Here are a handful of things I'd blog if I were blogging this week....which I'm not.

GAC comments on the Strategic Plan, among other things. Bonus link: GAC Communique from Mar del Plata. (P.S. Not certain why gac.icann.org resolves to an IP address. Is this TLD neutrality?)

Australian IT is reporting that ICANN "will ask its immediate internet name registry operators for more money in face of an expected $US10 million ($12.9 million) shortfall in its budget next financial year....Mr Twomey said that the organisation had made loose projections it would need to increase its revenue target of $US23 million for the end of June this year, to a figure 'in the low 30 millions' next year."

Susan Crawford: "...it looks as if there has been some constructive progress on ICANN's strategic plan -- initially, at least, in the form of discussing processes that will both tie ICANN's budget more tightly to its narrow mission and make the plan itself the product of real consultation."

This news report on ICANN, also from Australia, is interesting. If I understand the report correctly, ICANN floated the idea of passing the complaints it receives about registrars to the relevant consumer protection agency in the country where the registrar is located. Probably not a bad idea.

Cory Doctorow: "The meeting at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on how the agency can reform itself to achieve humanitarian aims has concluded in triumph for the side of the good."

Here's EURid's timetable for introduction of .EU. Expect open registrations to begin the first weeks of 2006.

Maria Farrell, the GNSO's new policy officer, is a blogger, for Crooked Timber. This can only be good.

My post to the .NET public forum. This mirrors what I said during the open microphone session.

CircleID is carrying an interesting piece on .JOBS.

I spent some time on the way home from Argentina reading Edward Hasbrouk's notes about .TRAVEL. Mr. Hasbrouk is a travel writer and world traveler. Set aside the allegations of wrongdoing and conspiracy (which I don't get) and, at bottom, his complaint is that "travel" is a bigger concept than the commercial travel industry and ought to be more widely open. That, I get.

As I read the Tralliance application, .TRAVEL will be open to: travel agents; tour operators; airlines; hotels and resorts; restaurants; car rental companies; cruise lines; bus and coach operators; bed & breakfast houses; ferries; passenger rail lines; theme parks; convention & visitor's bureaus; national tourism offices; travel guide and magazine publishers; camp facility operators; computer reservation and travel technology providers; and travel-consumer research organizations. But it's not open to travelers and travel writers. And I wonder why not? If I were Tralliance, I'd embrace this complaint and find a way to make sure that practicalnomad.travel, among other individual and non-commercial travel-related sites, could be registered. Perhaps an expansive definition of "travel guide and magazine publishers," to include bloggers, photographers, citizen journalists and online travel-related communities would help.

"Travel" is a big concept.

After the last week of meetings and blogging (52,412 page views for last week's meetings), I need to turn my attention back to my real job. It will also give me some time to reflect and perhaps post some more thoughtful pieces on ICANN, the At Large, user participation, etc.

I'll re-emerge real soon now.

Today is the Board meeting. Agenda here.

Joi Ito is blogging ICANN (including pictures). He also said at today's Board meeting that he is working with staff to adopt RSS and improved language translation, among other tools for improved communication. Terrific news.

Here's an mp3 of the ALAC's discussion with Frank Fowlie, ICANN's new Ombudsperson. It's about 30 minutes. If you're at all interested in the Ombudsperson process (as I am), you should listen to it.

Today is the Public Forum. (Real-time captioning from yesterday's Public Forum here.) Today's agenda is here.

No pictures from last night. I caught up on my sleep. I did get this picture of me and my buddy Stratton Sclavos during the morning coffee break though.

So far this week, this blog has served 16,067 distinct hosts nearly 2 gigabytes of content.

Here is the text of the ALAC's Whois Statement that was read during the public forum.

John Klensin's report on IDNs during the morning session today was terrific. If you didn't hear it, grab it from the real time captioning.

We need more time for public comment -- and to hear responses from the Board. Since we're pressured for time, we're cramming comments into 2 minutes boxes, without the ability to engage in a dialogue. It's frustrating that the subjects deserving the most public dialogue, not to mention the only open microphone session, were saved until the last minute. ICANN critics contend the agenda is set up this way on purpose. I don't know if I'm that cynical, but I do understand the frustration that underlies it.

Posted last night on the ICANN website: Proposed Review Procedure for ASO Policy Proposals.

Forbes: "A company has found a loophole for selling Internet names ending in '.pro' without the usual credentialing requirements, prompting complaints from the Internet's key oversight agency."

June 25th-29th, 2007 in North America. I'd like to assist in putting together a bid, and I think PIR is interested too. Drop me a note if you'd like to help. New Orleans? Nashville?

From a paper published at the Yale Law School Conference on Information as Flow: "We are governed today by people who defend the withholding and manufacture of information as exercises in statecraft -- daily reminders that 'information is power.' This panel addresses a critical subset of this truism: the recursive ways in which access to information and the regulation of information affect each other."

Internet Storm Center: "Around 22:30 GMT on March 3, 2005 the SANS Internet Storm Center began receiving reports from multiple sites about DNS cache poisoning attacks that were redirecting users to websites hosting malware...." (Via Slashdot)

Here is the text of the statement that Vittorio Bertola read into the record. I especially like the line about using professional mediation services...   more »

Here's a comment I posted on the ALAC List: "I understand that some members of the Board have asked why our concerns about Sitefinder and its relationship to the .NET RFP were not raised earlier, when the independent evaluators could have reviewed those concerns. Please direct anyone asking a similar question to the URLs below. Sitefinder was raised numerous times, by name, in public comments both about the content of the draft RFP and the substance of the submitted proposals. The question is not why we didn't raise these points earlier but why ICANN and Telecordia did not respond to them in drafting the RFP and evaluating the proposals."

Another beautiful day in Mar del Plata. It's warm enough that today could be a beach day...if I weren't scheduled to be inside again. Today's agenda is here.

Real-time captioning.

We have a soccer tournament tonight.

It's now official, the GNSO has reelected Michael Palage to the ICANN Board. Unanimously.

Computer Business Review: "The dispute over which company should run the critical .net internet domain could be about to get messy."

This is worth reading with regard to .NET.

The Internet Governance Project announces a new policy analysis: "WHAT DO TO ABOUT ICANN: A PROPOSAL FOR STRUCTURAL REFORM." 

From the Executive Summary: "Three structural reforms are proposed: 1. Create an international oversight body to replace US oversight of ICANN and ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee; 2. Restore ICANN's global Board elections; 3. Give ccTLD managers and Internet Protocol address users a choice of governance arrangements by sharing responsibility for the Internet root zone between ICANN and the ITU." Related ICANNWatch story here.

Through the end of November, 2004, the most recent month for which registry reports are available, RegistryPro had sold 1422 domain names through 13 registrars. I wonder what those numbers are now? Anyone know who at RegistryPro should received my zone file access agreement?

Just as the strength of a chain is measured by its weakest link, the effectiveness of a restricted TLD is measured by the most permissive registrar. Recent events have made me wonder whether registries or sponsors (when applicable) should have the exclusive right to sell registrations in sponsored and/or restricted TLDs.

The Motley Fool: "Register.com's bean counters have their hands full. They are in the process of restating financials dating back six years as the company tweaks its revenue recognition methodology."

ICANN's General Counsel and its outside counsel from Jones, Day. Plus more pictures from Tuesday here.

A spectacular day in Mar del Plata. We're inside again. Here's today's agenda.

Tuesday's ALAC mp3s below.

Today is Opening Day, the official start of spring in the United States.

Jordyn Buchanan: "I've put together a brief paper that I'll be presenting in today's workshop on expiring names. I'm attaching it here for your reference."

ccTLD agendas and presentations. 

Ram Mohan reports that the recent changes in ICANN's transfers policy did not play a role in the Panix incident. Good to know.

Sentan comments on the evaluation of .NET bids.

No comments yet on Version 7.0 of the Strategic Plan.

How about this? Since each of the .NET bidders was judged technically competent to run the .NET registry, why not give them each a consolation prize? Each .NET bidder, other than the winner, immediately gets to select a new gTLD to launch this summer.

ICANN: "In conjunction with its meetings in Mar del Plata this week, ICANN has published its latest newsletter."

CENTR: "In the spirit of developing a structure that can include all of the ccTLD managers, CENTR members would like to express some concerns to ICANN...."

Bruce Tonkin posts some thoughts on changes to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Here's one additional change that I've written about in this space before: make registrants third-party beneficiaries of the RAA. This would get ICANN out of the business of policing registrars and put the authority in the hands of the registrants.

I've heard from people associated with both .TRAVEL and .JOBS that what is happening in .PRO will not happen in their TLDs. I'm sure they're right. But would you have guessed two months ago that .PRO would be converted into an unrestricted and open TLD in just a matter of weeks?

Bible.pro just sold on eBay.

The last session of the day yesterday was a public forum on ICANN's Operational Plan (real-time captioning here). In other words, two hours was devoted to hearing from ICANN staff about its priorities for the coming year, and ICANN staff heard (an earful) about what we thought its priorities ought to be. I don't recall having such a session in the past, and yesterday's meeting was terrific.

Day 2 of the ALAC meetings, in podcast form. The first file is about an hour, the second about half of that.

Pictures from the Argentina Meeting.

In podcast form (i.e. downloadable mp3), here is Part 2 (approx. 22 minutes) of the joint meeting of the At Large Advisory Committee and the GNSO's Non-Commercial Users Constituency.

In podcast form (i.e. downloadable mp3), here is Part 1 (approx. 1 hour) of the joint meeting of the At Large Advisory Committee and the GNSO's Non-Commercial Users Constituency.

Afternoon in Mar del Plata. The ALAC mp3s will be up around 6:00 pm local time. They're not bad, but they're large, and I've had difficulty getting the bandwidth on the Wi-Fi for the large uploads. I can use ethernet in the conference center though, so I'll use that when the day's sessions end.

By the way, just because I post something doesn't mean I agree with it. It does mean I think it's interesting, but that could be for any number of reasons. Maybe it's thoughtful...or provocative...or maybe it's just stupid on its face. If you think there's another side that's equally interesting, send me a link or post a comment.

I sat in on the public session between the Registrars and the ICANN Board. Vint Cerf again made strong comments about protecting the interests of the registrant. That seems to be the Board meme for Mar del Plata. How do we project responsibility onto the appropriate parties? How do we protect registrants from registry failure? How do we protect registrars from abusive registrants?

Bruce Tonkin: "...the Security and Stability Advisory Committee is running a public session on domain name hijacking issues on Tuesday 5 April 2005 from 6:30pm to 7:30pm. Some of the issues being discussed may have a bearing on refinement of the WHOIS and Transfers policies."

More coming.

I'm podcasting today's ALAC meeting. I'll post the sound files periodically throughout the day. This is a test, so quality may be poor. Feedback welcome.

Here's the ALAC agenda, in a crude html export from Word.

Kieren McCarthy, writing in The Register: "The controversial report over ownership of the .net registry was fudged and the evidence is contained within the report itself...."

Dave Winer: "Make some new enemies for a change." Or, at least, don't be afraid to argue with your friends.

The ICANN Compliance Program for Registries and Registrars is worth reading. It's new and was first published on Saturday night. It has implications for registrars, registries and registrants.

Karl Auerbach: "A few years ago I suggested that we know more about how the college of cardinals selects a new pope than we know about how ICANN makes its decisions...."

Eric Iriarte Ahon: "¿Quisiera saber si existe la intención de una política multilingue activa que empiece, al menos, con el documento del Plan Estrategico.?"

Registrar agenda for today. I'm hoping to sit in on the RAA discussion with Tim Cole. By the way, "closed" sessions of registrar constituency meetings are a new development. In the early days of ICANN, they were all open, all the time. Fortunately for me today though, the RAA discussion is part of the "open" session.

At some point today, I think every group except the ALAC and the Non-Commercial Constituency of the GNSO will hold a "closed" session. This certainly makes it awkward for new participants from the host country and region. They're not free to just drop in on any meeting in progress, as they should be. Instead that have to look over their shoulder to see if anyone intends to show them the door.

I've sat in on some these "closed" meetings over the years and, believe me, I've never heard a single thing that couldn't have been said in public.

The National Academies has published Signposts in Cyberspace: The Domain Name System and Internet Navigation.

I know just enough Spanish to know that the television translation of The South Park Movie didn't really capture what was happening on the screen.

Monday's meetings started early, with a breakfast meeting among ICANN Staff, the ICANN Board, and the GNSO Council. I wish I had had my laptop out (or, better, a tape recorder) while Vint Cerf was speaking about the priorities of the GNSO; regular readers of this weblog would have been pleased to hear the emphasis he placed on the interests of registrants.

I won't do his words justice -- Dr. Cerf is the most eloquent of speakers -- but essentially he said that the overriding value guiding all of the work in the GNSO must be the best interests of the registrants. If we keep that value in mind, he said, the best interests of the registrars and registries will follow. He also added that, thinking like an engineer, he would like to build a better feedback loop for information about ICANN policy development. Specifically, he said that ICANN was good at developing policy but needs improvement in implementing it, evaluating its effect and refining the policy in light of experience. Well said....and inspiring.

I'm in Mar del Plata. Arrived on Saturday after a fairly long trip: 3 hours to Dallas, 10 hours to Buenos Aires, and another 5 hours to Mar del Plata. But the city is lovely and well worth the trip. I'll post some pictures later in the week. It's a beach community, but without the beach weather. Think Cape Cod in September.

Last night I gathered with my ALAC colleagues for dinner. The meeting organizers were kind enough to provide those of us who speak English with an easy guide to Argentina's menus. I'm always grateful for the efforts made to make English-language speakers comfortable, but I feel bad for those who don't speak English or Spanish well. I'm certain that I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing if ICANN conducted its meetings in German, French or Mandarin.

Much buzz here about .NET and the Telecordia report (e.g., see here and here). What I didn't understand in reading the report was how the word "Sitefinder" didn't show up once. Can anyone explain that? How is it that all of this wasn't relevant to the .NET rebid?

And what other company awards a significant contract to a company that is suing it?

Interesting .TRAVEL-related post from Edward Hasbrouck: "...the TTPC-Tralliance agreement raises many more question than it answers...."

The GNSO Council held a meeting this afternoon to discuss the "GNSO Operational Plan." I brought along one of my new ALAC colleagues, attending her first ICANN meeting, to allow her to watch what happened in the GNSO. And what an introduction it was. Marilyn Cade reported that the meeting was closed. I countered that all GNSO Council meetings were open. A thirty minute discussion ensued, much too long, in which the Council finally voted 7-6, with 1 abstention, to hold an open meeting. The vote split along the usual lines.

During the discussion on whether the meeting was open or closed, my new ALAC colleague politely left. Welcome to the GNSO.

Having now reviewed the bylaws and the GNSO's own rules of procedure, it's now clear (to me, at least) that all GNSO meetings are presumptively open, though a majority of the Council may vote to close it. You can see the Council thread on this issue here.

On substance, the Council set some rough priorities for the coming months:


(Link here). Big agenda. More to come.

Coming soon, to complement your DNS stock portfolio.

Excerpt from the ICANN Report: "The final scoring result gave a slight advantage to VeriSign over Sentan, who were in order followed by Afilias, Denic and CORE++. "

This is interesting...and sort of out of the blue (from my vantage point down here in the blogosphere). It's a set of "Core Principles and Corporate Governance Guidelines." Is it necessary?

Several initial impressions. First, I'm not sure why ICANN should commission an independent Executive Compensation study. From what I can tell, ICANN's compensation is consistent with the Los Angeles market -- and if you compare it to other non-profits, perhaps even on the high side. The benefits also appear terrific. What's to study?

Second, and most importantly, 5(d) and 5(e) ought to be stricken altogether. Board members are each different, and they bring different perspectives to the Board; those differences should be considered a strength. So should the differences between the Board and the staff. The idea that a Board member should not "undermine" the Chief Executive Officer strikes me as antithetical to the Board's obligation to exercise independent judgment. The Board shouldn't undermine the corporation (indeed, the law places obligations on Board members not to do so), but criticism of the CEO is expected. The Board's duty runs to the corporation itself, not the executive. In fact, you can easily imagine a variety of scenarios in which a Board member's perceived duty to the corporation and his or her loose, undefined obligation not to "undermine" the CEO would conflict. Under the law, the CEO always loses that fight.

Finally, I wouldn't recommend that any Board member sign the oath at the bottom of this. That part should be stricken too. These may be fine as aspirational goals, but so long as the statement of principles contains restrictions on a Board member's activities (e.g., Board members "should be careful... not to undermine [the CEO] by word or action"), they shouldn't be binding. California law governs the obligations of Board members to a corporation, and the Board should preserve its right to act to the full limit of the law in performing its duties.

Some folks in the press are reporting that ICANN will announce its decision on .NET later today. That's not correct. What ICANN will release today is the report from Telecordia ranking the applicants. For .ORG, ICANN ultimately followed the recommendation of the independent evaluation panel, and I would expect the Board to give great weight to Telecordia's recommendation, but the rankings released later today won't necessarily tell us which bidder will be awarded the .NET contract.