ICANN Accra Meetings
Web Log of #ICANN
IRC discussions 		#icann

This page was last updated on March 15, at 14:30 GMT.

On this web page, you can find logs from the discussions which took place on the #ICANN IRC channel on irc.dal.net during the course of the ICANN Board Meeting in Accra, Ghana, on March 14, 2002. On the channel, interested individuals discussed the current events taking place at the Accra ICANN meeting, and GA co-chair Alexander Svensson provided Scribe's notes from the meeting.

A log of part of the conversations and scribing during the Public Forum on March 13 is also available. Thanks a lot to Alexander Svensson, who provided unofficial Scribe's notes for that day, too!

This web page will continue to be updated occasionally, as official minutes and materials about the meeting are published by ICANN.

Update: The full preliminary report is now available on ICANN's web site.

Thomas Roessler

The ICANN Board Meeting on Thursday, March 14, 2002


Agenda

The meeting took place from 0900-1500 Accra time (GMT).

For details, see also ICANN's Agenda Page for the Accra Board meeting.

The meeting was also webcast. ICANN's official webcast information is available here.  It has been reported that ICANN plans to make the recordings available as soon as possible after the meeting.

Text of Resolutions

Update: ICANN has posted a preliminary report, which contains the correct text of resolutions passed.  Links to the official versions of the various resolutions have been added to the list of resolution titles below, and to the list of vote results..

The draft resolutions below were made available by Karl Auerbach early in the board meeting. They may reflect a drafting status different from the one used as the basis of the participants' discussion, and are only presrved here for historic completenes. Please refer to the official text of the resolutions as made available on the ICANN web site for the wording.

Resolutions passed: Vote Results

The links with the resolutions' titles point to ICANN's preliminary report.

The Chat Log

Time stamps are one hour ahead of Accra local time (GMT).

Time stamp: Wed Mar 13 19:43:07 2002

<tlr>

A short explanation of the time stamps in the web log may be in order: Time stamps are added upon users joining the channel, or public messages. There are always _at_ _least_ ten minutes between two time stamp entries.

<tlr>

Also, whenever a time stamp is logged, the following notice is sent to the channel, but not logged to the web page:

<tlr>

"Notice: Everything that's said on this channel is logged to http://does-not-exist.org/icann-log.html"

<tlr>

I hope that the web version of the log turns out to be helpful.

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 04:50:06 2002

<adam[]>

icann sucks.

<adam[]>

iana stinks,

<adam[]>

w00t.

<adam[]>

bleh.

<adam[]>

I wish there were some ICANN experts in here that I could talk to.

<adam[]>

But alas, there are none

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 07:42:22 2002
Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 08:16:30 2002
Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 08:33:38 2002
Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 09:06:58 2002

<joop>

Hi Thomas, thanks for the notice.

<joop>

Was that the same yesterday?

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 09:23:44 2002
Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 09:35:11 2002

<GaryOsbourne>

not here, just logging

<joop>

Hi karl, did you get the sql file already?

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 09:45:20 2002

<tlr>

Good morning. Was the schedule for the meeting changed, or is this just preparatory chatter?

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 09:55:49 2002

<tlr>

Karl: could you possibly provide some scribing? All I get is a video feed.

<karl-a>

I can't scribe, I'm on the phone to Ghana. I don't know if any of you are getting this.

<karl-a>

Who of you have seen the proposed resolutions?

<tlr>

The real-time scribe notes (which are almost unreadable) look like a proposed resolution on the At Large is passing through. I have not seen the text of that resolution.

<karl-a>

It effectiely eliminates the at-large.

<tlr>

It does not seem to be available on the web site, yet.

<karl-a>

It appears to not be posted.

<tlr>

The real-video feed is also gone.

<karl-a>

I put the resolutions up at: http://www.cavebear.com/tmp/resolutions1.pdf

<karl-a>

and http://www.cavebear.com/tmp/resolutions2.pdf

<tlr>

Thanks, will mirror at http://does-not-exist.org/accra-resolutions/

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: [re-reads last paragraph of proposed resolution]

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 10:05:50 2002

<asvensson>

Jonathan Cohen: Like to make a point. Sensitive matter to a lot of the community. This motion had the most discussion and debate. Very difficult decision.

<asvensson>

Jonathan Cohen: Many people on the Board like the principle, of elections. Some do not

<asvensson>

Jonathan Cohen: Read motion very carefully. Does not foreclose issue for all time

<asvensson>

Jonathan Cohen: Subsequent Boards free to reconsider any aspect.

<karl-a>

Apparently the version I posted isn't the same they are talking about.

<asvensson>

Amadeu: First of all, I have never been convinced that online elctions are best mechanism to a) adress Internet user participation and b) as a mechanism for populating the Board.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Firmly convinced that user participation is very important.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Critical to encourage community to build representative, strong and workable participation structures for ICANN.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: I'm not saying only I don't want online elections. I want a real membership structure.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: I want strong voice, and I want these voices being organized.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Uncomfortable about the way this Board has dealt with At Large issues.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Have received lots and lots of efforts. Have been delaying things too much. Fed up with short-term political concerns.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Version Louis sent out last night is not the one which is discussed.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: All other Board members similarly impaired.

<asvensson>

Last paragraph: Resolved that the Board Committe on ICANN Evolution and Reform, working in conjunction

<asvensson>

with the President and staff, is instructed to ensure that their ongoing efforts

<asvensson>

at crafting a blueprint for ICANN reform include (a) workable mechanisms and procedures

<asvensson>

than enable meaningful opportunities for participation by the full range of Internet

<asvensson>

users, including individuals, academic institutions, large and small businesses, non-commercial

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 10:15:54 2002

<asvensson>

entitites (including consumer groups), and other non-governmnetal organizations,

<asvensson>

(b) an appropriate role for those interests in ICANN's

<asvensson>

coordinating and management structures

<asvensson>

and (c) appropriate mechanisms to minimize disruption

<asvensson>

during the reform implementation process

<asvensson>

---- THIS WAS THE LAST PARAGRAPH ----

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Last paragraph changed. Resolved that Board Committee on ICANN Restructuring...

<BenEdelman>

Sorry to interrupt scribing -- hope we all have big screens so this isn't too intrusive -- but am I the only one with solid static in place of streaming audio from the webcast? Tried two different otherwise-healthy computers, etc.

<joop>

Ben, its the same for all of us

<tlr>

Ben: You're not the only one. Alexander's scribing is, right now, the only available source of what is being said in Accra.

<BenEdelman>

Incredible. Were I at work rather than at home, I'd try to webcast audio through a conference call split feed off of Karl's teleconference (if he were willing), but that's infeasible given my need to sleep. (And Karl -- or ICANN staff! -- might not appreciate it.)

<alexandersvensson>

Andy Müller-Maguhn: What we do here is to give a job of possible At Large election to Board committee

<alexandersvensson>

Andy Müller-Maguhn: Would like subcommittee (of Restructuring Committee) of organization of At Large election

<alexandersvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: Then I want seven other subcommittees.

<alexandersvensson>

Andy Müller-Maguhn: [repeat] Want to add to last paragraph: That the Board Restructuring COmmittee creates a new subcommittee for At Large organization

<karl-a>

If possible could someone enter the text of the amendment into this IRC?

<alexandersvensson>

Nobody seconds

<joop>

i think karl wants the organization to take place outside icann

<karl-a>

On the screen in Accra.

<joop>

that's why he doesn't second

<karl-a>

I'm being told that no amendment has actually been moved yet. If a second is needed could someone note it here?

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 10:27:35 2002

<alexandersvensson>

Andy Müller-Maguhn: Another proposal, but if you don't want that, you don't want that either.

<alexandersvensson>

Andy Müller-Maguhn: A mechanism for election or selection of At Large directores who will represent the At Large membership on the Board

<alexandersvensson>

Andy Müller-Maguhn: A mechanism for election or selection of At Large directors to succeed the current At Large directors

<alexandersvensson>

who will represent the AT Large membership on the Board

<alexandersvensson>

[Not yet seconded]

<alexandersvensson>

[Yes, but Sang-Hyon just seconded to ask a question]

<alexandersvensson>

Sang-Hyon Kyong: Q to Andy. Assume that timing of Committe's action on this particular point related to the time frame aftrer the expiration of the terms of the current members?

<karl-a>

Could someone in accra let them know that the phone link to Linda W. and myself has gone down

<karl-a>

and that they are trying to reconnect.

<alexandersvensson>

Andy MM: Currently, nine people's terms expire end of November

<alexandersvensson>

Andy MM: Until that point, this should take place.

<alexandersvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Serious problem with proposition and general view of At Large membership.

<alexandersvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Point which I agree with Stuart Lynn is need to overcome perceived dangers.

<alexandersvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Problem with representative model is each Board m3embers is here to represent a special interest.

<alexandersvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: Should not create special positions for special interest groups.

<alexandersvensson>

Jonathan Cohen: This is a matter that's been canvassed pretty thoroughly on this Board

<alexandersvensson>

[Told Louis]

<alexandersvensson>

Jonathan Cohen: Would be wrong to hamstring such a committee

<alexandersvensson>

Andy MM: Want to point out two things.

<alexandersvensson>

Andy MM: We should watch the impact of what ICANN does

<alexandersvensson>

Andy MM: We would need a half sentence additional here to extend the terms of the directors.

<alexandersvensson>

Andy MM: Know that this requires changed to Bylaws

<alexandersvensson>

Vint Cerf: Might simply call attention to the need to take action about those directors in a timely way.

<alexandersvensson>

Karl Auerbach: If we do not have At Large Board members at the time when an At Large is discussed, we're going to have the same problem we've had all along

<alexandersvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Those interested in creation of public participation aren't parties to the discussion.

<alexandersvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Create some means for ensuring there is meaningful participation

<alexandersvensson>

Stuart Lynn: All directors understand the need to do the right thing.

<alexandersvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Reality is: Everything needs bylaws change, which has to be drafted very carefully.

<alexandersvensson>

Vint Cerf: Vote on amendment

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 10:37:51 2002

<alexandersvensson>

[Amendment on last paragraph: "(d) a mechanism for election or selection of

<alexandersvensson>

At Large directors to succeed the current At Large directors

<alexandersvensson>

to succeed..." [etc.]

<alexandersvensson>

[Majority against amendment]

<alexandersvensson>

Linda Wilson: Sounds to me like amendment require reform committe to come up a reform that makes a provision for some kind of atlarge membership on the board

<alexandersvensson>

Linda Wilson: Positive

<alexandersvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Yes

<alexandersvensson>

Vint Cerf: 5 yes, 12 against

<alexandersvensson>

Vint Cerf: Now back to full resolution

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: Yesterday at Public Forum, there was some intervention, asking view particularly from At Large directors.

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: Very difficult question for all of us.

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: Proud of being At Large member.

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: Thanks to election, great emotional tie to community, especially in the AsiaPac region.

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: Met during that time almost all other candidates. With many of them, I'm now working together for the common goal of stability of the Internet.

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: Election very important start point

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: To be very honest, I don't think -- for the selection of Board of Directors -- elections is the best way at this point.

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: Can select good group of people by some other means.

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: All director colleagues are wokring for the general issues of the Internet; we are all At Large directors.

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: When I was running, I had five promises at www.mkatoh.net

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: 1. stabilizing ICANN.

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: I'm from a country where English is not the first language.

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: Suggested to creat a local ICANN supporting organization of communities.

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: If I read correctly ASLC paper, something similar suggested.

<dpf>

Evening

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: My fourth point was about the election. I already menetion importance of reviewing and adjusting election mechanism

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: Lastly, I emphasized IDN issues.

<joop>

evening david, this is our only lifeline to what's said

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: Have to get confident on ICANN activities by making ICANN a more stable organizations.

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: When we talk about At Large, we have to think about the At LArge as a group.

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: Have to be careful to hear from people who are not in this room.

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: SHould revisit election issue in several years.

<dpf>

Yes one could get paranoid that they refuse to pay for remote participation at the very same meeting proposals to get rid of at large is pushed

<alexandersvensson>

Masanobu Katoh: At this point, I don't think election is the way forward.

<alexandersvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Much has been said.

<alexandersvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Unfortunate that so much of the rhetoric surrounding what goes on in ICANN tends to get cast in "Win/Lose".

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 10:47:56 2002

<alexandersvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Have to work more towards a dialogue where we all work together to win.

<dpf>

Who is Katoh?

<tlr>

Japanese at-large director, elected.

<alexandersvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Hard for people who have worked passionately and very hard for many years towrds something they very deeply and sincerely believe in.

<alexandersvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Resolution as a starting point

<alexandersvensson>

Stuart Lynn: ICANN had not too much participation, but too little.

<alexandersvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Litmus test of participation is not whether 20, 50, 5000 or 100000 people vote,

<alexandersvensson>

Stuart Lynn: but it's in terms of the diversity of dialogue, input, communication, ideas.

<alexandersvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Don't think online elections are wise at this point -- no statement for eternity.

<joop>

And who is the judge of the quality of the dialogue?

<alexandersvensson>

Stuart Lynn: My fear is that even as conceived, we will have organizations that don't reflect the richness and divserity

<alexandersvensson>

Stuart Lynn: of viewpoints that are around in the world.

<alexandersvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Am opposed to elections right now.

<joop>

Then what will be the role of the at large?

<alexandersvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Committed to r4each out and work with those of you who are interest in building the right kind of partoicipation and involvement.

<alexandersvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Not with polarizing rhetoric

<alexandersvensson>

Karl Auerbach: This is hardly Win/Win, this is Win/Major Lose.

<alexandersvensson>

Karl Auerbach: What do our constituencies win? Nothing.

<alexandersvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Resolution says ICANN is not a democratice public institution, but a paternalistic oligarchy.

<alexandersvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Not failure of technology or procedure, it's a failure of will.

<joop>

Well, at least that's honest :-)

<alexandersvensson>

Karl Auerbach: What have management done for planning elections.

<alexandersvensson>

Karl Auerbach: All we heard that we have the Grand Reorganization Plan which removes public even further from ICANN

<alexandersvensson>

Karl Auerbach: My prediction then that there will not be an ICANN in 18 to 24 months.

<alexandersvensson>

Linda Wilson: Could not quite hear.

<joop>

Three years of work down the drain

<alexandersvensson>

Linda Wilson: Much has been said by Katoh-san and Stuart.

<dpf>

Oh dear just read archive and 12-5 vote. Looks to be all over for at large.

<karl-a>

Don't forget that I said that this resolution transforms ICANN into an a paternalistic oligarchy, a return to imperialism, a resurrection of the concept of "the white mans burden".

<alexandersvensson>

Linda Wilson: As I read this resolution, take serious parts of it that indicate that Board wishes to move forward with informed participation of the full range.

<alexandersvensson>

Linda Wilson: Problem whether we are on the same page on ICANN's mission.

<alexandersvensson>

Linda Wilson: Mission must be accepted and a process for modifying the mission. Cannot run organization without mission change as the world changes.

<alexandersvensson>

Linda Wilson: Trying to create an organization out of whole cloth.

<alexandersvensson>

Linda Wilson: In favour of this resolution.

<alexandersvensson>

Linda Wilson: Come to it from four years of working as an initial At Large member.

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 10:58:28 2002

<tlr>

ah, there's audio feed.

<asvensson>

Ivan Moura Campos: Different views and boundaries of mission depending on people you talk to

<asvensson>

Ivan Moura Campos: We should clean this up once and for all

<asvensson>

Ivan Moura Campos: Some consistency in the words of people who believe that it should be very, very, very strictly technical.

<asvensson>

Ivan Moura Campos: Inserting a new domain takes 12 seconds, but the consequences are enormouse. Boundaries are not easy.

<asvensson>

Ivan Moura Campos: For some people whose energy, good will, they should do it in some other organization.

<asvensson>

Ivan Moura Campos: ICANN is a technical organization. As such, it is arguable whether ot not it should have elections.

<asvensson>

Nii Quaynor: Sensitivity to coupling with broader reform.

<asvensson>

Nii Quaynor: Prefer that At Large does not appear to be subsumed by the new proposal for the reform.

<asvensson>

Sang-Hyon Kyong: As resolution stands, it creates one uncertainty.

<asvensson>

Sang-Hyon Kyong: Up until this time, there was the possibility of having an election this year to select/elect At Large directors whose terms are expiring this fall.

<asvensson>

Sang-Hyon Kyong: The wording of this particular resolution -- I refer to the last whereas clause.

<asvensson>

Sang-Hyon Kyong: This possibility of having an election this year is virtually eliminated.

<asvensson>

Sang-Hyon Kyong: Uncertainity the elimination creates is what will happen to those seats that are presently held by the At Large directors.

<asvensson>

Sang-Hyon Kyong: In event that reform does not take place at the time of the expiration of the rems of there people

<asvensson>

Sang-Hyon Kyong: Serious concern. Board well advised to make that uncertainty taken off and clarified.

<joop>

That's right. Time to call a spade a spade.

<asvensson>

Sang-Hyon Kyong: Amendment: "Resolved that ... in the event the reform being under discussion presently which may call for restructuring of the board does not take place before the expiration of the At Large directors presently serving, then Board is committed to do what it can, what it should to extend the terms of those Board members until

<asvensson>

such reform is finalized or implemented"

<asvensson>

[Andy seconds]

<tlr>

That's non-binding language. :-/

<karl-a>

One of the things that is not being discussed is the fact that the 4-ever-continuing board members call themselves "at-large" directors.

<asvensson>

Hans Kraaijenbrink: Q to Sang-Hyon Kyong: Where in present resolution are concerns not covered?

<asvensson>

Hans Kraaijenbrink: Reads that Board avoids disruption in the governance of the corporation.

<joop>

karl are you still on the phone?

<karl-a>

Yes, I'll be on the ;phone for the entire meeting.

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Don't know that there are proposals on the table that call for restructuring the Board as

<asvensson>

Hans Kraaijenbrink: opposed to the reforming of ICANN.

<asvensson>

[Oops, that was Stuart, not Hans]

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 11:08:37 2002

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Due notice!

<tlr>

Errm, wait a moment - we won't have elections because there was no due notice of proposed bylaw changes? how very nice.

<asvensson>

Ivan Moura Campos: Minutes make clear that we will not have this happen.

<asvensson>

Ivan Moura Campos: For sake of clarification, why not.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: [reads]

<asvensson>

[See Sang-Hyon Kyong text]

<asvensson>

Jonathan Cohen: Briefly say that completely agree with Ivan, but highest unlikelyhood that we will let this happen. I strongly oppose the amendment; it's just unnecessary; should not hamstring this way.

<tlr>

Cerf: Bylaw change can be implemented in time in Bucharest.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Support amendment in concept.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: But rather vague.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Call for vote

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: on amendment

<asvensson>

[Andy yes, Sang-Hyon yes]

<asvensson>

[Linda no, Karl yes]

<asvensson>

[All others no]

<asvensson>

[one abstention]

<joop>

who?

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Back to primary discussion of entire resolution.

<karl-a>

My point was that given ICANN's snail like processes, it is unlikely that any reorganizion would be made by the end of the year.

<tlr>

Ivan absatained.

<asvensson>

Alejandro Pisanty: Coming back to what Ivan said about elections where democracy has been developing.

<asvensson>

Alejandro Pisanty: E.g. one of the ways the PRI has seemed to win elections by bringing electors to very rural regions.

<asvensson>

Alejandro Pisanty: Whoever can increase the electorate, wins the election.

<tlr>

This is, quite frankly, outrageous.

<asvensson>

Alejandro Pisanty: Am uncomfortable not to know who is speaking.

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 11:18:42 2002

<asvensson>

Alejandro Pisanty: Strongly catalyzed movement which is weeding out people who don't seem to have a real stake in making things work

<asvensson>

Alejandro Pisanty: Support Rob Blokzijls comment to define our mission. Finalized in terms of this mission what is at stake for the different groups

<joop>

is that what Pisanti advocates?

<asvensson>

Alejandro Pisanty: As soon as real domain deletion policy was addressed yesterday, the room was one third empty.

<vbertola>

hi guys - thanks to thomas for letting the ALSC list know about this channel :-)

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Alejandros comment illustrate the point I'm going to lead to.

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Karl -- you passionately believe that the way of bringing At Large issues to the table are online elections.

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Litmus test is not whether you are a member of the Board, you surely agree.

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Absolutely untrue that there is no contingeny planning for At Large elections.

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Also due to the very hard work of Denise Michel, elections could certainly happen.

<asvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: Remind the Board -- plane to catch at 10.20 pm on Saturday.

<asvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: Want to spend reasonable time on the real issues. Dancing around with deck chairs in our arms.

<asvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: Completely lost what we are doing right now. No new arguments.

<asvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: I call for a vote.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Should discuss this as long as we have to.

<joop>

The vote does no more than reflect how this Board is constituted.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Regarding Ivan's comment on technical comments. We are doing policy.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Picking the color of the carpeting in the passenger cabin, not picking pilots.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Yes, we want qualified voters. US history: After freeing slaves, massive restricitions imposed on them.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Lead to manipulation of vote.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Entering a very difficult area.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Hard to find the right tool.

<asvensson>

[vote on whole resolution]

<asvensson>

14 in favour, Karl against, Andy and Sang-Hyon abstain

<asvensson>

-- break --

<asvensson>

-- will be back afterwards --

<tlr>

Karl: Is this the text you forwarded, or is it different? If the latter, what are the differences?

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 11:30:18 2002

<karl-a>

The resolutions that I posted are correct except that there is a missing paragraph on the one that just passed. That paragraph says something about the reconfiguraiton panel doing stuff.

<karl-a>

It's really hard talking into a half duplex telephone! ;-)

<vbertola>

karl, do you think that the situation could change if we actually had a working At Large organization in place? It is what I asked to Vint yesterday,

<vbertola>

and he answered "yes, maybe elections could happen once you demonstrate you have a working organization". It is possibly just an excuse,

<tlr>

Just to make sure I'm getting this right - what we are talking about right now is the ALC resolution, right?

<vbertola>

but at least it would remove yet another argument to them.

<joop>

Vittorio, what does "working" mean if there is no clear goal?

<vbertola>

I partly agree on the fact that elections are not the only goal of an At Large organization.

<joop>

Why would anyone want to give his time, if it's not going to directly influence policy?

<vbertola>

I guess we are only left with the harder way: first, we demonstrate we can make intelligent contributions to the whole thing, and then we try to get the elections.

<WilliamXW>

the influence comes only from the elections, though

<vbertola>

and, for the first time in my life, I agreed with Pisanty when he

<vbertola>

told that there is more interested in the elections matter than in the actual policy discussions.

<joop>

talked about manipulating elections?

<vbertola>

(I hope I won't agree with him again in my life :-) )

<vbertola>

no, of course 99% of what the board members said, except Karl, was junk

<joop>

Actually, comparing the at large population with the mexican countryside does make a point..

<vbertola>

but anyway, we only have a few choices in front of us:

<vbertola>

1) we are disappointed, f**k off ICANN, everybody go home and have a beer

<tlr>

vbertola: I think that the argument he used was flawed. You'll always have people who specialize on certain issues. In this case, we (rightly so!) have some people specializing on vote issues on the meeting.

<tlr>

What, precisely, is wrong about that?

<vbertola>

well, I know that most of us interested in At Large do so because we are also very interested and passionate about the policy issues.

<vbertola>

but I have the feeling that this is not true for everybody, and we should be careful to keep in our mind that the At Large thing is an instrument to get good policy.

<joop>

correct. But how many have fallen off, burt out or chased off?

<joop>

burnt

<ColPanicX>

killed

<WilliamXW>

I guess that depends on if you see the At-large as providing policy input, I really don't, I see it's role more as electing representatives to the bodies who will do that

<vbertola>

so... to continue... alternatives are

<vbertola>

2) we claim that ICANN is illegitimate and we wait hoping that the US government will send them home

<tlr>

vb: Once again, what's wrong about some people fighting to get elected directors onto the board, even if those people are not that interested in .pro?

<joop>

that may happen anyway

<vbertola>

3) we build an At Large org without any more precise purpose than having it in place, and then go back asking for board seats

<WilliamXW>

vbertola: your #2 would require that those who feel that way do more than talk about it, and actually fund and initiate legal action to make it so

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 11:40:19 2002

<ColPanicX>

karl - have you submitted your resolutions yet?

<vbertola>

yes: #2 seems impossible to me, or at least not depending on ourselves... don't think that the USG will be particularly interested in our arguments

<vbertola>

especially a Republican government :)

<WilliamXW>

arguments alone won't cut it

<WilliamXW>

actually your chances are better with the republican government that the demos, the demos are more likely to like the kind of government oversight position lynn's proposal creates

<vbertola>

well... I'm not American, I am already enough fed up with Italian politics :-)

<WilliamXW>

:)

<vbertola>

ok, so... why don't we try #3? we won't be able to get thousands of members without any assurance for elections, but we can try.

<joop>

We must give them a clear goal

<tlr>

Alexander: Do you have any idea when and where the passed resolutions will be published?

<vbertola>

my goal is: we were told that individuals cannot have a voice in the internet administration because they were not well organized and the elections were a failure.

<vbertola>

so we build it, then we claim for the voice. if necessary, not only with icann but also with other orgs on the matter (wipo?)

<joop>

Funny that nobody made any mention of whaty will now happen to the DNSO and its restructuring

<WilliamXW>

vbertola: I concur with your view, however there are problems with that as well that need to be addressed

<vbertola>

if you build a credible org, then you can gain weight even without being formally recognized.

<vbertola>

of course it must be credible, open, well functioning, not captured, not questioned, not burning in flame wars...

<WilliamXW>

exactly

<WilliamXW>

credible and open

<WilliamXW>

and inclusive

<joop>

The org must have a Mission Statement. What will it be?

<vbertola>

and inclusive, yes. if there is more than one, we're lost.

<WilliamXW>

simply to organize itself

<WilliamXW>

it must be kept as simple as possible

<vbertola>

yes: to organize itself and represent the voice of the individual internet users.

<karl-a>

I have the resolutions up on my web site temporarily at: http://www.cavebear.com/tmp/resolutions1.pdf and http://www.cavebear.com/tmp/resolutions2.pdf

<joop>

thank karl

<ColPanicX>

have you submitted them?

<WilliamXW>

vbertola: that may even be too much

<tlr>

karl: Is that the same text I already have, or is it a new version?

<WilliamXW>

an at large is representive of all, internet users and others who are interested

<vbertola>

karl: what would you do if they say "we won't have at large elections any more, but we're going to make you a director for life"?

<ColPanicX>

time to vent, karl...

<ColPanicX>

go for it

<vbertola>

WXW: yes... there is a basic point about being an org of individuals, or an org of orgs, or an org of both (which might be the better way)

<tlr>

smae text

<WilliamXW>

language like that invites more talk of excluding poeple as many were trying to do recently in the icannatlarge.com thing

<vbertola>

no, absolutely. no exclusions.

<vbertola>

one step at a time. now we elect a small panel with a limited mandate, because we have to take decisions even now, and we have to have an elected group to be open.

<WilliamXW>

well ICANN has basically admitted it is a failure

<WilliamXW>

and that it cannot operate under the terms dictated by the DoC

<asvensson>

Hey there! Did you see what Bret did with the ICANN Blog?!

<vbertola>

no, didn't.

<tlr>

oh.

<asvensson>

Look! http://www.lextext.com/icann/

<karl-a>

I fell off the world, what is being discussed right now?

<tlr>

<body bgcolor="#000000" text="#000000">

<tlr>

</body>

<vbertola>

nice...

<joppenheimer>

Hello y'all

<ColPanicX>

hi j

<joop>

hi judith

<vbertola>

sorry karl, we were chatting about how to proceed in creating an at large organization.

<vbertola>

hi judith

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 11:50:25 2002

<joppenheimer>

Nothing like getting up at 4:30 in the morning, just to have your face broken.

<vbertola>

not everyone will notice the "Last updated during the Accra Board meeting" message :-)

<vbertola>

joppenheimer: heh... I had to stay up at night for Japanese and US meetings, now fortunately we are in an European time zone :-)

<karl-a>

We talked last night about how to form one. My perspective was this: Stop trying to be electronic, get out to business groups, users of local community ISPs, colleges, churches, schools - folks interested in .org - and talk to 'em, face to face.

<tlr>

asv: Is that a temporary change, or a persistent one?

<asvensson>

Thomas -- Don't know. Bret just told he is very disappointed.

<vbertola>

karl: I agree. but you have to build an org or better an org including all orgs and individuals who want to participate,

<tlr>

asv: He's not the only one to be that. Heck, it can't be true that I have to give a bad Ben Edelman imitation right now to get anything out there.

<vbertola>

and it has to be online-only or you won't be able to let them participate.

<karl-a>

Hey, I am very disappointed - I won't be on the board, nor will anyone be able to follow me.

<joop>

Karl, you need a very powerful lure to get people in. The Board elections was one. But now, what?

<karl-a>

This resolution is simply an early implementation of Stuart Lynn's reorganization plan - there is a resolution to come later on to abolish the independent review panel, another goal of Stuart's plan.

<vbertola>

joop: "fight for your rights"? if you depict it very concretely (ie tied to .org management or name availability) it might succeed

<ColPanicX>

what's the deal with the un ict initiative?

<asvensson>

http://www.icannchannel.de/ just went black, too.

<joppenheimer>

From my POV, icann is on the road to adopting lynn's reform report, until its voted in, they vote out whatever isn't in lynn's plans.

<ColPanicX>

"A shrewd conqueror will always enforce his exactions only by stages... The more numerous the extortions thus passively accepted, so much the less will resistance appear justified in the eyes of the people, if the vanquished nation should end by revolting against the last act of oppression in a long series. And that is especially so if the nation has already patiently and silently accepted impositions which were much more exacting"

<karl-a>

One does not "lure" people in, one goes out and get's them. The web mentality simply does not fly, one has to think of how Daley and Tammney did it in Chicago and New York.

<vbertola>

asv: are we going to have a "blackened sites" campaign and go to the press?

<asvensson>

http://www.icannchannel.org just went black.

<joop>

karl, that approach needs funding, lots of it

<asvensson>

Can someone talk to Michael Froomkin about icannwatch.org?

<vbertola>

karl: yes. you can start from what is already there - but you have to be very open to be able to keep together very different people from different cultures, countries and interests

<joppenheimer>

Since there is already some public opposition to lynn's report (has anyone seen press supporting it?), I'd tie in loss of public representation and direction elections, with stage 1 of adopting lynn's report. Perhaps that would get some attention.

<tlr>

asv: I'm not sure it's agood idea to take all information off the net. Rather produce some macaber version of the logo which people can put onto their pages.

<vbertola>

or maybe have a small white link to get to the real site.

<joppenheimer>

Attention of press, and comprehension of lay public.

<asvensson>

I can't do it from here -- if you do, I can talk to Bret.

<asvensson>

Thanks to Joop for linking to the log.

<joop>

did you see it on the icannatlarge homepage?

<asvensson>

Yep.

<joppenheimer>

What color ribbon represents curing the ICANN cancer?

<joop>

Now let Kendall make a good animated ICANN logo for the site :-)

<karl-a>

I really don't want to get into organizational techniques here - we ought to have a separate chat to discuss that.

<tlr>

I have just submitted a story to icannwatch. Let's hope that froomkin gets up timely.

<joppenheimer>

tlr, if you want to send it to me to, I'll put it up on ICB now.

<joop>

karl, I agree.

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 12:00:56 2002

<vbertola>

how do we do? I think we will have to come to a panel or small list (no more than 15-20 people) which includes people with ideas on how to proceed with the organization.

<joop>

What time does the break end?

<karl-a>

It's ending now.

<asvensson>

Quite soon.

<joop>

Still no audio feeds here

<asvensson>

Not all directors have returned yet.

<tlr>

jopp: Check your mail. That's pretty much the same thing I submitted to icannwatch.

<joppenheimer>

ok.

<tlr>

Just saying "go there for a scribe and resolution drafts, and see icann.BLOG for how people feel about all this."

<tlr>

Please don't slashdot me... ;-)

<vbertola>

i was just going to slashdot you, of course :-PPP

<tlr>

Please don't.

<tlr>

That would kill the internet connectivity of that site.

<asvensson>

Is the webcast working?

<vbertola>

for example: it would be great to have slashdot link icannatlarge.com... but only after we clarify the situation and we are able to put a set of coherent information up there. at this time we're not even able to tell people exactly why they should register.

<asvensson>

Next agenda item. Evolution and Reform Committee

<tlr>

webcast is working.

<asvensson>

Moved by Rob B, seconded by Hans K

<asvensson>

Agenda order:

<asvensson>

Evolution and Reform Committe resolution

<joppenheimer>

I can't get in, link not found.

<asvensson>

Security COmmitte charter

<asvensson>

LACNIC application

<asvensson>

Thank yous

<asvensson>

Lunch break

<asvensson>

.org reassignment

<asvensson>

.pro agreement

<asvensson>

.info geographic names

<asvensson>

redemption grace period proposal

<asvensson>

Independent Review Panel implementationRetention of Auditors.

<asvensson>

Now: Evolution and Reform Committee resolution

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 12:10:59 2002

<asvensson>

Resolved that the name of this Board Committe is changed to the Committe on ICANN Evolution and Reform.

<asvensson>

Resolved that (timeframe 31 May to be considered at Bucharest meeting)

<asvensson>

Resolved that (framework should deal with:

<asvensson>

list of essential functions, form of public-private partnership, meaningful participation and input from informed Internet users,

<asvensson>

ways the components function together, checks and balances to ensure effectiveness and openness,

<asvensson>

ways in which essential components that may not be able to be fully incorporate at the start can be incorporated later,

<joppenheimer>

Is this the first time resolutions weren't posted to ICANN's site, at least a couple of hours prior to the board meeting?

<asvensson>

and more)

<karl-a>

As far as I know this is the first time that there has been no public posting of the proposed resolutions.

<asvensson>

[Can't type as fast as Vint reads]

<asvensson>

Usually, they were at least published beforehand on the Berkman server, or not?

<tlr>

of course.

<tlr>

Alexander: Welcome to the Poor Berman Center Emulation team. ;)

<joppenheimer>

Karl, isn't there some formality regarding time frames for posting resolutions?

<joop>

Besser than nossing :-)

<asvensson>

I always paid highest respect to Ben and Rebecca -- now I really see what tremendous job they were doing.

<asvensson>

<sigh>

<karl-a>

I was not allowed to submit two resolutions in Stockholm becasue of an ad hoc 48 hour requirement.

<asvensson>

Andy Müller-Maguhn: "Public-private partnership" in resolution is already the answer to the question

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Not unreasonable.

<asvensson>

Andy Müller-Maguhn: Instead "appropriate form of public participation in the ICANN process".

<vbertola>

why did the Berkman Center stop to follow ICANN? is it final or just for this meeting?

<tlr>

The log is at 118kB now. Ouch.

<joppenheimer>

ICANN chose not to retain Berkman.

<joppenheimer>

Budget cutting, I was told.

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Strike "the appropriate form of public-private partnership"

<asvensson>

Andy Müller-Maguhn: Okay.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: First figure out the scope of the organization. Can't take a trip until you know where you're going.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Define what our scope is.

<asvensson>

Helmut Schink: Independent Review process -- may lead to reject a proposal which is on the table later.

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 12:21:01 2002

<asvensson>

-- sorry, have to stop scribing for a short time --

<joppenheimer>

Thomas, check your email.

<tlr>

no more feed.

<ColPanicX>

lost it here too

<joppenheimer>

feed down.

<tlr>

note that asv left, too, so this most likely means a Ghana power or network outage.

<joppenheimer>

Or Lynn reached down and pulled the plug.

<joppenheimer>

Karl, that ad hoc 48 hours on your resolution, is there anything in the bylaws specifying a timeframe for resolution notice and comments?

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 12:31:40 2002

<alexandersvensson>

Karl Auerbach

<alexandersvensson>

Karl, we can hear you

<joppenheimer>

does anyone have the feed again?

<joop>

nope

<tlr>

no

<tlr>

feed is back

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Attempt to serialize things is an attempt to put porcess ahead of substance.

<asvensson>

[Vote on Karl Auerbach amendment]#

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Bothered by arbitrary distinction. ICANN is in serious trouble because we've put off process.

<tlr>

what is the amendmend about?

<asvensson>

Jonathan Cohen: Recommend to call for a vote.

<asvensson>

Thomas -- not begin to consider reform issues until written statement and public + Board comment

<asvensson>

Vote: 4 in favour.

<asvensson>

Back to original resolution.

<asvensson>

Now voting on Committee resolution (see http://does-not-exist.org/accra-resolutions/resolutions1.pdf)

<asvensson>

Vote: 14 in favour, 1 opposed (Karl), 1 abstention (Andy)

<asvensson>

Next item: Charter of Security Committee

<asvensson>

See http://does-not-exist.org/accra-resolutions/resolutions1.pdf page 9

<asvensson>

err, page 6

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 12:41:50 2002

<asvensson>

The Charter itself is on http://www.icann.org/accra/sec-comm-topic.htm

<asvensson>

Resolution moved and seconded.

<asvensson>

Helmut Schink: Where is the charter?

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Timeframe for composition of Committee?

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: About 20 distinguished individuals

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Could transition from President's committee to Board committee at Telecon meeting

<joppenheimer>

They just approved ICANN Staff Draft: Toward a Statement of the ICANN Mission?

<asvensson>

Vote: 16 in favour, Karl opposed.

<asvensson>

No!

<asvensson>

This is about the Security Committee Charter.

<asvensson>

Next item: LACNIC application.

<asvensson>

Ivan Moura Campos: http://does-not-exist.org/accra-resolutions/resolutions1.pdf page 7

<joppenheimer>

I thought Vint said it was the doc posted March 10. No?

<asvensson>

No, posted 7 March

<joppenheimer>

OK, thanks for clarification.

<karl-a>

The reason I opposed the security committee is that I don't think we need it.

<tlr>

The feed has gone again.

<asvensson>

LACNIC application moved and seconded.

<karl-a>

The security committee will simply become a committee of "names" and, given ICANN's, unwillingness to adopt even simple security measures see: http://www.cavebear.com/rw/steps-to-protect-dns.htm

<asvensson>

Alejandro Pisanty: Disclosure: Not member of LACNIC Board.

<asvensson>

Alejandro Pisanty: Could be changed to "conditional approval"?

<asvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: Conditional status should help LACNIC to convince members to switch, mainly from ARIN.

<asvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: Conditional in that framework.

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Collaboration between LACNIC and ARIN incredibly impressive.

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Agree that approval be conditional, too.

<joop>

WXW "works" at 4 a.m.? I'm off to sleep. Let's talk on IRC later.

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 12:52:00 2002

<asvensson>

[Resolved that the Board gives its approval conditioned on the LACNIC application for recognition and transition plan etc.]

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: LACNIC application has already been received.

<asvensson>

Andrew McLaughlin: Have discussed. "Conditional approval" is compromise language.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Go back to original wording.

<karl-a>

What concerns me about this RIR stuff is that the issue of IP address allocation has potential ramificaitons (economic and structural) on the internet that are much larger than those of the domain name system.

<asvensson>

[Changed to: "provisional approval"]

<danny1>

Karl, will you be at the upcoming ARIN convention?

<asvensson>

Vote: Everyone in favour except Karl (abstaining)

<asvensson>

Correction: Three abstentions

<karl-a>

I'm abstaining because I don't know enough about this particular matter to make an informed decision.

<asvensson>

[APPLAUSE]

<asvensson>

Vote: 14-0-4

<asvensson>

NO! Vote: 14-0-3.

<asvensson>

:)

<asvensson>

Next item: Thank you's.

<tlr>

who are the other abstentions?

<asvensson>

I think Ivan abstained (conflict of interest); not sure whether it was Andy.

<asvensson>

Nii Quaynor: [reads answer to message from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan]

<asvensson>

Vote: In favour

<asvensson>

Next resolution "Thanks, Etc."

<asvensson>

Alejandro Pisanty: Underline appreciation for remote access for Linda and Karl (pocket version of jet lag)

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 13:02:24 2002

<karl-a>

I hear much applause. What's up?

<asvensson>

[Nii Quaynor receives white box containing a glass globe]

<asvensson>

Vote: in favour

<asvensson>

One abstention: Nii.

<asvensson>

Next item: Thanks to Paul Twomey and Australian government

<asvensson>

Moved and seconded.

<asvensson>

Andy Müller-Maguhn: Should be judged by GAC. GAC not transparent.

<asvensson>

Acclamation

<asvensson>

Next item: Resolution to Thank Agence de la Francophonie

<asvensson>

for simultaneous translation to French

<karl-a>

I didn't know we were doing that. That's really good.

<asvensson>

Adjourn at 1:30. Hasta la vista!

<joppenheimer>

That's what time in NY?

<karl-a>

Lunch Break.

<danny1>

7:10AM

<karl-a>

We resume in about 75 minutes from now.

<tlr>

see you then.

<joppenheimer>

OK. (Danny, its 7 am in ny now.)

<danny1>

Even my clock is sleeping

<danny1>

Judith, your reaction to the morning's events?

<karl-a>

It's a nice quiet 4am here in Santa Cruz. I think our near-hurricane winds have died down for the night. It got pretty "interesting" earlier today.

<karl-a>

My Reaction: ICANN is committing corporate suicide.

<vbertola>

are you sure? it seems that if no one will go there and kill icann, they will be quite happy to stay there forever.

<karl-a>

Killing the at-large is going to cause a major reaction in the US government. And the forthcoming dismantling of the independent review panel will further discredit the organization.

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 13:12:36 2002

<danny1>

Agreed

<karl-a>

ICANN needs fuel - and that fuel is money. And that money comes from the MoU with the US department of Commerce.

<karl-a>

Imagine an ICANN with no revenue - what will pay for Jones Day? Who will pay for all the ego-building pontification at venues around the world?

<karl-a>

Sure, the corporate skin may remain, but without the US Gov't providing the bones, ICANN would become an empty bag.

<joppenheimer>

Lynn reform report is being voted in by voting out anything that's not in it.

<karl-a>

Right, we have seen the "reform plan" take its first steps, the eradication of the at-large and the forthcoming elimination of the IRP.

<vbertola>

so you go for my #2 option... you think that the USG will kill ICANN. When and how?

<karl-a>

I'm going to grab something to eat. Sheesh is my body clock screwed up!

<karl-a>

My sense is that Congress will be outraged, or rather that enough Congress critters will be outraged, to get the Bush administration to do something.

<karl-a>

Moreover, if Stuart's plan were to be adopted, it would entail asking the US to cough up about a million dollars. Now it may be that the Dept of Commerce can scrounge up those funds maybe once without getting Congress involved, but doing it multiple times will cause

<karl-a>

the appropriations power of Congress to give it a great big lever.

<danny1>

Under the security umbrella funding will find its way into the ICANN coffers

<joppenheimer>

US gov doesn't want to lose root, and lynn is taking bold steps to do just that.

<joppenheimer>

I hope it sees that, and cans icann. (My mantra: better to have some accountability, than none; some due process, than none.)

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 13:23:14 2002

<joppenheimer>

Gary, what are your thoughts?

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 13:56:33 2002
Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 14:01:58 2002

<tlr>

I have just posted the consolidated versions of the At Large and Restructuring Committee resolutiosn Alexander sent me.

<joppenheimer>

where?

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 14:16:37 2002

<tlr>

joppenheimer: http://does-not-exist.org/reform-resolutions.txt

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 14:28:50 2002

<joppenheimer>

resolutions now posted here: http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm

<tlr>

great

<danny1>

What's on the after-lunch agenda?

<asvensson>

Next topic: .org

<asvensson>

Danny -- .org, .pro, .info-Geo-Names, Redepemtion period, IRP, auditors

<karl-a>

Are things getting started again?

<danny1>

In a few minutes... waiting for Directors to return to dais

<asvensson>

Not yet.

<asvensson>

All resolutions are up on the ICANN page, Louis just tells us.

<karl-a>

It's starting.

<tlr>

have added link.

<asvensson>

Great.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: [reads .org resolution]

<asvensson>

http://does-not-exist.org/accra-resolutions/resolutions1.pdf page 5

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 14:39:52 2002

<asvensson>

Amadeu moves, Rob seconds.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Item is relationship with DNSO NC recommendation

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Questions. Here, we don't say anything clear about the recommendation.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Oppose some of the recommendation

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: DNSO report good piece of work.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Too weak on technical requirements, but can be solved.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Secondly, assumption made is that registry should fund different activities -- I oppose that.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: DNS should not be mechanism for funding alternative initiatives, even well-intended.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Taking money from noncom. registrants. DNS should not be a money-making mill for any political-orientend activity.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Registry Op should run .org for benefit of .org registrants.#

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Other question. Report says somehow that the basic activity marketing of the .org difference.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Surprised that marketing is main activity of non-comm registry

<asvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: Make clear that Board and Staff understand the fact that this is different from creating a new TLD. Don't have much freedom from technical point of view.

<asvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: Whoever will run .org inherits 3 mln people and organizations.

<asvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: E.g. International Red Cross depends on it.

<asvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: Not many organizations that have a demonstrated experience in running a registry with 3 mln registered names.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Resolution seems to avoid dealing with questions fought over: Open for noncommercials or for everyone.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Incorporate principles agreed by DNSO in Board resolution

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Perhaps most important: no eligibility requirements.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Maybe identify key issues which should be captured.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Alternative to capture the sense of this conversation.

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Guidance from the Board would be very helpful.

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Either I can try to divine what I sense is how the Board feels or

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Board is a little more precise.

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Disagree with Amadeu on marketing -- e.g. universities are marketing for students.

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 14:50:22 2002

<asvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: .org and .com created at the same time. .com for commercial, .org for noncommercial organizations.

<asvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: In a more simple Internet space, it was impossible to draw a clear line.

<asvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: You will find nonprofits under .com, profits under .org.

<asvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: Second point, impossible to give a proper definition of not for profit organization.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Nature of organization that undertakes to run .org should not have to be for profit or not for profit.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: VeriSign endowment only applicable in the event that non profit organization selected.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Should explicitly recommend against any special provision for support of activities not specifically relevant to operating .org domain.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Any organization (profit or not for profit) should be free to execute good works.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: No restriction for .org registrants.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Recommend to Staff to show preference for a not for profit registry.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: to function on a cost-basis analysis of the price.

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Preference to organization who either directly or indirectly can demonstrate operating experience

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Possibility that much better service to a noncommercial community can be afforded by an efficient registry

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: take words of James Love

<asvensson>

Sorry, last two comments by Alejandro Pisanty

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Convey view to President by way of a sense of a Board rather than editing resolution.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Any objection that a well-functioning .org is paramount and that should be a major criterion?

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Don't care whether for profit or not for profit registry operator.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Important that .org registrants are not subjected to externally applied criteria

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Will be next criteria

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 15:00:34 2002

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Any disagreement with putting no eligibility requirements on registrants?

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: No prior examination. But perfectly possible that declaration regarding noncommercial nature of use is put into registration agreement.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Ex-post dispute system. Not favouring, but much more easily feasible.

<asvensson>

Alejandro Pisanty: Underline that it is something that goes into the content of whatever is registered and not into the domain name.

<asvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: Vast majority of commercial world is not interested in .org.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Still makes things harder.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: VeriSign agreement comes with a timetable closes on 31st December 2002.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Trying to accomplish transition in an expeditious way.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Straw poll -- declaration of noncommercial use or unconstrained?

<asvensson>

[supported by Amadeu, Andy]

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Next question -- divert any excess funds to good works. Recommend not to do that.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: No disagreement.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Finally, any reason to show preference for non-for-profit organization?

<asvensson>

[Amadeu says yes]

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: So leave it open.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Any additional guidance at this time?`

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Last point was mentioned in DNSO recommendation. Just note that Board gives different advice.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Advice is advice, and the Board is making the decision.

<asvensson>

Nii Quaynor: Recommend operator able to handle to scale.

<asvensson>

Vote: Unanimous agreement.

<asvensson>

Next item: .pro agreement

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 15:10:39 2002

<asvensson>

http://does-not-exist.org/accra-resolutions/resolutions1.pdf page 6

<asvensson>

Moved by Stuart Lynn, seconded by Jonathan Cohen

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Yesterday, I raised small concernc about some specific clauses.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Don't know how we will proceed here.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Raise expectations about future change of the TLD; [Amadeu is talking WAY too fast :-)]

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Heard statements that substance now is rather at variance with what was submitted when applied.

<asvensson>

Linda Wilson: Differences posted online.

<asvensson>

Jonathan Cohen: Appreciate Amadeu's remarks, have been conveyed to the President.

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Section concerned 2.6. "Possible future allowance of second-level registrations" -- only with ICANN approval.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: I recognize.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Don't like open door.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Sufficient to be alert to confusion if no restrictions on .pro sublevel domains.

<asvensson>

Rob Blokzijl: I think it's not a workable idea, but let them find out.

<asvensson>

Nii Quaynor: What is a profession anyway

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 15:21:02 2002

<asvensson>

Vote: All in favour, Karl abstains.

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: When signed, this completes 7 new TLD agreements. Would like to thank for patience registries, Louis Touton, Joe Simms.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: What to do with funds from TLD applications?

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Yesterday, projected $323k left. Barely enough to cover evaluation and litigation costs.

<tlr>

What, precisely, was the objective of the vote in the .org section? Was the resolution accepted, with the modifications discussed?

<asvensson>

Thomas -- Yes. No modifications in the resolution, only clarification as guidance.

<asvensson>

Next item: .info Country Names

<tlr>

thanks. Will add note to web page.

<asvensson>

http://does-not-exist.org/accra-resolutions/resolutions2.pdf

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Strike "such" in second resolution.

<asvensson>

Jonathan Cohen moves, Hans Kraaijenbrink seconds.

<asvensson>

Vote: 14 in favour, Karl opposed, Amadeu and Andy abstain.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Short comment. We may discuss a lot about the role and weight of governments.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Vast majority thinks that this idea was a really bad idea. But the governments really want that?

<asvensson>

Next item: Redemption grace period.

<asvensson>

http://does-not-exist.org/accra-resolutions/resolutions1.pdf page 8

<asvensson>

Jonathan Cohen moves, Amadeu Abril i Abril seconds.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: Make it explicit: This is not a purely technical problem. Staff tries to preserve the legitimate interest of the registrants.

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 15:31:30 2002

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Question. Really a good idea. Why authorizing President, not giving it to DNSO?

<asvensson>

Louis Touton: Mainly a timing issue. To be implemented until September, software release by May. DNSO would be unable to do so in all likelihood.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Ask for DNSO input?

<asvensson>

Alejandro Pisanty: NC Chair has posted a very aggressive meeting schedule. Would not prejudge it.

<asvensson>

Linda Wilson: Incorporate encouragement to President to engage quickly with DNSO.

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Within two weeks.

<asvensson>

Amadeu Abril i Abril: This is a technical steering group.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: But maybe aspects which we haven't thought of?

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Think we have to have language referring to the DNSO in the resolution.

<asvensson>

Vote: unanimous

<asvensson>

[BTW, someone just showed me the press release on ICANN's At Large decision. Hope someone will publish it soon.]

<asvensson>

Next item: Independent Review Panel nomination.

<asvensson>

http://does-not-exist.org/accra-resolutions/resolutions1.pdf page 7

<asvensson>

Hans Kraaijenbrink moves, Helmut Schink seconds.

<asvensson>

Alejandro Pisanty: Standards set for IRP constitution are too high.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: NomGroup had 3 people were active, 3 people with no vital signs -- something deeper?

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: No, was hard to populate NomCom, hard to populate Ind Rev Panel

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 15:42:08 2002

<asvensson>

Linda Wilson: Chaired IRP Comittee. Found it an exceedingly difficult thing to find a way to achieve the goal which was narrow but required a level of competence and diligence; tried hard to find workable proposal.

<asvensson>

Linda Wilson: Difficulties all along the way. Disappointed that we did not find workable solution.

<asvensson>

Linda Wilson: Need to go back to drawing boards.

<asvensson>

Helmut Schink: Looking at nominees. 6 of 9 come from US and the other one from Canada.

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Maybe turn to international organizations dealing with legal profession.

<joppenheimer>

ICANN issued a press release: ICANN BOARD APPROVES INDIVIDUAL INTERNET USER PARTICIPATION, CALLS FOR

<joppenheimer>

ORGANIZATION OF AT-LARGE MEMEBERSHIP

<joppenheimer>

ICANN BOARD APPROVES INDIVIDUAL INTERNET USER PARTICIPATION,

<joppenheimer>

CALLS FOR

<joppenheimer>

“GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY!”

<joppenheimer>

does it get any sleezier?

<asvensson>

Vote: 12 in favour, Helmut Schink and Andy Müller-Maguhn abstain, Karl Auerbach opposed. Rob Blokzijl out of the room.

<danny1>

Spin and damage control

<asvensson>

Next item: Auditors.

<asvensson>

http://does-not-exist.org/accra-resolutions/resolutions1.pdf page 9

<joppenheimer>

“We are still moving forward from where we were, although we have not

<joppenheimer>

yet

<joppenheimer>

reached our goal of regularly elected At-Large directors,” said Esther

<joppenheimer>

Dyson,

<asvensson>

Andy Müller-Maguhn: Who controls KPMG? Are we changing auditors regularly?

<asvensson>

Stuart Lynn: Should change periodically, difficult to find a major auditing company willing to audit ICANN.

<joppenheimer>

now that's an interesting admission.

<asvensson>

Phil Davidson: Did discuss this in the Audit Commission. SIgnificant value to ICANN in retaining people with experience.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: Observation. Haven't found them to be particularly capable, unique or otherwise desirable.

<asvensson>

Karl Auerbach: In fact, awful.

<asvensson>

And

<asvensson>

Andy Müller-Maguhn: Either change periodically or someone cross-checking it.

<asvensson>

Vote: 14 in favour, 1 opposed (Karl), 2 abstentions (Andy, Stuart)

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Mention that some desire to convene another Board retreat.

Time stamp: Thu Mar 14 15:52:23 2002

<asvensson>

Vint Cerf: Reiterate thanks to organizers, scribes etc.

<asvensson>

>>> ===--- CURTAIN ---=== <<<

<karl-a>

Wow we survived. OK folks let's get the real at-large organized!!

<WilliamXW>

do we call for the encore now? :)

<tlr>

I'll stop the logging of this channel now.