary—contributions to the successful organization of the ICANN Melbourne meetings. On behalf of all participants, the Board thanks the members of the Australian national host committee:
Tony Hill, ISOC-AU (Chair)
Greg Crew, ICANN
Peter Gerrand, Melbourne IT
Sam Hendry, Melbourne IT
Eli Fried, Maddock Lonie & Chisholm Lawyers
Craig Ng, Maddock Lonie & Chisholm Lawyers
Chris Disspain, auDA
David Thompson, auDA
Jo Lim, auDA
Tony O'Dea, Multimedia Victoria
Samantha Smith, Multimedia Victoria
Nikki Vajrabukka, NOIE
Jeremy Thomas, NOIE
Robin Savory, NOIE
Peter Coroneos, IIAtogether with Jonathan Ricketts of Organisers Australia.
[Resolution 01.42] ICANN is grateful to the local and international sponsors of the Melbourne meetings for their generous contributions:
The National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE)
Multimedia Victoria
Melbourne City Council
auDA - .au Domain Administration
Melbourne IT Limited
Telstra
Ericcson Australia
Cisco Systems
Cybersource
Maddock Lonie & Chisholm
Verisign
NativeNames.net
i-DNS.net International
The resolutions were unanimously adopted.
Thanks to Lennie and Mike Roberts
The Board then voted on the following resolution:
Whereas:
Mike Roberts today completes his service as ICANN's first President and Chief Executive Officer;
Since October 25, 1998, Mike has devoted 869 days, 13 hours, and 25 minutes of unbroken effort to the ICANN cause;
His energy, fortitude, and good humor in the face of overwhelming demands have been essential to the successful establishment of ICANN; and
As a direct result of his efforts ICANN is now universally acclaimed as "not as bad as it could be";
It is therefore
Resolved [01.43], on behalf of the ICANN community, the Board expresses its deepest gratitude to Mike Roberts for his tireless dedication to the Internet's highest ideals of public service and
Resolved 901.44] with equally deep appreciation the Board thanks Lennie Roberts for her patience and tolerance and all the many trips to San Francisco airport.
The resolution was adopted by acclamation, except that Mr. Roberts abstained. There followed a standing ovation.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:28 pm local time (01:28 UTC on 13 March 2001).
_______________________
Louis Touton
Secretary
Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site
should be sent to webmaster@icann.org.
Page Updated
02-Jun-2003
©2003 The Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers. All rights reserved.