(thanks Ellen)
Hey, anybody remember this?
IFWP Consensus Summary
1. Objectives / Principles
1.1. The processes of the new entity shall be open and transparent,
utilizing the Internet to this end to the fullest extent
possible.
1.2. The entity shall be limited to its enumerated powers.
1.3. The entity shall strive to minimize barriers to entry.
1.4. The entity shall work to assure the stability of Internet.
1.5. The entity should recognize that individuals and organizations have
concurrent and legitimate rights in names that are not based in trademark.
1.6. Early consideration by the entity of the creation of appropriately
structured new gTLDs, linked to the needs of the business and user
community.
1.7. Competition in the registration market and early opening of the
InterNIC registries to all qualified registrars.
1.8. Access to the name space should be open on a non-discriminatory basis.
1.9. The Entity shall be a not-for-profit organization.
1.10. Latin America and Caribbean is a region, together with North
America, Europe and Asia-Pacific, with equal obligations and rights, based
on the geographic, cultural and language singularities.
2. Powers of the Entity
2.1. The following consensus were achieved:
Fees for the use of Protocols may not be established. It is proposed that
different quotas be established according to the Organization or the Region
to which it belongs. These differences in quotas will not award
differentiated voting rights. Donations that may influence the fulfilling
of the mission statements of the Newco may not be accepted.
2.2. The Board of Directors always has the final decision. The initiative
for proposing organizational activities can come both from the Board of
Directors and from the specific Councils.
2.3. The Board shall have the power to set policy regarding IP numbers
through a bottom-up procedure where entity
councils make proposals that the Board may accept or veto.
2.4. The Board shall have the power to set policies and procedures to
maintain a coherent root zone system.
2.5. The Board shall have the power to set policies and procedures for
delegating TLDs, including ccTLDs and gTLDs.
2.6. Names Council Alternative Wordings:
2.6.1. All sectors and individuals with legitimate interests in the
Internet must be represented therein. The amount of members must be such as
to enable it to operate well. No country must have an advantage over
another in the resolution of conflicts between domain names within a given
gTLD. The council will be empowered to establish policies and general
procedures to be fulfilled by the TLDs (gTLDs and ccTLDs).
In case of conflicts over the administration rights of a ccTLD, the Names
Council will propose resolution mechanisms. The
specific norms of administration of each ccTLD will be determined in each
jurisdiction following upon consensus of users
and stakeholders in the Internet. The Names Council will establish
criteria to define the concept of jurisdiction.
2.6.2. The Names Council will handle trademark/domain name interactions;
set minimum standards for the contact data
required for domain name registrations; consider standards of privacy in
relation to registration data; consider issues
relating to the protection of the new entity from liability based on Newco
recommendations/decisions; make policy
recommendations.
2.6.3. All gTLDs to be operated by shared not-for-profit registries on a
cost recovery basis. Restoration of the InterNIC registries to a
not-for-profit operation on the basis of the announced agreement between
the US Government and NSI.
Early consideration by the new entity of the creation of new gTLDs.
2.6.4. The Names Council will recommend new gTLDs and gTLD policies;
will make points of advice and
recommendations to the Board for all TLD matters; will provide a forum for
discussion among gTLD and ccTLD registries
and registrars, and a forum for dispute resolution between and among them;
will recommend general and specific
conditions for operation and management of TLDs, existing or new.
2.7. The Board shall have the power to set policies and procedures to
assign technical parameters.
2.8. The Board shall have the power to set technical policies and
procedures including the coordination of the Internet
domain name system and the oversight of registrars and registries.
2.9. The entity shall have the power to set policies and procedures to
determine its own organizational structure and
finances.
3. Structure of the Entity
3.1. The Entity shall have councils with their supporting organizations.
3.2. IETF should be the supporting organization that appoints the Protocol
Council. It is expected that the IETF would be
likely to appoint the IAB as the Protocol Council.
3.3. There will be a Names Council. The Names Council's powers will be
limited consistent with Board powers. The Names
Council will have the non-exclusive power to nominate Board members. The
Names Council will propose best practices for
registrars. The names council will exercise all of its functions with
respect to specific registries, consonant with the business
practices and law of the countries of the registries.
3.4. The Entity shall have a Board.
3.5. Decisions about technical policies must be approved by a relevant
council prior to the Board's decision to accept or
reject. (Strong support but not full consensus.)
3.6. The Board may propose matters to be considered by the councils.
3.7. The Entity shall have a Membership. Membership should be broad and
include both business and consumer representatives.
3.8. Members shall elect the Board.
3.9. Members shall have the non-exclusive right to nominate Board candidates.
3.10. Members may vote to remove Board members.
3.11. There shall be two different processes for the nomination and the
selection of the Board members.
3.12. The Board of Directors must be integrated in such a manner as to
ensure the representativity of regions, interests and
activity areas, and the regions must have significant representation
therein. Election procedures must be designed to
preclude domination by any specific stakeholder group.
3.13. There was consensus that the Entity should have, as primary members,
organizations that represent the interests of
sectors, and that the delegation of voting rights (proxy) be forbidden in
order to avoid supremacies. There was favourable
opinion that individuals be members, but not until precise mechanisms be
established regarding their admision and
representativity.
3.14. The governments will not participate as such within the Newco,
except through their organizations related to activities
in the Internet.
3.15. Address/Numbers Council (Alternative Wordings)
3.15.1. The regional address registries will be on the Address Council.
There was consensus that there should be a
process by which the Board can extend the Address Council to include
bodies other than RIRs. New regional registries
should be represented on the Address Council. The Board of the IANA will
have the right to exclude members of the
Address Council if they don't meet IANA's openness requirements.
3.15.2. The Numbers Council will be exclusively made up by all the RIRs,
current and future, and these must ensure the
participation of the various Internet stakeholders within each of them. It
was expressly mentioned that mechanisms were
absent allowing for the participation of the region stakeholders in ARIN.
4. Entity Responsibilities
4.1. The new entity should cooperate with TLD registries to form databases
of up-to-date registration and contact
information for all SLDs.
4.2. The entity should encourage the development of various rapid
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
4.3. The entity itself does not resolve trademark / domain name disputes.
4.4. The need to preserve transparency in the management of Newco is
stressed. To collaborate in this objective, an appeal
instance for interested parties should be created, for those cases where
it is found that normal mechanisms are
unsatisfatory, similar to the functions of an Ombudsman, who has a free
hand to act, independent from the Board of
Directors.
5. The Interim Board
5.1. There will be an Interim Board.
5.2. The Interim Board will establish the new Entity.
5.3. The Interim Board will validate the Membership.
5.4. The Interim Board will validate the election process.
5.5. The Interim Board will oversee the Election of the Initial Board.
5.6. Termination of the Interim Board
5.6.1. Six Month target
5.6.2. Extension Possible
5.6.3. No Later than 30 September 2000
5.7. The Initial Board should be structured such that all members are not
eligible for the final Board for a specific period of
time or terms, and that the Initial Board should be phased out gradually
to guarantee continuity.
5.8. In view of the declaration proclaiming a LA&C region (see 1), ample
participation in the formation of the Interim Board
will be sought. Taking into consideration the short lead time left for the
formation of this Board, consensus is reached
regarding the fact that this Region can contribute members with required
professional profiles, be they legal, business or
technical, to the Interim Board.
6. Recurring Issues
6.1. Top-down vs. bottom-up relationship between Board/Councils/Membership
6.2. Centralized vs. decentralized relationship between Entity and registries
6.3. Narrowly prescribed Board powers vs. Board discretion re powers
6.4. Degree of Membership involvement
6.5. Mechanics of membership/representation
6.6. Funding/ownership structure
6.7. Non-profit vs. other corporate structure, implications for
liability/accountability
6.8. Selection of Interim Board
6.9. Propriety of differential treatment for gTLDs and ccTLDs
6.10. Role of councils in Board nomination/election
6.11. Whether a supermajority of the Board should be required to change
constitution
6.12. Whether the entity should have the power to change the location of
the entity, as agreed by the ccTLD BoF on 7/23
6.13. How to minimize the significance of the laws of the jurisdiction in
which the entity sits relative to other international legal
regimes
6.14. Whether the entity should consider the relationship of Internet
telephony to its powers and duties
6.15. Whether the entity should consider issues of security, privacy, free
expression, or other issues of human rights
6.16. Whether the entity should adopt principles about which interests --
commerce, non-commerce, etc. -- should be
paramount
6.17. Dispute Resolution
6.17.1. Which dispute resolution mechanisms the Board should adopt
6.17.2. Whether the Board should have the power to set dispute
resolution mechanisms at all
6.17.3. The issues that dispute resolution procedures would cover (for
example, disputes between parties versus disputes
between a party and the entity)
6.17.4. Whether the entity may develop uniform dispute avoidance /
resolution procedures for use by TLD registries
6.17.5. New entity should gather and disseminate general trend
information regarding domain name trademark disputes
+(involving cyber-pirates and trademark owners)
6.17.6. What distinguishes cyber-pirates from legitimate domain name
resellers? Should entity be involved in this kind of
decision?
6.17.7. Distinction between dispute policy and dispute resolution policy?
6.17.8. WIPO process. Consider WIPO recommendations .
6.17.9. Process exclusively limited to trademark issues, or to other
issues also?
6.17.10. Dispute avoidance
6.18. Whether the Board should have the power to adopt "best practices"
for registrars
6.19. Creation of additional gTLDs diminishes trademark infringement problem?
6.19.1. Should there be a statement in founding document about taking
trademark concerns into consideration (effect on
consumers and trademark holders)?
6.19.2. Internet is a new context in which traditional IP principles to
be reexamined?
6.19.3. No one nation's laws should govern all domain name trademark
disputes
6.19.4. Mandate uniform standards across TLDs re trademarks?
6.20. Role of governments in entity.
6.21. Specific concerns of developing countries.
6.22. State of incorporation.
6.23. Importance of regional representation.
--
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't
change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
