Site Map

Please note:

You are viewing archival ICANN material. Links and information may be outdated or incorrect. Visit ICANN's main website for current information.

ICANN Public Forum in Accra Real-Time Captioning

13 March 2002 - Afternoon Session

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the afternoon session of the ICANN Public Forum held 13 March 2002 in Accra, Ghana. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

A video archive is available of the public forum. Click here for details.


ICANN PUBLIC FORUM
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, MARCH 13, 2002

>>VINTON CERF: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, – DO I HAVE THE MICROPHONE?

I'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE BOARD RETURNED ON TIME AND THAT WE CAN NOW RECONVENE THE MEETING.

THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS THAT DID NOT GET ASKED ABOUT DOT ORG WHICH ONE OF OUR DIRECTORS, AMADEU, WANTED TO RAISE.

SO, AMADEU, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE PERSONS THAT YOU WANTED TO ASK THIS QUESTION OF ARE IN FACT IN THE ROOM.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I WILL TRY. IF NOT, YOU KNOW, THE WIND WILL BRING MY WORDS TO THEM AND THEY WILL ANSWER ONE DAY.

THE QUESTION IS EITHER FOR ANY TASK FORCE MEMBER – I KNOW THAT A COUPLE OF THEM WERE AROUND – OR NAMES COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I WAS A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED ABOUT A COUPLE OF, YOU KNOW, STATEMENTS OF DIRECTIONS IN THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. THE FIRST ONE IS LESS A QUESTION, BUT AN ASTONISHMENT ON MY PART THAT IT SAID A COUPLE OF TIMES THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT THE REGISTRY HAS TO DO IS MARKETING.

AND IT SOUNDS STRANGE TO ME THAT THE REGISTRY MANAGING DOT ORG FOR THE NONCOMMERCIAL SECTOR OF THE INTERNET HAS TO PUT ITS MAXIMUM STRENGTH AND MONEY FOR MARKETING.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE REASON IS NOT VERY EXPLICIT OF WHY MARKETING IS SO IMPORTANT. LET ME SAY THAT I HAVE A BIAS. I THINK THAT MARKETING IS SELLING SMOKE. AND, YOU KNOW, SIMPLY WOULD LIKE UNDERSTANDING A LITTLE BIT BETTER IN SHORT TERMS WHY THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.

I THOUGHT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WAS RUNNING THE REGISTRY IN A STABLE AND PROFESSIONAL WAY. BUT I AM CURIOUS ABOUT THIS OTHER VIEW OF THE TASK FORCE AND THE NAMES COUNCIL.

THE SECOND IS MORE COMPLETELY FOR THE NAMES COUNCIL.

THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PUT A LOT OF STRESS ON SAYING THAT THE REGISTRY SHOULD HAVE A POLICY BODY SOMEHOW ATTACHED TO THAT OR PARTICIPATING IN THE REGISTRY TO SET THE POLICIES FOR DOT ORG.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE WHOLE ICANN PROCESSES IS THAT THE DNSO AND ICANN AS SUCH, BUT THE DNSO PART ESPECIALLY, IS THE PLACE FOR GTLD POLICY DEVELOPMENT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE INCLUSION OR EVEN THE SUPERVISION OF THE DNSO TO THE DOT ORG POLICY-MAKING PROCESS AND WHY IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY EXTERNALIZED TO THE REGISTRY ITSELF.

>>VINTON CERF: I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU WILL GET ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS IN THE CURRENT CONTEXT.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: WELL, I WILL SEND THEM IN WRITING TO THE NAMES COUNCIL.

>>VINTON CERF: YES, THEY WILL GO INTO THE RECORD. AND I TRUST THAT YOU WILL GET SOME RESPONSES.

I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON NOW TO THE DOT PRO REGISTRY AGREEMENT. AND I CALL UPON LOUIS TOUTON TO PRESENT THAT TO US.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: THANK YOU.

THE – IN NOVEMBER OF 2000, ICANN SELECTED SEVEN NEW TLD PROPOSALS FOR NEGOTIATION AND ENTRY OF AGREEMENTS.

SIX OF THOSE AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED, AND, INDEED, SIX TLDS ARE IN OPERATION NOW. THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE SEVENTH OF THOSE, WHICH IS DOT PRO, STANDING FOR CREDENTIALED PROFESSIONALS.

THE AGREEMENT FOR DOT PRO HAS BEEN A DIFFICULT ONE TO NEGOTIATE FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, INCLUDING THAT IN MANY WAYS, THE PROPOSAL IS THE MOST CHALLENGING IN MANY ASPECTS TO IMPLEMENT OF ANY OF THE TLDS.

THE – IN NEGOTIATIONS, A – WE WERE NOT ABLE IN ALL RESPECTS TO COME TO AGREEMENT ON WHAT ICANN MANAGEMENT BELIEVES WAS THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSAL. THERE WERE, WE BELIEVE, TWO SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS. BUT AFTER WORKING WITH THE PROBLEM AND WORKING WITH REGISTRY PRO, WHICH IS THE APPLICANT, WE BELIEVE WE HAVE COME TO SOLUTIONS. THE FIRST HAS TO DO WITH DIGITAL CERTIFICATES. DOT PRO IN ITS PROPOSAL PROPOSED TO BEGIN OPERATIONS WITHOUT ANY REQUIREMENT THAT REGISTRANTS HAVE DIGITAL CERTIFICATES, BUT SUGGESTING THAT THAT WOULD BE A FUTURE STEP IN THE OPERATION OF DOT PRO. THE PURPOSE IS TO REQUIRE ONE OF EACH OF THE CREDENTIALED PROFESSIONALS AND TO LINK THE DIGITAL CERTIFICATE WITH THE DOMAIN NAME THROUGH A REGISTRY FACILITY, THEREBY ALLOWING SUCH THINGS AS PATIENTS TO BE SATISFIED THEY ARE REALLY COMMUNICATING WITH THEIR DOCTOR, WHO HAS BEEN VERIFIED TO BE LICENSED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE, AND THE LIKE.

THE APPROACH IN NEGOTIATIONS ON THIS WAS TO RECOGNIZE, OF COURSE, THAT THAT WOULD ADD SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE REGISTRANT COST, BUT TO MOVE ALL OF THAT INTO THE COMPETITIVE ARENA AND OUT OF THE REGISTRY SERVICE CORE SO THAT WE DEFINED VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DIGITAL CERTIFICATES AND SET UP A PROCESS FOR NEUTRAL APPROVAL OF THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATE AUTHORITIES.

THE SECOND MAJOR DEVIATION INVOLVES THE LEVEL OF FUNDING THAT THE PROPONENT COMMITS TO PUT INTO THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATIONS OF THE TLD.

GENERALLY, ON THE TLDS, OUR APPROACH HAS BEEN THAT WHEN SOMEONE PROPOSED THAT THEY WOULD PROVIDE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FUNDING, AND IN MANY CASES SAID, AS REGISTRY PRO DID AFFIRMATIVELY, THAT THAT LEVEL OF FUNDING WAS REQUIRED, WE HAVE REQUIRED THEM IN THEIR AGREEMENT TO COMMIT TO THE FIRST YEAR'S WORTH OF FUNDING WITH THE VIEW THAT THAT WOULD HELP PREVENT AN IMMEDIATE FAILURE OF THE REGISTRY IN ITS EARLY STAGES.

REGISTRY PRO HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED ALMOST $17 MILLION IN FUNDING IN THE FIRST YEAR, WAS UNWILLING TO GIVE THAT FUNDING, BUT HAS COMMITTED – WELL, HAS RESTRUCTURED ITS BUSINESS IN A COUPLE OF WAYS, FIRST TO OUTSOURCE THE ACTUAL BUILDING OF THE REGISTRY SO THAT THAT CAPITAL IS NOT REQUIRED IN THE FIRST YEAR AND ALL THAT'S REQUIRED IS THE PAYMENTS TO THE OUTSOURCED PARTY, WHICH IS A RELATED PARTY. AND SECONDLY, TO COMMIT INSTEAD TO EIGHT AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS IN THE FIRST YEAR.

AFTER LOOKING THAT OVER, WE BELIEVE THAT REPRESENTS A REALISTIC BUSINESS PLAN THAT IS NOT LIKELY TO FAIL FOR LACK OF FUNDS IN THE FIRST YEAR, WHICH IS ALL WE WERE REALLY TRYING TO REQUIRE WITH THIS KIND OF REQUIREMENT ANYWAY.

WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO SLOAN GAON, WHO'S THE PRESIDENT OF REGISTRY PRO.

>>: THANK YOU, LOUIS. AND GOOD AFTERNOON.

>>VINTON CERF: YOU'LL HAVE TO KIND OF WORK WITH THAT MICROPHONE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE TO AVOID BLOWING ANYONE'S EARS OFF.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>VINTON CERF: WHERE DO YOU WANT – WHERE DO I WANT YOU TO STICK THIS MICROPHONE?

(LAUGHTER.)

>>: HOW IS THIS? IS THIS BETTER?

>>VINTON CERF: THAT'S MUCH BETTER. THANK YOU.

>>SLOAN GAON: OKAY.

THEY SAY THEY SAVE THE BEST FOR LAST. SO I'M GLAD WE'RE LAST.

I'LL MAKE A SHORT STATEMENT AND THEN IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN THEM.

REGISTRY PRO IS READY TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT WITH ICANN AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE LAUNCH OF DOT PRO. WE HAVE INVESTED TREMENDOUS RESOURCES IN PREPARING THE REGISTRY SYSTEM, WORKING WITH PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS, CONDUCTING MARKET RESEARCH, PREPARING THE MARKETPLACE, AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, BEGINNING REGISTRAR EDUCATION AND TRAINING.

REGISTRY PRO HAS TESTIFIED BEFORE THE U.S. CONGRESS AND THE EU COMMISSION AND CERTIFICATIONS SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN LAUDED BY PROFESSIONAL GROUPS, IP – WE HAVE WAITED 15 MONTHS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING FRUITION TO THESE PLANS AND OBJECTIVES. DURING THIS TIME, MANY OF THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN POSTED, SOME FOR AS LONG AS ONE YEAR. WE URGE THE BOARD TO APPROVE DOT PRO CONTRACT AT THIS MEETING. THANK YOU.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS EITHER ON THE BOARD OR FROM THE FLOOR? AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: THANKS. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS, AND ESPECIALLY REQUESTING REGISTRY PRO IF THEY WOULD AGREE ON SOME VERY MINOR MODIFICATIONS OF THE AGREEMENT THAT CAUSE ME SOME PROBLEMS, EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THEM ARE VERY MINOR.

I WON'T COMMENT ON THE THING IN GENERAL TO TAKE MORE TIME FROM THE AUDIENCE IN THE FORUM.

THE FIRST, AND I HOPE SMALL THING, IN APPENDIX G, WHEN WE DEAL ABOUT THE COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION THAT REGISTRY PRO MADE IN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, IT MAINTAINS HERE REGARDING SOME NET INCOME AFTER DIVIDENDS THAT THEY WILL CONTRIBUTE IS TO DIFFERENT USERS.

THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE ASKING THEM IF THEY WOULD NOTIFY THE CONTRIBUTIONS THEY MAKE TO ICANN SIMPLY SO WE KNOW WHAT ARE THE USERS WHO ARE MAKING ALL OF THESE FUNDS, SIMPLY THAT.

IF YOU ALLOW ME A JOKE, (INAUDIBLE) WAS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE RECIPIENTS, THE DNSO. PERHAPS AFTER STUART LYNN'S PROPOSAL, PERHAPS YOU SHOULD ADD "AND ANY POSSIBLE SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION."

BUT ANYWAY, GOING TO MORE SERIOUS THING, AS A MATTER OF FACT, SERIOUS – THE ONLY MORE OR LESS SERIOUS OBJECTION THAT I HAVE TO YOUR PROPOSAL IS IN APPENDIX L, THE POINT 2-6.

AND THIS IS THE POSSIBILITY IN THE FUTURE, IN CASE THAT SECOND-LEVEL DOMAINS MAKE NO SEMANTIC CHANGE TO – SORRY, SEMANTIC MEANING IN SOME AREAS FOR THE REGISTRANT, THAT IS, THAT YOU DON'T FIND ANYTHING EQUIVALENT – IT WAS A POLITE QUESTION.

>>VINTON CERF: I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. NOW THAT WE HAVE THE REAL-TIME CAPTIONERS, MY GOAL IS TO DEAFEN EVERYONE IN THE ROOM.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY. I WILL TRY.

IN THE FUTURE, IF YOU DON'T FIND ANY MEANINGFUL, LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, ALL DOT PRO OR DOT PRO IN A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE, YOU MAY REQUEST THAT REGISTRATIONS ARE ALLOWED FOR THIS PART OF THE REGISTRANTS AT THE SECOND LEVEL.

I WOULD SAY, FRANKLY, I HAVE MANY, YOU KNOW, – I SEE MANY REASONS TO OBJECT TO THAT. THE FIRST IS THE SIMPLEST, THE FIRST IS THAT YOU APPLY FOR A DOMAIN THAT WAS STRUCTURED IN A THIRD-LEVEL DOMAIN WITH FUNCTIONAL SECOND-LEVEL DOMAINS. THERE WAS A PROPOSAL, IT WAS SENSIBLE. MORE IMPORTANT, FROM A USER POINT OF VIEW, WE WILL CREATE ENDLESS CONFUSION IF EACH LEVEL OF DOMAIN HAS SOME – FRACTIONAL LEVEL OF DOMAINS, AND PEOPLE ARE DOING SOMETHING ON THE SUBLEVEL OF DOMAIN.

LET ME SAY THAT I ASK YOU THAT YOU WITHDRAW THIS REQUEST, OR SIMPLY I TELL YOU THAT YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE MY CONTRARY VOTE IN THE CASE THAT YOU PROPOSE THAT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS ADDS NOTHING TO THE VALUE OF DISTINGUISHING PROFESSIONS, AND MOST ESPECIALLY, AND THAT'S MY POINT, I THINK IT WILL CREATE ENDLESS CONFUSION FOR THE USERS AND WILL NOT – WHO WILL NOT KNOW WHAT DOT PRO IS OR WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THIS TLD.

THE OTHER QUESTIONS ARE, THERE IS A CONCRETE PROCEDURE, I THINK IT'S ALSO IN APPENDIX L, TO COMMUNICATE TO ICANN A WAITING PERIOD FOR CHANGING SLDS AND LABELS, THAT IS, WE WANT TO ADD SLDS, NEW LABELS, WORDS THAT MEAN YOU ARE SOMETHING. AND THIS HAS TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE BOARD, WE FAIL TO ADD THAT. THIS TIME, WE HAVE FAILED.

THERE'S ALSO A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION, THE PROFESSION QUALIFICATION. THE PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ARE THE NATURE OF THESE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN. AND ADVISORY BOARD MAY PROPOSE CHANGES OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS. AND THESE HAVE GOT TO BE NOTIFIED TO ICANN. I THINK THAT THIS IS VERY NATURAL OF THE SPECIAL TLD, THIS QUALIFICATION SHOULD BE ALSO NOTIFIED BY THE SAME PROCEDURE. I WOULD LIKE KNOWING WHETHER YOU AGREE ON THIS SIMPLE PROCEDURAL CHANGE.

AND, FINALLY, THERE IS SOMETHING THAT I AM CONFUSED. BECAUSE IT'S NOT VERY EXPLICIT TO ME HOW THE LABELS WORK. THE REASON FOR DIFFERENT LABELS, THAT IS, HAVING A SUBLEVEL LIKE THE LITTLE ONE, HAVING DIFFERENT DOT PRO IS BECAUSE OF THE SEMANTICS. SOME OF THESE LABELS MAKE NO SENSE IN MANY COUNTRIES WHO WANT TO PROVIDE THAT.

THE QUESTION IS, IF THIS IS SEMANTICS, THIS SHOULD BE A SINGLE DATABASE WITH ANYONE REGISTERED IN ANY OF THEM AND ALL OF THEM POINT TO THE SAME.

HAVING AS A FEE COLLECTION METHOD, BEING A LAWYER, REGISTERING BOTH DOT – SORRY, ABRIL.PRO.

I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE LABELS ARE PURE ALIASES OF THE SAME DATABASE, BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR IN THE AGREEMENT IN MY READING. WOULD YOU CLARIFY THIS. AND IF THIS IS THE CASE, WILL THIS BE SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT IN A BETTER WAY?

>>SLOAN GAON: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THOSE INSIGHTFUL QUESTIONS.

WITH THE COMMUNITY REFUND, IN OUR APPLICATION, AS YOU RIGHTLY POINTED OUT, WE HAD A MECHANISM WHEREBY ANY REGISTRATIONS TAKEN BY THE SHAREHOLDERS OF REGISTRY PRO AT THE TIME IT WAS REGISTER.COM AND VIRTUAL INTERNET, THAT REGISTRATION DOLLAR AMOUNT WOULD GO INTO A COMMUNITY REFUND POOL. AND THOSE RESOURCES WOULD BE DEPLOYED TO A NUMBER OF SOURCES.

THOSE SOURCES WERE GIVEN GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS IN THE APPLICATION.

TO YOUR POINT, WE'D BE HAPPY TO LOOK AT THAT AND PERHAPS DELINEATE WHAT THAT COMMUNITY REFUND RESOURCE WOULD GO INTO.

WITH REGARD TO YOUR SECOND QUESTION, IN APPENDIX L, 2.6, I THINK THAT DOVETAILS VERY NICELY INTO YOUR LAST QUESTION REGARDING THE LABELS AND THE MULTIPLE THIRD-LEVEL DOMAINS, OF WHICH YOU'VE ELUDED TO MAY CAUSE CONFUSION.

I THINK REGISTRY PRO WOULD BE VERY MUCH OPEN TO LOOKING AT THIS VERY CLOSELY WITH THE BOARD AND WITH THE ICANN STAFF TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT MAY AVOID THIS SUPPOSED CONFUSION.

AND I THINK PERHAPS THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU PUT FORTH OF HAVING THE ABILITY TO REGISTER A SECOND LEVEL IN CONJUNCTION WITH AT THE THIRD LEVEL, MAY ALLEVIATE SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS, PARTICULARLY IF THEY'RE LINKED.

PERHAPS THERE IS A SOLUTION THERE THAT WOULD ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS. AND, ONCE AGAIN, I'D BE HAPPY TO LOOK INTO THAT CLOSELY.

AND I THINK, ADDITIONALLY, WITH YOUR POINTING OUT THE LINGUISTIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE DOT LAW OR THE DOT JUR VERSUS A DOT AVOCAT, WE CAN DO A SIMILAR THING, WHEREBY IF SOMEONE REGISTERED IN ONE THIRD LEVEL THAT WE COULD ALSO ASSUME THAT THEY'VE REGISTERED IN THE OTHERS.

OF COURSE, THERE'S CONCERNS OVER CONFUSION, AND WE'D HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THAT.

>>VINTON CERF: I WONDER IF I COULD INTERJECT A REMARK ABOUT THAT.

IF YOU HAVE REGISTRATIONS IN MULTIPLE SECOND-LEVEL DOMAINS AND THEY DON'T OCCUR, YOU KNOW, IN ANY PARTICULAR ORDER, YOU MAY RUN INTO THE PROBLEM THAT SMITH HAS REGISTERED IN DOT LAW AND SOME OTHER PERSON HAS REGISTERED IN DOT AVOCAT AT ANOTHER TIME. AND UNLESS YOU ARE ABLE TO AVOID ANY POSSIBILITY OF INDEPENDENT REGISTRATIONS LEADING LATER TO A CONFLICT BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO SAY ALL OF THE SMITHS GET REGISTERED IN ALL OF THE ASSOCIATED LABELS, THIS SOUNDS LIKE IT COULD BE A RECIPE FOR A GOOD DEAL OF DIFFICULTY.

SO I WOULDN'T TAKE THESE CONCERNS TOO LIGHTLY. BUT ALSO, I THINK AMADEU, TOMORROW, WHEN WE DISCUSS THIS FURTHER, WE'LL HAVE TO ASSESS JUST HOW MUCH ADVICE THESE FOLKS CAN STAND FROM THE BOARD IN TERMS OF ACTION IN GETTING THIS TO WORK.

>>SLOAN GAON: THANK YOU. I THINK I WOULD ADD ONE FURTHER THING.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE MULTIPLE THIRD LEVELS, THE DOT PRO VERSUS THE DOT CPA OR THE DOT PRO VERSUS THE LAW VERSUS THE DOT CPA, YOU HAVE VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS LIKE DELOITTE & TOUCHE OR ARTHUR ANDERSEN – PERHAPS SHOULDN'T USE THAT NAME.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>SLOAN GAON: BUT THEY HAVE A LAW PRACTICE AND THEY HAVE AN ACCOUNTING PRACTICE. AND OUR SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO REGISTER AT THAT SECOND LEVEL IN ORDER TO SUIT THEIR PRESENCE ON THE INTERNET.

SO I THINK WE'D BE CERTAINLY OPEN INTO LOOKING AT THAT. AND I AGREE WITH YOU, VINT, THAT THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS INCIDENCE.

I THINK THE LONE QUESTION I HAD YET TO COMMENT ABOUT IS THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

I BELIEVE, AND I HAVE NOT CONFIRMED THIS, BUT PERHAPS, LOUIS, YOU CAN COMMENT, I BELIEVE THERE IS A REPORTING REQUIREMENT ON BEHALF OF REGISTRY PRO TO INDICATE TO ICANN THROUGH OUR ADVISORY BOARD THAT THERE HAVE BEEN CREDENTIALING CHANGES. AND THAT WOULD BE PASSED THROUGH TO ICANN AND WOULD BE DISSEMINATED PUBLICLY ON A WEB SITE, AND TO OUR CONSUMERS AND CUSTOMERS THROUGH THE REGISTRARS AND THROUGH THE REGISTRANTS, ANY CHANGES IN THE CREDENTIALING REQUIREMENTS. SO I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE ADDRESSED THAT.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: YES, I THINK THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. BUT LET ME GIVE A LITTLE CONTEXT TO THE ADDRESSING.

I THINK THE LAST – AT LEAST MY PERSONAL OPINION, THE – ONE OF THE LAST THINGS THAT ICANN SHOULD WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN IS PASSING IN ANY WAY ON PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALING.

THE STRUCTURE OF THIS AGREEMENT IS VERY MUCH TO HAVE THE REGISTRY OPERATOR SET UP ADVISORY BOARDS MADE UP OF PROFESSIONALS WITHIN THE VARIOUS PROFESSIONS AND TO GIVE DEFERENCE TO THEIR VIEWS ON THESE MATTERS.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: SURE, LOUIS. BUT THE QUESTION IS, HERE'S – THE REQUIREMENTS TO GET A DOMAIN NAME, THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE A LAWYER. AND IF THE ADVICE WAS JUST PROMISE THAT YOU ARE A LAWYER, THE NATURE OF THE FIELD, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT. I'M NOT SAYING IT WOULD BE CONTRARY. I'M JUST SAYING IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE WE ARE APPROVING.

>>VINTON CERF: I THINK IF WE NEED TO, WE CAN TAKE THIS UP TOMORROW.

I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS COMING, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SLOAN, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION

I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON.

JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, IT'S 2:30 BY MY WATCH, AND YET WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DISCUSSING SOMETHING AT 1:45, SO WE ARE CLEARLY BEHIND.

BREVITY WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

WE'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE EMERGING RIRS, AND DO I CORRECTLY ASSUME THAT THIS WILL COME FROM ANDREW?

>>ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN: ALL RIGHT.

WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO NOW IS TALK ABOUT THE TWO EMERGING REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRIES.

THESE ARE THE REGISTRIES FOR IP ADDRESSES AND AS NUMBERS.

WE HAVE RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR LACNIC FOR FORMAL RECOGNITION.

WE'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM PIERRE DANDJINOU.

I'LL HAVE RAUL ECHEBERRIA PRESENT FIRST.

>>VINTON CERF: IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A SMALL PROBLEM ON THE SCREEN THERE BUT IT LOOKS MINOR.

PERHAPS WE COULD PRESS AHEAD.

>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF LACNIC.

SORRY FOR THE DELAY WITH THE PRESENTATION BUT BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I TESTED THE CONNECTION TEN MINUTES AGO.

WELL, LET ME TALK WITH YOU SOMETHING ABOUT LACNIC.

WE START THIS PROJECT, WITH THIS IDEA, AROUND 1997, TRYING TO BEGIN WITH THE PROJECT.

AT THAT TIME, SEVERAL PERSONS OR A LOT OF PERSONS, BUT IT WASN'T VERY MUCH, (INAUDIBLE) WHICH ARE VERY KNOWN HERE, OTHERS, IN AUGUST OF 1999 IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ICANN MEETING IN SANTIAGO, CHILE, WE GOT AN AGREEMENT AMONG SIX ORGANIZATIONS, VERY IMPORTANT ORGANIZATIONS IN LATIN AMERICA, WHICH REPRESENTS BROADLY THE – ALL THE SECTORS RELATED WITH THIS KIND OF ISSUES IN THE INTERNET.

ALL OF THEM, THE NAME, AHCIET, CABASE.

THE FIRST FOUR REPRESENT ISPS, TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANIES, ALSO ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED WITH ELECTRONIC COMMERCE MATTERS.

IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO REMARK THE PRESENCE OF THE TWO NIC'S, NATIONAL NICS, NIC MEXICO AND NIC BRAZIL.

IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THEY BECAME INVOLVED IN THE FOUNDATION OF THIS NEW ORGANIZATION.

THE CURRENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS THIS LIST OF NAMES.

SOME OF OUR DIRECTORS ARE HERE, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THEM, MR. VALDEZ FROM MEXICO, AND (INAUDIBLE) WHO HAS HAD SEVERAL POSITIONS UNTIL NOW AND IS A VERY ACTIVE MEMBER.

THE WORK UNTIL NOW FROM 1999 HAS BEEN BASED ON A SET OF DOCUMENTS WHO HAVE BEEN THE GUIDELINE FOR OUR WORK.

THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS ARE THE CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW REGIONAL REGISTRIES DOCUMENT.

WE PARTICIPATED IN COMMENTS INCLUSIVE BEFORE TO BE APPROVED WITH THIS DOCUMENT, THE ASO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, THE ICANN ICP-2, AND THE MOST IMPORTANT, RFC.

THE REGION IS – CURRENTLY IS COVERED BY 31 ECONOMIES, COUNTRIES, 21 OF THEM IN THE LATIN AMERICA REGION, SIX IN THE CARIBBEAN REGION, AND FOUR IN THE ATLANTIC.

THE LIST OF ECONOMIES ARE IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT WE HAVE TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME TO GO THROUGH IT THERE.

WE HAVE ORGANIZED A VERY GOOD NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES, OUTREACH ACTIVITIES, NOT ONLY IN POLICY ISSUES BUT ALSO IN – WE HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF ALL THE MEETINGS ORGANIZED BY OUR AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN RELATED MATTERS IN SEVERAL COUNTRIES.

WE ORGANIZE IT, TWO OPEN MEETINGS, THE FIRST IN DECEMBER OF 2000 IN BUENOS AIRES, AND THE LAST ONE IN NOVEMBER IN SAO PAULO.

IT IS INDEPENDENT, NOT FOR PROFIT AND OPEN BOTTOM-UP MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION, AND ITS LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT IS BEING RECOGNIZED AS AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION BY THE URUGUAYAN GOVERNMENT.

IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME EXTRA BENEFITS AND TAXES, ESSENTIALS, BECAUSE OF THIS (INAUDIBLE).

IN THE LAST TWO YEARS WE HAVE WORKED VERY CLOSE TO ICANN STAFF AND ARIN STAFF, WE HAVE EXCHANGED INFORMATION, SEVERAL MEETINGS, CORRECTIONS, DOCUMENTS, SEVERAL TIMES WE THOUGHT WE HAD THE – WE ARE THROUGH, BUT TALKING WITH OTHER PERSONS, WE HAVE – WE REALIZE THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW YET.

WE HAVE TRIED TO PARTICIPATE IN AS MANY OF THE RIRS MEETINGS IN OTHER REGIONS AS HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE, TAKING IN CONSIDERATION THE FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS.

WE HAVE THREE REPRESENTATIVESAS OBSERVERS IN THE ADDRESS COUNCIL.

THEY ARE WORKING AS OBSERVERS, BUT THEY ARE VERY ACTIVE.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMARK THAT PEOPLE FROM OTHER RIRS HAVE PARTICIPATED TOGETHER WITH LACNIC STAFF IN MEETINGS; NOT ONLY IN THE OPEN MEETINGS, ALSO INOUR BOARD MEETINGS

IN AUGUST 2001, WE AGREED IN A MEETING IN WASHINGTON WITH ARIN, WE ARE IN TRANSITION PLAN.

BASICALLY IN THREE STAGES.

THE FIRST OF THEM WAS THE – IN TRAINING ACTIVITIES.

OUR TECHNICAL STAFF WAS IN WASHINGTON WORKING TOGETHER WITH ARIN STAFF, AND THEY REVISE IT.

ALL THE REQUIREMENTS RECEIVED IN THOSE DAYS WHEN OUR TECHNICIANS WERE THERE.

THE SECOND STAGE, AFTER FIX OF THE STAGE IN AUGUST, THE SECOND STAGE BEGAN NOVEMBER 13TH, 2001.

IN THIS STAGE, LACNIC, THE TECHNICAL STAFF OF LACNIC RECEIVE ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATIONS THAT ARE RECEIVED BY ARIN.

WE ANALYZED THEM, MAKE OUR – WE COMMUNICATE OUR OPINIONS, AND THIS IS TAKEN BY ARIN STAFF AS A SECOND OPINION, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO SAY THAT UNTIL NOW, WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ARIN STAFF AND LACNIC STAFF IN EVALUATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS RECEIVED.

OKAY.

THE THIRD STAGE IS THE FINAL RECOGNITION OF LACNIC.

UNTIL NOW, WE WILL CONTINUE APPLYING THE EARLY POLICIES.

WE HAVE OUR OWN POLICIES AND WE HAVE MADE CHANGES EVERY TIME IN THE OPEN POLICY MEETINGS AND ALSO IN THE DISCUSSION.

BUT OUR POLICIES WILL BE APPLIED ONLY WHEN WE RECEIVE THE FINAL RECOGNITION FROM ICANN.

WE EXPECT TO BE FULLY CONNECTED IN BUCHAREST, MAYBE.

WE WILL TRY.

FUNDING, AS I SAID BEFORE, IT'S A NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION.

IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE TWO IMPORTANT ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE EXISTING NIC'S, NATIONAL NIC'S.

THE NIC BRAZIL WILL TAKE CARE OF THE OPERATIONAL COSTS FOR THE TWO FIRST YEARS.

IT WILL TAKE THE TECHNICAL STAFF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ACTIVITY.

THE NIC MEXICO WILL TAKE CARE OF THE TRAINING COSTS WHICH INCLUDES TRAINING MATERIALS, TRAINERS, SOME (INAUDIBLE).

WE ARE AN ORGANIZATION NOW WITH SOME VISITS TO AS MANY COUNTRIES AS WE CAN IN THE REGION TO ORGANIZE OUTREACH MEETINGS.

THE STRUCTURE OF OUR FEES, THE SAME THAT ARIN IS USING NOW

AT THIS MOMENT WE ARE WORKING IN VERY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES AND DETAILS, LIKE BANK ACCOUNTS.

WE HAVE TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN THIS KIND OF DETAILS THAT IT SEEMS VERY EASY TO SORT, BUT....

THE DOCUMENTS, LEGAL DOCUMENTS, SERVICE AGREEMENTS, NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS, INSURANCE, ALL THE STATIONERY, INVOICES.

AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE NOWWORD FROM URUGUAY CONFIRMING THE ACCOUNT SAYING THAT WE ALREADY GOT AN AGREEMENT WITH SOME CARD COMPANIES TO USE THE AS A PAYMENT.

IN THE LAST (INAUDIBLE) WE HAVE TWO IMPORTANT MEETINGS, THE LAST ONE IN MONTEVIDEO.

WE WERE VISITED THERE BY A PERSON FROM ARIN.

WE WORKED VERY MUCH IN ALL OF THOSE DETAILS THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE.

AT THE SAME TIME, A FEW DAYS AFTER THAT, WE HAD ANOTHER MEETING IN WASHINGTON TO WORK IN THE LACNIC TRAINING/PLANNING, SHARING EXPERIENCE WITH PEOPLE FROM THE ARIN STAFF.

LAST WEEK, WE HAD MOVED OUR OPERATIONAL CENTER IN SAO PABLO TO NEW FACILITIES, VERY MODERN WITH ALL THE ASPECTS OF CONSIDERING THE STATE OF THE ART IN COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS, TECHNOLOGY, CONNECTIVITY, SECURITY.

THESE ARE VERY GOOD FACILITIES.

WE ARE WORKING, OBVIOUSLY, ALSO IN (INAUDIBLE), BUT TIME IS SHORT.

WE HAVE TO – I WISH TO THANK SOME PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY OTHER RIRS AND THE ADDRESS COMMUNITY BY THEIR PERMANENT AND GENEROUS SUPPORT.

WE REALLY FIND PEOPLE TRYING TO HELP US, NOT TO BLOCK THE PROCESS TO CREATE NEW REGISTRIES, AND IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO US THAT WE APPRECIATE VERY MUCH.

ICANN STAFF, BY ALL THEIR CONTRIBUTION AND GUIDELINES.

OBVIOUSLY, THE ARIN STAFF BY THE ENORMOUS ENERGIES DEDICATED TO LACNIC, ALL THE PEOPLE FROM ARIN HAS WORKED VERY MUCH WITH US, TECHNICAL STAFF.

OBVIOUSLY ESPECIALLY TO RAY PLZAK, ARIN'S PRESIDENT, BY HIS INVALUABLE CONTRIBUTION AND FRIENDSHIP.

LAST, I'D LIKE ONLY TO MENTION THAT IN OUR WEB SITE, HERE, THE WEB SITE IS NOT –

IN OUR WEB SITE, THERE IS INFORMATION ABOUT THE LACNIC STATUS, WHICH IS THE STATUS OF THE PROCESS.

SOME IMPORTANT LETTERS, DOCUMENTS, REPORTS YOU CAN FIND HERE IN THE LACNIC STATUS.

SOME STATISTICS ABOUT THE WORK THAT IS BEING MADE BY THE TECHNICAL STAFF AS WE TRY TO UPDATE AT LEAST TWO OR THREE TIMES A MONTH.

YESTERDAY, IT'S UPDATED BECAUSE YESTERDAY WE COMPLETE THE FOURTH MONTH IN EXACTLY IN THE TRANSITION PROCESS, IN THIS STAGE OF THE TRANSITION PROCESS.

MAY I INTRODUCE RAY PLZAK.

DO YOU WANT TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS HERE?

>>RAY PLZAK: THANK YOU, RAUL.

VERY BRIEFLY TAKING SOME OF YOUR TIME, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY CLOSELY TOGETHER AND SETTING UP A REGISTRY IS NOT A SIMPLE TASK.

AND ON THE SURFACE, IT'S REAL EASY.

YOU HAVE SOME CRITERIA, YOU HAND OUT SOME IP ADDRESSES AND YOU'RE DONE.

IT'S NOT QUITE THAT SIMPLE.

THERE'S A LOT INVOLVED, A LOT OF EVALUATION.

IT'S ALSO RUNNING A BUSINESS.

AND SO I WANT THE BOARD TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE COORDINATED ON ALL LEVELS.

THE MEETING IN FEBRUARY IN MONTEVIDEO WAS THE BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATION STAFFS GETTING TOGETHER AND DISCUSSING BUSINESS PROCEDURES AND HOW THESE THINGS RELATE.

WE EXCHANGED ENGINEERS BACK AND FORTH.

WE'VE EXCHANGED REGISTRATION STAFF BACK AND FORTH.

THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW IS WORKING VERY, VERY WELL.

AND THE BOARD SHOULD TAKE VERY GOOD NOTE OF THAT.

AND I WOULD THINK THAT THE EFFORTS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT FORTH BY RAUL AND THE BOARD MEMBERS IS EXEMPLARY IN THE WAY PEOPLE SHOULD WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN: SO I THINK I CAN SIMPLY SAY THAT THE STAFF EVALUATION IS POSTED UP ON THE WEB SITE.

PROBABLY I'LL WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM DIRECTORS, BUT SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS A POSITIVE ONE AND WE THINK THE BOARD SHOULD GIVE ITS CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TO THE TRANSITION PLAN AND THE APPLICATION SO THAT WHEN THEY'VE COMPLETED THAT PLAN, THEY'LL BE IN A GOOD POSITION TO RECEIVE FULL RECOGNITION.

SO FROM THE ICANN STAFF SIDE, IT'S BEEN HARD WORK.

YOU GUYS HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB AND WE'RE REALLY PLEASED TO SEE THIS DAY FINALLY HERE.

SO NOW WE'VE GOT A QUICK – THAT'S IT FOR LACNIC, UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.

(APPLAUSE).

>>VINTON CERF: IF I COULD JUST INTERJECT, THAT IS A SPECTACULAR BIT OF WORK.

IT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE HAPPEN ALL THE TIME.

>>ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN: SO PIERRE, CAN I ASK YOU TO COME DOWN?

WE NOW – THE OTHER REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRY IN FORMATION IS AFRINIC FOR THE AFRICAN CONTINENT.

ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'RE HERE IN ACCRA.

PIERRE DANDJINOU.

>>PIERRE DANDJINOU: YOU KNOW I'M ON THE BOARD OF AFRINIC WHICH IS THE AFRICAN REGISTRY, AND I'M JUST GOING TO BRIEFLY REPORT TO YOU THE STATUS AND WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY AS FAR AS AFRINIC IS CONCERNED.

WELL, WE THOUGHT WE MIGHT GIVE YOU BRIEFLY THE MILESTONES ON WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING, AND AS YOU SEE, I'LL BE HAPPY TO SAY THAT WE STARTED (INAUDIBLE) LIKE LACNIC DID.

BUT AS FAR AS OUR CONCERNS, WE WANTED TO BEAR IN MIND THAT WE CERTAINLY NEEDED TO BE SOME SORT OF CONSENSUS ON THIS ISSUE.

I WILL NOT GO THROUGH THE DIFFICULTIES OR SPECIFIC BACKGROUND OF (INAUDIBLE) AND BACKGROUND ACTIVITY.

BUT ANYWAY, IT WAS INITIATED 1996.

WE HAD KIND OF PUBLIC STATEMENT ON THIS, TRYING TO MOBILIZE MORE AND MORE PARTICIPATION.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT 1998, FROM 1996-1998, TOOK TWO YEARS TO GET THE KIND OF CONSENSUS WE WERE LOOKING FOR.

BUT WE DID THIS CONSENSUS BUILDING ONLINE, SO WE HAD A DISCUSSION LIST AS WELL.

WELL, TODAY, I SHOULD SAY WE ALREADY HAVE AN INTERIM BOARD OF TRUSTEES THAT IS TRYING TO WORK.

THEY ARE VOLUNTEERS.

BUT THE GOOD THING WE NEED SO FAR IS, AS I SAID, WE NEED TO BROADEN OUR OWN CONSTITUENCY AND HAVE THEM REALLY BUY INTO THIS IDEA.

AND WE NEED TO ABIDE BY EXISTING – HOW SHALL I SAY – CRITERIA WE NEED TO ABIDE BY.

ONE TO HAVE A BOTTOM-UP APPROACH WHEN WE ARE DOING THESE THINGS.

SO WE HAVE OUR LAST MEETING IN CAIRO, AND WE THINK WE HAVE CLEAR-CUT IDEAS.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASSURE YOU THAT WE ARE MOVING AHEAD, AND CERTAINLY BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR, WE MIGHT HAVE A FEW THINGS TO PUT IN THE GROUNDS, IN TERMS OF ACTUALLY SIGNING MOUS AND THE REST.

THE FEW ISSUES HERE I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH RAPIDLY INCLUDE THE LEGAL ENTITY.

SO FAR WE AGREED WE HAVE ESTABLISHED AN INTERIM SECRETARIAT FOR THIS ENTITY AND IT'S BASED HERE IN ACCRA.

ALSO, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF HAVING AN MOU SIGNED WITH RIPE, AND THE GOOD THING ABOUT THIS MOU WAS TO HELP US THROUGH THIS IDEA OF BIDDING CAPACITY.

SO THROUGH THIS MOU WE WILL BE ABLE TO SEND A FEW (INAUDIBLE) TO BE TRAINED, AND NOW THAT WE'LL BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO START.

AND THIS DRAFT IS ALREADY PREPARED.

WE THINK THAT BY NEXT – BY MAY WHEN WE CONVENE IN TOGO THAT WE WILL HAVE THIS MOU SIGNED WITH RIPE.

IN TERMS OF STAFFING, WE ARE NOW HEADING TO HIRING AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

A JOB DESCRIPTION IS COMPLETED AND IS ON OUR WEB SITE.

IT IS A QUITE TRANSPARENT PROCESS.

NOW, WE ALSO DO CONDUCT OUTREACH, AND AS I WAS POINTING OUT, WE SHOULD SAY WE ARE NOT TALKING OF AFRICA, WE ARE TALKING OF 54 COUNTRIES.

SO YOU REALLY NEED TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE PERSON BUY INTO THIS IDEA.

SO THAT'S WHY IT'S TAKING TIME TO MATERIALIZE BUT WE ARE CONFIDENT IT WILL HAPPEN.

SO WE CONDUCTED MANY OF THEM, BUT RIGHT AT THIS POINT, WE ARE NOW GETTING INTO THE COUNTRIES.

WE ARE HAVING ONE IN NAIROBI WHEN WE CONVENE, AND THE ISPS OVER THERE ARE ALREADY TRYING TO ORGANIZE AND TO ASSIST US.

IN SOUTH AFRICA, THE ISPA ALSO IS ALREADY PREPARED.

IN FEBRUARY THERE WAS A MEETING THERE.

THERE WAS AN OUTREACH MEETING THERE.

SO WE ARE TRYING TO BUILD THIS CONSENSUS, AS I SAID.

SO WHAT IS OUR ROADMAP FROM NOW ON?

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WILL BE APPOINTED, AS I SAID, AND ALSO THE HOSTMASTER WILL BE ON BOARD WHEN WE SIGN THIS MOU WITH RIPE.

WE OF COURSE ALSO HAVE OUR TRANSITION PLAN THAT WILL BE READY SOMETIME BEFORE JUNE.

AND THEN WE'LL BE HAVING WHAT WE CALL A VIRTUAL ORGANIZATION SETUP.

AS I SAID, WE ARE HAVING AN INTERIM SECRETARIAT IN ACCRA, AND WE THINK THAT WE SHOULD FIND A WAY IN WHICH WE START THE ORGANIZATION, BUT THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DISCUSSED WITH RIPE.

ANOTHER KEY ISSUE FOR US IS THE HOST COUNTRY SELECTION.

IT MAYBE SIMPLE IN A FEW PLACES BUT AS YOU KNOW, IN AFRICA, (INAUDIBLE).

WE WANT TO BE AS PROFESSIONAL AS, YOU KNOW, WE CAN.

SO WE'VE GOT CRITERIA.

EVERYTHING WILL BE ON THE WEB SITE, AND WE REALLY THINK THAT WE WILL NEED ASSISTANCE FROM OTHER REGISTRIES TO HELP US.

AND BY THE END OF THIS YEAR WE CERTAINLY HOPE TO HAVE THIS AFRINIC UP AND RUNNING.

AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO FINISH BY SAYING WE REALLY VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE ASSISTANCE WE ARE HAVING FROM THE OTHER REGISTRIES.

THEY DO ACTUALLY COMMENT ON THE POLICY DOCUMENT WE HAVE, AND WE REALLY FEEL CONFIDENT WITH THEM.

AND WE HAVE NOW OUR LINKS, SO EVERYTHING IS TRYING TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AS IT COULD.

AND AS I SAID, WE ARE QUITE CONFIDENT IT WILL HAPPEN THIS YEAR.

THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE).

>>ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN: SO THAT'S IT FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM.

IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS.

I THINK ON BEHALF OF JOHN CRAIN AND MYSELF WHO ARE THE TWO STAFFERS WHO HAVE DONE THE MOST WORK, BOTH OF THESE PROCESSES HAVE BEEN A REAL PLEASURE.

THERE HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT STAGES BUT IT'S GREAT TO SEE THIS PART OF THE ICANN PROCESS WORKING SO WELL.

IF ONLY NAMES WAS SO EASY.

>>VINTON CERF: OH, YES.

(LAUGHTER).

>>VINTON CERF: LET'S HEAR IT FOR NUMBERS.

I THINK AS RAY POINTED OUT, EVEN THE NUMBERS ARE NOT ALL THAT TRIVIAL TO DEAL WITH.

WELL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, OUR NOMINAL SCHEDULE WAS TO TAKE A BREAK AT 3:00.

MY SUGGESTION TO YOU, SINCE WE STARTED A LITTLE LATE, IS THAT WE ACTUALLY GO FOR ONE MORE HOUR AND TAKE A BREAK.

IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO EVERYONE, THEN I'D LIKE TO MOVE NOW INTO THE AT-LARGE STUDY GROUP REPORT: AND I THINK PINDAR WONG IS OUR FIRST SPEAKER.

IS THAT RIGHT, PINDAR?

>>PINDAR WONG: THAT'S CORRECT.

>>PINDAR WONG: JUST A FEW MINUTES WHILE WE GET SET UP.

THANK YOU.

>>VINTON CERF: YOU MAY NEED TO ADJUST THE MICROPHONE. IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT – YOU'VE BEEN SITTING OUT THERE, KNOWING WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE.

>>PINDAR WONG: OKAY.

THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRPERSON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. ON BEHALF OF THE ALSC, IT IS MY PLEASURE AS VICE CHAIR TO PRESENT THE RESULTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION REPORT, AFTER WHICH I THINK THERE WILL BE A FEW WORDS FROM OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, INCLUDING – WE HAVE TWO VICE CHAIRS. AND CHUCK'S HERE, SO I'D LIKE TO INVITE HIM FOR A FEW WORDS AS WELL.

>>ANDY MUELLER-MAGUHN: CAN YOU SPEAK UP, PLEASE.

>>VINTON CERF: ARE YOU NOT HEARING HIM. TRY AGAIN.

>>PINDAR WONG: I'M HERE THIS AFTERNOON TO PROVIDE DETAILS WITH RESPECT TO IMPLEMENTATION, WHICH IS WHAT – THE TASK WE WERE GIVEN FROM MARINA DEL REY AS PER OUR FINAL REPORT.

AND THIS, BASICALLY, COMPLETES THE WORK THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SET OUT TO DO ONE YEAR AGO, BOTH IN TERMS OF THE STUDY AND IN TERMS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION.

SO WITH THAT, WE BELIEVE THAT WE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD CARE OF OUR FINAL REPORT AND IMPLEMENTATION REPORT, A BALANCED AND EXECUTABLE PLAN FOR AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP. IF YOU CAST YOUR MIND BACK, THERE ARE FIVE PRINCIPLES WITH RESPECT TO THE WORK AND OUR RESULTS.

THE FIRST IS SIMPLY INDIVIDUAL USERS HAVE A SIGNIFICANT STAKE AND SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY PARTICIPATE IN ICANN.

SECONDLY, REPRESENTATION SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY INFORMED AND SUSTAINED PARTICIPATION.

THIRDLY, THE AT-LARGE ELECTORATE SHOULD COMPRISE AN IDENTIFIABLE AND VESTED COMMUNITY OF INDIVIDUAL USERS.

NUMBER FOUR, AT-LARGE MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE A SHARED ROLE IN SELECTING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

AND NUMBER FIVE, IT'S TIME TO AUTHORIZE CREATION OF AT-LARGE AND REWARD SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZING EFFORTS WITH PARTICIPATION IN RESPECT TO OTHER STAKEHOLDERS.

WITH THE FINAL REPORT, VERY SIMPLY, ONE OF THE KEY RECOMMENDATIONS IS TO CREATE AN AT-LARGE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION.

WE'VE PROVIDED A FRAMEWORK FOR ALL INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS TO PARTICIPATE.

THE FOCUS ON THE AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP IS TO IDENTIFY A IDENTIFIABLE AND VESTED COMMUNITIES OF INDIVIDUALS AND USE REASONABLE MECHANISMS FOR REGISTRATION AND SELF-FUNDING.

WE WOULD LIKE TO GRANT THE AT-LARGE A PROPORTIONATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SELECTING THE BOARD'S DIRECTORS.

THE FINAL REPORT OF ALSO INDICATES ONE CORE STEP THE BOARD CAN TAKE IS TO CREATE AN ALSO ORGANIZING COMMITTEE TO ESTABLISH A SELF-SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION. IT'S PROPOSED AS A BOTTOM-UP DECENTRALIZED, OPEN, AND REGIONALLY-BASED STRUCTURE, AND WOULD ENABLE MEMBERS TO LEARN ABOUT AND DISCUSS ISSUES RELEVANT IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE AND FIND COMMON GROUND WITH OTHERS TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL INPUT INTO THE ICANN DECISION-MAKING AND POLICY PROCESS.

THE IMPLEMENTATION REPORT ITSELF, WE'VE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOUR BASIC OPTIONS. BEFORE DOING SO, WE ALSO IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS HAVE CONDUCTED A NUMBER OF SURVEYS BOTH IN TERMS OF ORGANIZATIONS AND IN TERMS OF ASKING INDIVIDUALS.

WE RECOMMEND – WE RECOMMEND MOVING FORWARD WITH THE ALSO ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AND FURTHERMORE, THAT WITH – WHEN THE AT-LARGE ELECTORATE HAS REACHED A THRESHOLD OF 5,000, THAT AN ELECTION BE CONDUCTED.

WE RECOMMEND IF THE ELECTION CAN'T BE CONDUCTED, THAT THE TERM AND EXTENSION OF BOARD APPOINTMENTS BE LENGTHENED TO KEEP THE BOARD SEATS FILLED.

I THINK I'LL DEFER TO SOME OF THE DRY DETAILS. I THINK YOU HAVE THE COST ESTIMATES IN THE REPORTS IN FRONT OF YOU IN TERMS OF THE RUNNING COST FOR THE FIRST YEAR AND FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS.

WE SENT OUT OVER 350 INVITATIONS TO ORGANIZATIONS TO COME FORWARD TO SAY ARE THEY INTERESTED IN HELPING US TO FORM AN ALSO. WE RECEIVED 46 REPLIES OF GROUPS THAT WOULD LEND THEIR SUPPORT. SIMILARLY, WE ASKED THE 6,000 PEOPLE ON OUR MAILING LIST WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING. AND WE RECEIVED OVER 2,000-ODD REPLIES. AND THE DISTRIBUTIONS, AGAIN, I WON'T BORE YOU WITH.

WITH RESPECT TO THE CONCEPT MENTIONED LAST YEAR WITH RESPECT TO DOMAIN NAME PLUS, WE'VE FLESHED THAT OUT IN MORE DETAIL BY INDICATING THREE MINIMAL CRITERIA, DEMONSTRATED INTEREST IN ICANN, AUTHENTICATED IDENTITY, AND FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION.

WITH RESPECT TO DEMONSTRATED INTEREST, WE HAVE INDICATED FOUR CRITERIA. OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE USED THE INDIVIDUAL DOMAIN NAME AS THE CORE. FURTHERMORE, SUBSCRIPTION TO A SPECIFIC ICANN MAILING LIST, ATTENDANCE OF AN ICANN MEETING, AND BELONGING TO SELECTED ORGANIZATIONS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO ICANN'S MISSION.

AUTHENTICATED IDENTITY, WE CAN GO THROUGH IN THE QUESTION SESSION.

AND FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION SIMILARLY.

REALLY, THAT'S IT AS FAR AS OUR OVERALL WORK IN THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS INVITE CHUCK TO SAY A FEW WORDS, AND THEN OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WHO ARE HERE.

CHUCK.

>>CHARLES COSTELLO: THANK YOU, PINDAR.

IN ADDITION TO ESTHER DYSON, WHO WILL MAKE A BRIEF COMMENT, AT THE OUTSET, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE TWO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE AT-LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE WHO ARE PRESENT WITH US HERE IN ACCRA: CHING LI YU AND PIERRE DANDJINOU.

I DO FEEL I NEED TO SAY THAT THE TOO MUCH PROCESS ARGUMENT WE'VE HEARD IS PHONY WITH RESPECT TO THE PENDING QUESTION OF AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP, THE PROPOSED AT-LARGE ORGANIZATION, AT-LARGE BOARD SEATS, AND EVEN AT-LARGE ELECTIONS, BECAUSE THE ALSC, AT THE SPECIFIC REQUEST OF THE BOARD, COMPLETED ITS PROCESS ON SCHEDULE AND HAS RECOMMENDED A PRACTICAL, IMPLEMENTABLE ACTION PLAN.

THE ALSC DOES NOT NEGATE THE NEED FOR OTHER STRUCTURAL REFORMS, BUT IT IS DISINGENUOUS AND MISLEADING TO CLAIM THAT AN OVERALL REFORM AND THE NEED FOR FUNDING FROM GOVERNMENTS SOMEHOW, THEN, LOGICALLY NEEDS TO OR SHOULD VIRTUALLY ELIMINATE THE AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP, ITS BOARD SEATS, AND AN ELECTION PROCESS.

IT IS A BREACH OF FAITH WITH THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES AND BASIC STRUCTURE OF ICANN AS WELL AS THE FIDUCIARY DUTY OF THIS BOARD, SHOULD IT ACT ON ANY PROPOSAL THAT SO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGES THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OF THE ORGANIZATION AND PERMANENTLY DISENFRANCHISES AN AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP THAT WAS TO HAVE CLEAR AND DIRECT REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD WITHIN THE NARROWLY DEFINED ROLE OF ICANN.

GIVEN THE NEW PROPOSALS THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE A DIRECT ROLE IN GOVERNING ICANN AND REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST, PERHAPS IT WOULD BE ADVISABLE TO HAVE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS, WHICH, IN COOPERATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THE INTERNET COMMUNITY GAVE BIRTH TO ICANN, GIVE A NEW GOVERNING MANDATE TO ICANN RATHER THAN HAVE THE CURRENT BOARD ASSERT THAT POWER FOR ITSELF.

THE MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL IS NOT MERELY A REFORM PROPOSAL, NOR IS IT EVOLUTIONARY. RATHER, IT IS A DECLARED INTENT OF A PALACE COUP D'ETAT FROM WITHIN ICANN. THE BOARD SHOULD AT THIS TIME, INSTEAD, PASS THE RESOLUTION TO GIVE THE AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE ITS CAPACITY TO ORGANIZE AN AT-LARGE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION FOR INFORMED PARTICIPATION AND BOARD REPRESENTATION.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>ESTHER DYSON: THANKS. TELL ME IF I'M HOLDING THE MIKE WRONG, PLEASE.

AS THE FOUNDING CHAIRMAN OF ICANN, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD, AND PARTICULARLY HANS AND JUN, YOU WERE THERE WITH ME. WHEN WE STARTED ICANN, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES SAID "WE DO NOT WANT THIS TO BE A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION, AND WE DO NOT WANT IT TO BE ONLY A U.S. FUNCTION. WE WANT TO CREATE A BROAD ORGANIZATION THAT IS NOT SELF-REGULATORY IN THE TRADITIONAL SENSE, BUT THAT INCLUDES ALL THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES THAT USE, PROVIDE, OPERATE, DESIGN THE INTERNET FROM ALL AROUND THE WORLD. AND THEREFORE WE WOULD LIKE THESE COMMUNITIES TO ORGANIZE THEMSELVES INTO SOME KIND OF COHERENT BODY THAT CAN CARRY-FORWARD THAT MISSION."

THAT WAS SOME TIME AGO. AND AS STUART HAS POINTED OUT, THERE HAS BEEN AN AWFUL LOT OF DELAY IN VARIOUS OF THESE COMMUNITIES. THEY HAVE NOT ALL COME TOGETHER. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN COHERENT.

BUT I'M HERE TODAY TO SAY THAT IN FACT IF YOU, THE BOARD, TOMORROW PASS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING NOT JUST THE CREATION OF AN AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP, WHICH CAN BE CREATED WITHOUT YOU, BUT A CORRESPONDING COMMITMENT FROM WITHIN ICANN TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP, AN ORGANIZING COMMITTEE THAT WILL GIVE IT SOME OFFICIAL PRESENCE WITHIN ICANN, THAT THIS COMMUNITY IS BEGINNING TO SELF-ORGANIZE. THE AT-LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE I BELIEVE IS ONE OF THE FEW ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN AND AROUND ICANN THAT HAS ACTUALLY COMPLETED ITS MISSION ON TIME.

WE'RE ASKING YOU TOMORROW, PLEASE, TO PASS A RESOLUTION THAT WILL ENABLE THIS PARTICULAR PART OF ICANN'S FOUNDING STRUCTURE TO MOVE FORWARD.

WHEN I WAS FOUNDING CHAIRMAN, I MADE A COMMITMENT THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN. I ALSO MADE A COMMITMENT TO NINE BOARD SEATS, WHICH DOES NOT SEEM TO BE FEASIBLE. I'M HERE NOT TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD KEEP TO EVERY COMMITMENT WE EVER MADE, BUT THAT THOSE COMMITMENTS THAT MAKE SENSE AND THOSE COMMITMENTS THAT ARE FEASIBLE BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL PROPER, APPROPRIATE, AND CAPABLE OF BEING FULFILLED, THOSE ICANN SHOULD, INDEED, GO FORWARD WITH.

AS A VERY PRACTICAL POINT, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IN SEPTEMBER IS GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS EXPERIMENT. AND THEY STILL BELIEVE THAT PART OF THE ICANN STRUCTURE DOES NEED TO INCLUDE A VOICE AND A PLACE FOR COHERENT PARTICIPATION BY END USERS.

WE BELIEVE, HAVING SEEN THE BEHAVIOR OF MANY END USERS, THAT IF YOU GIVE THEM A PROPER MECHANISM FOR BEING HEARD, THEY WILL SELF-ORGANIZE RESPONSIBLY. WITHOUT SUCH A MECHANISM, YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE DISORGANIZATION, INCOHERENCE, AND SO FORTH.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IF YOU MOVE FORWARD AND CREATE A STRUCTURE, THE USERS WILL THEMSELVES BEGIN TO ACT MORE RESPONSIBLY AND WILL START TO SPEAK COHERENTLY WITH ONE VOICE, JUST AS SOME OF THE CONSTITUENT GROUPS WITHIN ICANN ARE BEGINNING TO DO.

AND SO, THEREFORE, I'D LIKE TO JUST RECOMMEND THAT TOMORROW, YOU WORK WITH THE BOARD TO CREATE A RESOLUTION THAT NOT ONLY, IN PROSPECT, RECOGNIZES THE EXISTENCE OF AN AT LARGE, BUT DIRECTS THE FORMATION OF AN ORGANIZING COMMITTEE TO ORGANIZE THE AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP. I HOPE THAT THE AT-LARGE BOARD MEMBERS WILL BE ENCOURAGED TO STAY, TO EXTEND THEIR TERMS, IF NECESSARY, AND TO WORK AS PART OF THIS AT-LARGE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE TO MAKE THIS ALL HAPPEN.

AND WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU ALL FOR LISTENING. I WANT TO THANK THE AT-LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE, WHICH I THINK DID AN EXCELLENT AND COHERENT JOB, AND SIT DOWN. AND WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINTON CERF: DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS EITHER FROM THE BOARD OR FROM THE FLOOR? HANG ON. WE HAVE ONE FROM HANS.

>>HANS KRAAIJENBRINK: ESTHER I HAVE GREAT SYMPATHY FOR THE WORDS AND PLEA YOU MAKE. BUT I THINK THAT THIS MIGHT BE A POINT IN TIME IN THIS MEETING TO REMIND OURSELVES THAT EXACTLY TWO YEARS AGO, THE ICANN BOARD WAS READY TO INSTITUTE AN ELECTION SYSTEM FOR AT-LARGE MEMBERS. AND ONLY A FEW DAYS, I SAID 24 HOURS, BEFORE THE MEETING, THERE WAS AN INTERVENTION WHICH CREATED THE SITUATION WE ARE IN TODAY.

SO I DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE LEARNED FROM THIS EXPERIENCE, AND I THINK THAT TOMORROW WE WILL TAKE A WISE DECISION WHICH MAY BE A LITTLE BIT MORE IN LINE, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, WITH THE POSITION I HAD TWO YEARS AGO.

>>ANDY MUELLER-MAGUHN: HANS, EXCUSE ME, COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT INTERVENTION. I WAS NOT –

>>HANS KRAAIJENBRINK: I WILL NOT GO INTO ALL OF THE DETAILS, BUT THE BOARD WAS READY TO ACCEPT AN AT-LARGE DIRECTOR ELECTION SYSTEM BY INDIRECT ELECTIONS WITH AT-LARGE COUNCILS, WHO FORMED SORT OF AS AN (INAUDIBLE) ORGANIZATION FOR ITS MEMBERS, BUT TO SECURE THROUGH A NOMINATING COMMITTEE SYSTEM A CERTAIN LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE AND STANDING OF ICANN DIRECTORS.

CDT AND COMMON CAUSE PRODUCED A REPORT WHICH WAS SORT OF SHOT ONTO THE TABLE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS. AND IN VERY HEAVY DEBATE THERE, THE BOARD CHANGED THEIR POSITION AND CAME TO THE SYSTEM WHICH RESULTED IN THE FIVE AT-LARGE DIRECTORS AND THE FOUR ORIGINAL DIRECTORS WHO CONTINUE.

I THINK THAT SHOULD SERVE AS AN EXPLANATION.

>>ANDY MUELLER-MAGUHN: THANK YOU.

>>ESTHER DYSON: LET ME ANSWER VERY BRIEFLY.

WE, THE AT-LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE, WE HAVE A PROCESS FOR ELECTIONS THAT WE BELIEVE WILL WORK BETTER THAN THE ELECTIONS THAT HAPPENED THE PREVIOUS TIME. WE DO BELIEVE THERE'S A NEED FOR MORE TRANSPARENCIES FOR RULES. THERE ARE A LOT OF DETAILS IN THE REPORT WHICH I WILL NOT INFLICT ON YOU RIGHT NOW.

WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR YOU TO DO TOMORROW, BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT GOING FORWARD WITH THE ELECTIONS IS GOING TO BE CONTINGENT UPON COHERENT, TRANSPARENT, AND ORDERLY PARTICIPATION.

WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO TOMORROW IS SIMPLY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROCESS. AND IF WE ARE CORRECT, IF ICANN'S EXTENDING OF A LISTENING MECHANISM TO THE AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP, WHICH IS AN ORGANIZING AND SPEAKING MECHANISM, IF THAT PROCESS MOVES FORWARD PROPERLY, THEN, INDEED, WE WOULD VERY MUCH HOPE THAT YOU WOULD ALSO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ELECTIONS.

BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT INFORMED COHERENT PARTICIPATION IS KEY FOR THE ELECTIONS TO BE MEANINGFUL.

AND I LEAVE IT TO THE BOARD AND TO THE AT-LARGE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE TO MOVE FORWARD ON THAT POINT.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU, ESTHER, THAT WAS A VERY COHERENT OBSERVATION.

IS THERE ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER THAT HAS A QUESTION?

ALL RIGHT. LET ME TAKE THE FIRST ON THE FLOOR HERE.

>>PHILIP SHEPARD: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. IT'S PHILIP SHEPARD SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE NAMES COUNCIL.

I WANT TO LET THE BOARD KNOW TWO THINGS. FIRSTLY, AT YESTERDAY'S NC MEETING –

>>VINTON CERF: IS ANYONE ELSE NOTICING THE SAME –

>>: NO.

>>VINTON CERF: MAYBE IT'S JUST THESE. OKAY. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD.

>>PHILIP SHEPARD: OKAY. THANKS, VINT.

AT YESTERDAY'S NAMES COUNCIL MEETING, WE AGREED THAT WE WOULD PASS ON TO THE BOARD SOME WORK IN PROGRESS. WE'VE HAD, AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, A TASK FORCE SET UP SPECIFICALLY TO LOOK AT STRUCTURAL PROPOSALS. AND, OF COURSE, THE FIRST PROPOSAL WE LOOKED AT INITIALLY WAS THE AT-LARGE PROPOSAL.

BECAUSE OF THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE FOR REFORM, NATURALLY, THE FINAL REPORT WE WISHED TO DO FROM THE NAMES COUNCIL HAS TO FACTOR IN THOSE NEW POSSIBILITIES. AND SO WE WILL AT SOME POINT BE GIVING YOU A FINAL REPORT IN WHICH WE WILL REFLECT ON THOSE POINTS AND THE AT-LARGE.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, AS YOU ARE DELIBERATING ON THIS TOMORROW, WE WISH YOU TO SEE OUR WORK IN PROGRESS. SO WE ARE PASSING YOU WHAT IS A DRAFT INTERIM REPORT. IT IS IN THE SAFE HANDS OF MR. TOUTON. AND IT MAY HAVE BEEN E-MAILED TO YOU IF YOU HAD MORE CHANCE THAN I HAD IN GETTING THAT TO YOU.

SO THAT'S THE FIRST THING I WANTED TO SAY. PLEASE HAVE A LOOK AT THAT AND BEFORE YOUR DELIBERATIONS TOMORROW.

AND SECONDLY, JUST ON THE WIDER ISSUE, THE NC YESTERDAY DECIDED THAT THE CASE FOR REFORM WAS OF SUCH IMPORTANCE THAT EVERY MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL WANTED TO BE INVOLVED IN THE DELIBERATIONS OF THAT, CLEARLY EVERY CONSTITUENCY IS GOING TO ALSO BE DOING ITS OUTREACH AND DISCUSSION AND FEEDING INTO THE COUNCIL. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, I HAVE SCHEDULED TODAY WITH THE DNSO SECRETARIAT A SERIES OF MEETINGS BETWEEN NOW AND MAY 15TH, DURING WHICH WE WILL ATTEMPT TO COME OUT WITH ONE POSITION OR A SET OF POSITIONS BUILDING ON THE ANALYSIS THAT STUART HAS DONE IN THE CASE FOR REFORM, GIVING OUR RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSALS MADE IN THE CASE FOR REFORM, AND GIVING OUR IDEAS FOR ALTERNATIVES BASED ON THAT ANALYSIS.

WE WOULD HOPE TO HAVE THAT WORK TO YOU WITHIN THE TIME SCALE THAT WAS LAID OUT BY THE PRESIDENT TODAY.

THANK YOU.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PHILIP.

>>WOLFGANG KLEIUWACHTE: MY NAME IS WOLFGANG KLEIUWACHTE FROM DENMARK.

THE ICANN CONCEPT FOR THE PROJECT WAS LABELED IN THE VERY EARLY DAYS AS GOVERNANCE WITHOUT GOVERNMENT. AND THE CONCEPT OF AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP WAS PART OF THIS PROJECT.

AT THIS TIME, IN THE EARLY DAYS, NOBODY HAD AN IDEA WHAT AN AT-LARGE MEMBER IS. THE ARTICLE II OF THE BYLAWS WAS EMPTY WHEN THE FIRST BYLAWS WERE ADOPTED.

AND WITH ONLY THREE YEARS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE REACHED A TREMENDOUS HIGH LEVEL OF CLARIFICATION AND ORGANIZATION. TODAY, WE KNOW, MORE OR LESS, WHAT AN AT-LARGE MEMBER COULD BE, AND WE KNOW HOW AN AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP COULD BE ORGANIZED.

AND WE HAVE REACHED THE POINT WHERE WE CAN MOVE FROM PROCESS TO EFFICIENT ACTION AND CONTRIBUTIONS.

TO KILL THE CONCEPT NOW WOULD MEAN TO KILL THE BABY IN THE CRADLE AND TO GO BACK TO PROCEDURES OF THE 20TH CENTURY.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE SEEN THE FILM ON CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS. THERE IS A SCENE IN THE FILM WHEN, AFTER THE REBELLION, WHEN HE IS ALONE IN HIS ROOM AND HE IS THINKING WHAT TO DO, TO GO BACK TO SPAIN OR TO MOVE FORWARD. AND HE TOOK THE RISK AND SAID, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD. AND HE DISCOVERED NEW TERRITORY.

MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD WOULD BE, SHOW YOUR COURAGE, TRUST THE PEOPLE, MOVE FORWARD. YOU WILL DISCOVER NEW TERRITORY WHICH WILL OFFER NEW OPPORTUNITIES. DON'T SAIL BACK TO SPAIN. THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR WOLFGANG. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

>>UNKNOWN: IS YOUR QUESTION "WHERE IS SPAIN?"

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: YES.

NO, FIRST OF ALL, ADVISE, THE CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS WAS COMPLETELY CRAZY. HE THOUGHT HE ARRIVED IN INDIA. BY THE WAY, HE DIED DURING THAT.

BESIDES THAT POINT, WHEN YOU SAID KILLING THE AT LARGE, FOR MY EDUCATION, WHAT'S – I MEAN THAT EVERYTHING IS IMPORTANT, BUT WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT, ELECTIONS OR THE AT-LARGE ORGANIZATION. AT ONE TIME WE HAD ELECTIONS WITHOUT THE AT-LARGE ORGANIZATION. ANOTHER TIME WE HAVE AT-LARGE WITHOUT THE ELECTIONS. IN YOUR VIEW, NOT HAVING THE ELECTIONS IS KILLING THE AT LARGE AND ICANN. NOT HAVING A SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION WITH A CONTINUING ROLE IS KILLING ICANN AND AT LARGE, OR BOTH THINGS ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT TO YOUR MIND?

>>WOLFGANG KLEIUWACHTE: CERTAINLY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MECHANISM. AND ELECTION IS A GOOD MECHANISM, YOU KNOW, TO GUARANTEE REPRESENTATION AND PARTICIPATION IN THE BOARD.

HOW THIS IS ORGANIZED, YOU KNOW, DO WE HAVE SEVERAL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE. AND I THINK THE LAST VERSION OF THE REPORT GIVES A GOOD OPTION, YOU KNOW, WHICH BRINGS THE RISKS RATHER DOWN.

NOBODY WANTS TO REPEAT THE ELECTION FROM THE YEAR 2000. BUT WE HAVE LEARNED A LOT FROM THESE ELECTIONS. I WAS A MEMBER OF THE MITF. AND, YOU KNOW, WE MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES. BUT PEOPLE LEARN FROM MISTAKES, AND I THINK THIS WAS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE. AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE NEXT STEP IS AGAIN A VERY SMALL STEP. BUT THE STEPS WOULD BE FORWARD, NOT BACKWARDS.

>>VINTON CERF: I HAVE TO MAKE ONE OBSERVATION. ONE OF THEM IS THAT WHEN COLUMBUS DISCOVERED AMERICA, AND MANY PEOPLE WENT THERE, THEY BROUGHT THINGS LIKE SMALLPOX AND SYPHILIS AND SO ON. I HOPE THAT WE DON'T GO IN THAT DIRECTION.

SECOND, JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE ONE MORE TIME, IN THE MIDST OF ALL OF OUR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT GOVERNANCE AND EVERYTHING ELSE, DON'T FORGET, OUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM WORKS AND THE INTERNET ADDRESSING ALLOCATIONS WORK. AND THAT IS OUR CORE RESPONSIBILITY.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINTON CERF: PLEASE.

>>ALAN DAVIDSON: THANKS. I'M ALAN DAVIDSON WITH THE APPARENTLY EVIL CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

THIS MORNING I HAD A CHANCE, AND I APPRECIATE IT, TO TELL THE BOARD I'M A BELIEVER IN THE ICANN EXPERIMENT.

AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT IT IS HARD TO BE A BELIEVER IN AN ORGANIZATION WHEN CORE VALUES AND BASIC STRUCTURAL BARGAINS ARE CALLED INTO QUESTION.

AND ONE OF THOSE CORE VALUES THAT'S IMPORTANT TO MANY OF US IS THE IDEA THAT ICANN SHOULD ALLOW MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION AND REPRESENTATION OF THOSE AFFECTED BY ITS DECISIONS, INCLUDING A BROADER PUBLIC INTEREST IN WHAT IT DOES, EVEN WITHIN THE NARROW SCOPE, THERE IS A PUBLIC INTEREST IN WHAT ICANN DOES. AND I THINK THAT MANY PEOPLE AGREE WITH THAT. FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE, THE "AT LARGE" CONCEPT HAS BEEN THE EMBODIMENT OF THAT IDEA. AND THE EMBODIMENT OF THE IDEA, FRANKLY, THAT ICANN IS MORE THAN JUST A TRADE ASSOCIATION.

AND FOR MANY PEOPLE, THERE'S A BELIEF THAT ICANN DOES NOT HAVE CREDIBILITY WITHOUT THIS STRUCTURE AND THIS FUNCTION.

I KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN MANY CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT THE SELECTION MECHANISM FOR THOSE AT-LARGE DIRECTORS. WE – I WOULD SAY THE NAIS GROUP BELIEVES IT HAS ACTUALLY PUT FORWARD A RELATIVELY CREDIBLE AND IMPLEMENTABLE PLAN. IN RECENT WEEKS, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION WITH THE AT-LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE AND WHERE IT'S GOING WITH ITS PLAN. AND I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN SOME GREAT MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT WHAT THESE PLANS TRY TO ACHIEVE. IT'S NOT ABOUT CREATING SOME FORM OF GLOBAL DEMOCRACY, BUT IT'S REALLY, I THINK, MOTIVATED BY AN IDEA OF PROVIDING THAT AN ELECTION CAN PROVIDE A MEASURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR A PART OF THE BOARD, AN ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE AND BE REPRESENTED FOR A GROUP OF MEMBERS IN A WAY THAT WOULD IMPROVE ICANN'S CREDIBILITY AND PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR BOTH PARTICIPATION AND REPRESENTATION.

REGARDLESS OF THAT, TODAY, WE FIND OURSELVES IN A POSITION WHERE THE BOARD HAS NO BYLAWS BEFORE IT TO ACT ON THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS HAD A CHANCE TO COMMENT ON. AND WHERE, FRANKLY, INACTION BY THE BOARD AT THIS MEETING IS IN MANY WAYS A FORM OF ACTION. THE WAY THE BYLAWS ARE WRITTEN TODAY, IF THERE IS NO DECISION MADE HERE, THERE WILL BE NO ELECTION THIS YEAR, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANYBODY BELIEVES THAT AN ELECTION CAN BE PUT TOGETHER THIS YEAR IF WE DON'T DECIDE TO DO THAT VERY, VERY SOON.

WITHOUT AN ELECTION THIS YEAR, OR SOME OTHER SELECTION MECHANISM PUT IN PLACE, THE NINE SEATS BOTH FOR THE FOUR INITIAL DIRECTORS AND THE FIVE ELECTED DIRECTORS FROM THE AT LARGE WILL CEASE TO EXIST IN NOVEMBER OF 2002. THEY DO NOT CONTINUE AFTER THE TERMS OF THESE – OF THE DIRECTORS EXPIRE.

IN DECEMBER OF 2000 – DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR, THE BOARD WILL GO FROM A 19 TO A 10-MEMBER BOARD. I THINK THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY DESTRUCTIVE FOR ICANN'S CREDIBILITY IN THE EYES OF THE WORLD.

WE WOULD PROPOSE TO THE BOARD THAT AT A VERY MINIMUM, THE BOARD TAKE ACTION HERE TO PRESENT THE COMMUNITY WITH SOME GUARANTEE THAT EVEN THOUGH – EVEN IF IT CHOOSES NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ELECTIONS TODAY, THAT IT GUARANTEE THE EXISTENCE OF THESE AT-LARGE BOARD SEATS AT LEAST UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE BOARD MAKES A FINAL DECISION ABOUT RESTRUCTURING, SELECTION MECHANISMS. WE CAN HAVE A LOT OF DEBATE ABOUT WHAT THOSE OUGHT TO BE. I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE. BUT AT THE VERY LEAST, THERE SHOULD BE A GUARANTEE THAT THOSE SEATS WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST.

SECOND, MANY OF US ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE NOTIONS THAT ESTHER AND THE STUDY COMMITTEE HAVE PUT FORWARD OF SUPPORT FOR A PARTICIPATION MECHANISM, WHICH MANY ARE WILLING TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF CREATING, TO – BECAUSE NO MATTER WHICH MODEL YOU PURSUE, IN FACT, ALMOST EVERY MODEL THAT WE HAVE PUT FORWARD, HAS A PARTICIPATION MECHANISM FOR THE PUBLIC IN WHAT ICANN DOES. AND THERE'S A WILLINGNESS TO GO OUT AND CREATE THAT.

I WOULD ASK YOU TO MAINTAIN – TRY TO PROMOTE ICANN'S CREDIBILITY AND PROVIDE FOR A MEANINGFUL PUBLIC VOICE IN ITS ACTIVITIES.

THANK YOU.

>>VINTON CERF: I'M GOING TO INTERJECT A QUESTION THAT CAME FROM THE NET.

IT WAS ONE THAT I STARTED TO POINT OUT EARLIER, BUT IT WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE EARLIER DISCUSSIONS.

THIS IS – HANG ON, I'VE GOT TO GET MY GLASSES ON OR I WON'T BE ABLE TO READ IT.

OKAY.

THIS COMES AGAIN FROM VITTORIO BERTOLA WHO SAYS HE'S AN AT-LARGE MEMBER FROM ITALY.

HIS QUESTION IS UP TO NOW, OBJECTIONS TO THE AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP MECHANISM WERE BASED ON A NUMBER OF PRACTICAL ISSUES, INVOLVEMENT OF LARGE NUMBERS OF UNINFORMED PEOPLE, NATIONALISTIC CAPTURE, ET CETERA.

BUT IF YOU HAD AN EFFECTIVE AND WELL-STRUCTURED ORGANIZATION OF A FEW THOUSAND ACTIVE AND INTERESTED MEMBERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, AS THE ALSC PROPOSES, WOULD YOU STILL REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE IT AND LET IT ELECT A PART OF THE BOARD?

AND IF SO, WHY?

>>ALAN DAVIDSON: I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION TO (INAUDIBLE).

>>VINTON CERF: I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ANYONE WHO CHOOSES TO RESPOND TO IT.

I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

IT WOULD HELP A LOT TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE AN OPERATING MECHANISM FOR INFORMED PARTICIPATION, AND THAT STRIKES ME AS A VERY IMPORTANT FIRST STEP.

AND MAYBE THE ANSWER AS TO ELECTIONS ISN'T DECIDABLE UNTIL YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT YOU HAVE SUCH AN INFORMED PARTICIPATING MECHANISM.

PLEASE.

>>DIANE CABELL: MY NAME IS DIANE CABELL I'M WITH THE BERKMAN SOCIETY FOR INTERNET SOCIETY AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, AND I'M SPEAKING AS A MEMBER OF THE FIRST MEMBERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHERE MY ROLE WAS TO LISTEN TO THE COMMENTS, AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT, TO CALL THE IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED, TO UNDERSTAND WHERE DIFFERENT PEOPLE WERE COMING FROM.

I FOUND IT ENORMOUSLY REWARDING.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE AT LARGE DOES.

IT BRINGS PERSPECTIVES THAT AREN'T SITTING HERE AT THE DESK.

BUT IN MY EXPERIENCE, AND I CAN ONLY SPEAK FROM THAT, IT DOESN'T HELP JUST TO HAVE A COMMENT BOARD THAT GOES INTO A BLACK HOLE.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DIALOGUE.

AND THIS IS WHAT AN AT LARGE CAN DO.

IT CAN TAKE A ROLE.

I'VE LISTENED TO YOU ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT MANY OF YOU COME WITH A DECISION, BUT YOU HAVE REALLY GOOD REASONS FOR IT.

AND IF EVERYBODY KNEW THAT REASON, THEY WOULD UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT.

IF THESE COMMENT BOARDS ARE TOO FAR REMOVED FROM THE BOARD ITSELF, IF THEY'RE TOO DISTANT, YOU'LL GET TOO LOW A SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO.

YOU'LL END UP WITH PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT TO SEE THEIR NAMES IN PRINT.

SO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE DIVERSITY OF INFORMATION AND INPUT, BUT MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE A SENSE THAT IT'S REALLY BEING HEARD.

THANK YOU.

>>MARILYN CADE: I HAVE BRIEF COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE BC WHICH RESTATES PART OF WHAT I SAID THIS MORNING BUT I WOULD ADD A COMMENT THAT THE BC CERTAINLY UNDERSTANDS THAT SOME ON THE BOARD, MAYBE MANY ON THE BOARD, MAY VIEW THE AT LARGE AS A NOT-AN-IDEAL APPROACH TO SOLVING THIS PROBLEM, EXPENSIVE AND TIME CONSUMING.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT CONCERN.

WE'VE TRIED TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

FROM THE BEGINNING, OUR VIEW ABOUT THE AT LARGE IS THAT IT MUST COME WITH SUSTAINED, INFORMED PARTICIPATION.

AND WE FELT THAT THE MECHANISM THAT WAS DEVELOPED IN THE AT LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE BUILT THOSE CAPACITIES INTO THE REGIONAL STRUCTURE TO ENSURE THAT THAT WOULD EXIST.

WE THINK THAT IT'S STILL THE PRIORITY.

IT MAY BE, TO VINT'S POINT OR COMMENT THAT YOU MADE, THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT ELECTION UNTIL YOU SEE THE DEMONSTRATED PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABILITY.

OUR VIEW HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES THAT IF IT'S A PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE THAT SHOWS A BENCHMARK, LET'S LET PEOPLE DEMONSTRATE IF THEY CAN MEET THE BENCHMARK TO ESTABLISH PARTICIPATION.

THAT IS A FIRST STEP.

>>VINTON CERF: IZUMI.

>>IZUMI AIZU: THANK YOU.

I'M ALSO THE – ORIGINALLY THE MEMBER OF THE MAC, MEMBERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND I BELIEVE I WAS ALSO A MEMBER OF MITF.

I PARTICIPATED IN THIS STUDY TO THE AT LARGE.

SO I'D LIKE TO REVIEW SOME OF MY PAST EXPERIENCES WITH ALL OF YOU AND ALSO I'D LIKE TO HEAR, ESPECIALLY FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHO ARE ELECTED BY SO-CALLED ONLINE GLOBAL ELECTION, YOUR HONEST VIEWS AND RATIONALES BEHIND SO WE CAN MUTUALLY UNDERSTAND WELL.

AS I READ MR. LYNN'S REPORT, I FOUND THAT THERE IS SEVERAL CONCERNS ABOUT GLOBAL ONLINE ELECTION.

I ALSO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO INTERACT WITH YOU IN BANGKOK AT APRICOT, AND ALSO HEARD YOUR VIEWS.

WHILE THERE ARE PERCEIVED RISKS, DISADVANTAGES, PROBLEMS OF THE ONLINE ELECTION, I AGREE, NAIS AND ALSC, I BELIEVE WE TRIED VERY HARD TO FIND SOME SAFEGUARD MEASURES TO PREVENT IF NOT ENTIRELY, BUT SUPPRESS TO SOME LEVEL THAT CAN BE WORKABLE OR MANAGEABLE.

OF COURSE THAT INCLUDES THE FEES, AUTHENTICATION METHODS, NUMBER OF SEATS, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND I THINK WE ARE ALMOST, AS NAIS, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, WE ALMOST HAVE THE CONSENSUS, NOT ONLY THE FRAMEWORK BUT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT, TO ADDRESS THESE PROBLEMATIC AREAS.

BUT I ALSO LIKE TO BROUGHT ATTENTION TO THE ADVANTAGES, MERITS AND OPPORTUNITIES OF THE ELECTIONS SO THAT WE CAN SORT OF COMPARE RATIONALLY TO MEASURE WHICH WAY IS MORE RATIONAL AND ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMUNITY.

I FOUND THAT IS NOT REALLY DESCRIBED IN YOUR REPORT, MR. LYNN'S REPORT.

I DIDN'T FIND THAT WELL MYSELF IN OUR PREVIOUS REPORTS MAY BE, NOT ARTICULATE SO YOU MAY HAVE SOME MISUNDERSTANDING OR DIFFERENCES IN OPINION.

AND THINK, WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT OR PROPOSAL INVITING GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS FOR THE SORT OF NOMINATION WILL ACTUALLY GIVE MORE (INAUDIBLE) ABOUT WHY ELECTION HAS SOME ADVANTAGE.

IT MAY GIVE YOU MORE DIVERSITY THAN THIS NOMINATION.

THERE ARE A LOT OF CULTURAL LANGUAGE OR IDEAS AND VALUES THAT ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM PARTS OF THE WORLD.

I COULDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND – EXCUSE ME, SIR, MR. VINT CERF'S COMMENT ABOUT CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS.

I SIMPLY COULDN'T.

AND THAT'S SORT OF A GAP SOMETIMES.

IF I MAKE SOME JOKE IN JAPANESE, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND.

>>VINTON CERF: VERY LIKELY.

>>IZUMI AIZU: YEAH.

SO WE NEED TO SORT OF REFRAIN FROM USING.

IT'S SORT OF A SERIOUS PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT EVEN NATIVE LANGUAGE IN FRENCH OR ENGLISH HERE IN THIS ROOM AND TRYING VERY HARD TO CAPTURE WHAT THE HEART OF THE MATTER IS.

BUT IF YOU DO THE ELECTION LOCALLY AND REGIONALLY, YOU FEEL MUCH CLOSER TO THIS AREA OF ISSUES WITH PROPER (INAUDIBLE) MECHANICS WHICH WAS NOT THERE IN THE ORIGINAL OR SECOND PROPOSAL, WHICH WE CAME UP ALMOST VERY CLOSE TO HAVE SOME MEANINGFUL, SUSTAINABLE PARTICIPATION, SO THAT IT WILL SORT OF CREATE NATURAL COMPETITION AMONGST THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO PARTICIPATE SO THEY CAN BE ELECTED IN A MORE OR LESS TRANSPARENT MANNER.

AND ALSO, IT WILL ALLOW HETEROGENEOUS OUTCOME.

IN YOU HAVE ONE COMMITTEE AND MAKE ONE STANDARD OF SELECTION AND COME UP WITH A RESULT, EVEN THOUGH YOU SET – AND WHICH YOU HAVEN'T REALLY OUTLINED YET – THE CRITERIA OF SELECTION AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT, I UNDERSTAND, TO OPEN UP THIS PROCESS OF NOMINATION, WHICH ACTUALLY THE NOMINATION WAS DONE IN THE FIRST ROUND OF ELECTION, TOO.

SEVERAL OF YOU PEOPLE WERE ON THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE.

AND WE DIDN'T DEMAND THAT MUCH.

HOW DID YOU REALLY NOMINATE OR SELECT.

SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT METHODS.

I'M NOT CRITICIZING THAT.

BUT I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU TO COMPARE THE DIFFERENCES AND WHICH WAY HAVE MUCH MORE SUITABLE OUTCOME FOR THIS MATTER.

AND FINALLY, I BELIEVE THE INTERNET IS MUCH MORE DECENTRALIZED THAN THE OLD MECHANISM, BE IT ROOT SERVER, IP, AND WHY DO WE REALLY NEED TO CENTRALIZE, MUCH MORE THAN CURRENTLY OR SOME IMPROVED VERSION?

WE HAVE SOME PROGRAMS.

LET'S IMPROVE THAT.

BUT I DON'T THINK WE REALLY NEED TO GO TOO FAR TO HAVE ONLY THE POTENTIAL RISKS AS IF IT REALLY EXISTS.

THANK YOU.

AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOUR COMMENT, IF YOU COULD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE).

>>YOUNG KANG: HI.

I'M YOUNG KANG FROM KRNIC AND REGARDING THE AT-LARGE ISSUES I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE REGIONAL TO YOU.

LET ME ADDRESS ASIA-PACIFIC.

THE ASIA-PACIFIC BRIEFLY FOUND THE REGIONAL ALLY MEMBERS, SO THEREFORE WE HAVE HAD THREE MEETINGS SINCE MARINA DEL REY MEETING LAST NOVEMBER.

SO FIRST MEETING WAS HELD IN MARINA DEL REY MEETING IN NOVEMBER 2001, AND AT THE TIME THERE WERE ABOUT 30 PEOPLE, AND FROM THE 11 COUNTRIES, STILL WE CHOSE THE CONTACT POINTS FROM EACH COUNTRY.

AND THEN THE SECOND MEETING WAS HELD DURING THE APRICOT MEETING IN BANGKOK JUST A WEEK AGO BEFORE THIS MEETING, AND THEN THERE WAS THE FIRST AT-LARGE GENERAL MEETING.

AT THE TIME WE DISCUSSED ABOUT THE STATUS AND THE EFFORTS WITH THE AT-LARGE MEMBERS SINCE AT-LARGE ELECTION IN 2000.

SO I THINK THERE ARE SOMETHING MORE TO LOCAL INTERNET COMMUNITIES, THE INTERNET COMMUNITIES – I MEAN NOT ONLY THE AT-LARGE ELECTION, BUT ALSO THE OTHER – THE INTERNET COMMITTEE ISSUES.

SO WE SHARE THE IDEAS AND THEN REPORTS FROM EACH ASIA-PACIFIC (INAUDIBLE) AND USERS' GROUP.

AND THEN THE THIRD MEETING WAS HELD THE – YESTERDAY.

WE SHARED OUR IDEAS ABOUT THE ICANN REFORMATION.

SO WITHIN THE – REGARDING THE ICANN ALLIES, AND ALSO THE INSIDE THE ICANN ALLIES, THE OUTSIDE ICANN ALLIES.

I THINK THE REGIONAL INTERNET COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY THE ASIA-PACIFIC ALLIANCE, OUR MISSION AND OBJECTIVE IS THE COORDINATING AND INFORMING THE LOCAL INTERNET COMMUNITY IN EACH COUNTRY.

SO TO HAVE A GLOBAL ALLIES, I THINK, I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT STEPS TO FORM THE LOCAL INTERNET COMMUNITY

SO OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD IN AUGUST IN SHANGHAI.

THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN PEOPLE, ANALYZE THE ISSUES IN ASIA-PACIFIC.

EVERYONE IS WELCOME TO JOIN AP ALLIES.

SO PLEASE VISIT OUR WEB SITE, WWW.APALLIES.ORG.

>>HANS KLEIN: I'M HANS KLEIN.

WE'VE HEARD LOTS OF GOOD REASONS, I THINK, FOR PRESERVING THE AT-LARGE IN TERMS OF THE CREDIBILITY OF ICANN, THE COMMENTS MADE EARLIER.

LET ME GIVE YOU SOME NOT SO GOOD REASONS BUT MAYBE THEY'LL CARRY SOME WEIGHT WITH YOU.

I THINK THERE'S A GROWING SENSE OF PRETTY STRONG CRITICISM COMING OUT AT ICANN FROM INCREASINGLY SIGNIFICANT PLAYERS IN THE ICANN COMMUNITY AND POSSIBLY EVEN IN THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, AND I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS EXPERIMENT IN THE AT LARGE – QUESTIONS ABOUT CONTINUING THE AT LARGE COULD LEAD TO QUESTIONS ABOUT CONTINUING ICANN AT ALL.

JUST RECENTLY WE HEARD LANGUAGE FROM THE ALSC, THAT'S A BOARD-APPOINTED COMMITTEE.

THEY'RE RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WHOLE IDEA OF ICANN, THE POSSIBILITY OF RETHINKING THE WHOLE ISSUE HERE.

WE HEARD THE REMARKABLE TERM OF LYNN PROPOSAL BE DESCRIBED AS A PALACE COUP D'ETAT.

I WOULD GUESS THE INTERNATIONAL PRESS IS GOING TO PICK UP ON THAT TERM OF A PALACE COUP D'ETAT AND HAVE A GREAT RIDE WITH IT.

IT MAKES GREAT PRESS, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES FROM THE CARTER CENTER REPRESENTATIVE, WHICH OF COURSE IS ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED INSTITUTIONS FOR ELECTIONS AND DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES.

I THINK MOST OF US HERE ARE AWARE THAT THIS CALLS FOR SENATE HEARINGS BEING MADE BY SENATOR BURNS IN THE SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE.

AGAIN, THE LETTER CALLING FOR THOSE HEARINGS SAYS THAT WE SHOULD POSSIBLY RETHINK THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT OF INTERNET PRIVATIZATION.

AND TODAY'S MOOD FOLLOWING ENRON AND SO FORTH, THOSE ARE POSSIBLY BAD MOODS.

SO THOSE ARE REASONS FOR THINKING OF POSSIBLY ELIMINATING THE AT LARGE MEMBERSHIP.

THERE ARE TWO CHOICES.

IF IT GOES WITH THE PROPOSAL BY THE STAFF IT FACES SEVEN MONTHS OF FURTHER PROCESS AND DELIBERATION.

THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM MORNING.

SEVEN MONTHS OF FURTHER PROCESS AND DELIBERATION.

THAT STRIKES ME AS A MISTAKE AND POSSIBLY A FATAL MISTAKE FOR AN ORGANIZATION THAT REALLY NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD.

THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO GO AHEAD WITH THE COMMITMENTS, IMPLEMENT THE AT LARGE IN ONE OF THE FORMS BEING PROPOSED AND MOVE ON TO OTHER BUSINESS.

MAKE CLOSURE, MOVE ON, KEEP PEOPLE HAPPY, KEEP SOME OF THOSE EXTERNAL THREATENING – THREATS FROM COMING INTO BEING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>VINTON CERF: I HAVE SEVERAL BOARD MEMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND.

I SEE THREE OF THEM.

LET ME START WITH JONATHAN AND HANS AND THEN ALEJANDRO.

JONATHAN.

>>JONATHAN COHEN: TEN, NINE, EIGHT, SEVEN.

>>: CAN'T HEAR YOU.

>>JONATHAN COHEN: IT'S ON?

I WAS JUST COUNTING BACKWARDS SO I WOULDN'T BE INJUDICIOUS.

CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>>: NO.

>>: TAKE ANOTHER MIKE.

>>JONATHAN COHEN: NOW AM I ON?

YES?

NO?

OKAY.

I LISTENED TO THE COMMENTS FROM THE GENTLEMAN FROM THE CARTER CENTER.

I'M ONLY SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, AND I CAN ONLY TELL YOU THAT I FOUND THE COMMENTS INSULTING AND BIASED AND SELF-SERVING, AND INAPPROPRIATE.

AND I CONSIDER THE VEILED THREATS EQUALLY INAPPROPRIATE.

I DOUBT THAT ANY OF YOU HAVE A SENSE OF THE BOARD OR WHAT IT'S THINKING, BUT IT'S PRETTY OFFENSIVE TO HEAR.

THANK YOU.

>>HANS KRAAIJENBRINK: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR HANS KLEIN.

HE REFERRED TO SEVEN MONTHS OF PROCESS IF WE WENT ALONG WORKING OUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS PROPOSED.

CAN HE GIVE ME ANY INDICATION OF THE AMOUNT OF PROCESS WHICH WOULD BE NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AT-LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE INCLUDING THE SETTING UP OF THE REGIONAL AT-LARGE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION AND ORGANIZING THE ELECTIONS?

I THINK THAT TAKES MORE THAN SEVEN MONTHS.

AND A LOT MORE MONEY.

SO I DO NOT SEE YOUR ARGUMENT THAT FOLLOWING THE AT-LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE OR THE PROJECT WILL GET OUT OF THE ISSUE OF (INAUDIBLE).

>>HANS KLEIN: OKAY.

I'LL ADDRESS BOTH QUESTIONS.

JONATHAN, LET ME ADDRESS YOU.

A U.S. OVERSIGHT ISN'T A VEILED THREAT, IT'S SORT OF JUST A THREAT.

IT IS UNPLEASANT TO THE IDEA YOU MIGHT HAVE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS TO REVIEW THE POLICIES MADE IN 1998, BUT IT ISN'T A VEILED THREAT.

IT'S A THREAT, AND I THINK YOU CAN TAKE IT – IT MAY BE UNPLEASANT, BUT IT'S INTENDED TO SO THE POLICY IS IMPLEMENTED CORRECTLY.

HANS, BACK TO YOUR QUESTION.

OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT THE EXPERT ON THE ALSC RECOMMENDATIONS.

THE ALSC IS THE EXPERT ON THE ALSC RECOMMENDATIONS.

BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, EXPERT OPINION IS THAT IF WE ACT NOW, IF WE PROVE ICANN'S WILLINGNESS TO MAKE DECISIONS AND MOVE FORWARD, IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE SOME OF THE BENCHMARKS NEEDED TO INDICATE BROAD USER PARTICIPATION, THE MOST COMMON BENCHMARK IS 5,000 MEMBERS.

THAT'S WIDELY PERCEIVED AS BEING QUITE POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE IN, I WOULD SAY, WITHIN SIX MONTHS, PROBABLY CLOSER TO THREE MONTHS.

IN TERMS OF REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, THE SPEAKER BEFORE ME WAS REPRESENTING THE ASIA-PACIFIC AT-LARGE ORGANIZATION JUST CREATED IN BANGKOK.

IT'S UP AND RUNNING.

IN THE UNITED STATES THERE IS ENOUGH CONSENSUS AND INTERACTION THAT IT'S A REGIONAL ORGANIZATION IN NORTH AMERICA IS ESSENTIALLY CLOSE TO BEING UP AND RUNNING.

IN EUROPE THERE'S PRETTY GOOD ASSOCIATION WITH THE AT LARGE.

I THINK IT WOULD BE UP AND RUNNING BEFORE THE NOVEMBER ELECTION.

THAT LEAVES US WITH AFRICA, WITH LATIN AMERICA.

ARE THOSE SHOW STOPPERS?

I THINK WE COULD HAVE IT UP AND RUNNING IN TIME FOR A NOVEMBER ELECTION.

I BELIEVE AND THERE'S EVIDENCE FOR THIS THAT A STRONG COMMITMENT TO MOVE AHEAD AND TO SWITCH FROM CONSULTATION MODE TO ACTION MODE BY THIS BOARD AT THIS MEETING COULD LEAD TO EFFECTIVE ELECTIONS THIS YEAR AND COULD CONVINCE THE WORLD THAT THIS IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT GETS THINGS DONE.

>>VINTON CERF: ALEJANDRO AND, – I'M SORRY, ALEJANDRO IS NEXT AND THEN STUART LYNN.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I'M SORRY, I UNDERSTAND THE THREATS THAT ARE NOT VEILED.

THOSE ARE CLEAR TO US, AND THEY MAY BE VERY UNPLEASANT, AND WE ALSO MAY NOT BE FEELING PERSONALLY VERY THREATENED BY THOSE THREATS.

I THINK WE VALUE SOME OF THE ORIGINS OF THE THREATENING BETWEEN THE LANGUAGE LIKE THAT OF CHUCK COSTELLO.

MAY ADD TO THE GENERAL CULTURE OF THOSE INTERESTED IN ELECTIONS, THAT THE CARTER CENTER IS NOT UNCONTROVERSIAL IN ITS WORK IN ELECTIONS IN LATIN AMERICA, AT LEAST TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

SO THAT MAY BE NEWS FOR SOME OF YOU, BUT IT DOES HAPPEN.

SOME VERY OBVIOUS CHEATING IN ELECTIONS HAVE PASSED BY THE CARTER CENTER.

I SAY THIS HAVING PRODUCED A CD-ROM FOR EDUCATION OF OBSERVERS IN ELECTIONS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WHICH HAVE TO RE-DO A LOT OF THIS BY CARTOONS BECAUSE PICTURES ARE NOT AVAILABLE.

AND SOME OF THIS WENT BY THE CARTER CENTER.

NOT TO ENGAGE IN CONTROVERSY BUT JUST TO AMPLIFY THE LENS HERE.

SO WE HAVE, BETWEEN THE BLIND THREATS WE HAVE OPEN THREATS.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

AS A MEMBER OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY, DO YOU SIDE WITH THE THREATS OR DO YOU SIDE AGAINST THOSE THREATS?

>>HANS KLEIN: YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES, IN ACADEMIA I OVERSEE THE WORK OF PH.D. STUDENTS AND YOU URGE THEM TO DO THE RIGHT THING, YOU TRY TO TEACH THEM TO DO THE RIGHT THING, YOU TRY TO GUIDE THEM, BUT SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO KICK THEM IN THE ASS TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

AND I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT THE MESSAGE THAT'S COMING ACROSS HERE.

I LOVE ICANN, I WANT IT TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

IT'S TIME FOR SOME STRONG LANGUAGE BECAUSE WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO GET THINGS BACK ON TRACK AND MOVE FORWARD.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: COMING FROM THE UNIVERSITY, I HAVE TO TELL YOU I'M MOST PROUD THAT THE ACADEMICS THAT CAN KICK SOME ASS TO THE STUDENTS ARE STILL COUNTING ON THE COMPUTER CENTER AND INTERNET SERVER THAT'S JUST RUNNING.

THAT'S MY JOKE.

AND I GATHER THAT BY YOUR ENDORSEMENT OF STRONG LANGUAGE, YOU ARE PARTICIPATING.

>>VINTON CERF: STUART LYNN IS NEXT AND THEN AMADEU.

>>STUART LYNN: I'M TRYING TO LISTEN AS MUCH AS I CAN AND NOT RESPOND TO EVERYTHING YOU JUST RAISED, BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT IF I HAVE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE, I'M HAPPY TO APPEAR BEFORE ANY GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD, BUT I'D BE PARTICULARLY PLEASED TO ANSWER SENATOR BURNS WITH A VIEW THAT ICANN IS DEVOTING ITS ATTENTION TO BEING EFFECTIVE AND CREDIBLE IN THE MULTIPLE WAYS IT NEEDS TO THAN IT IS DEVOTING ITS ENERGY TO MAKE IT EASY FOR 5,000 PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD TO VOTE IN AN ONLINE ELECTION.

NOW, I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT I STRONGLY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE NOTION OF ELECTIONS AND THE NOTIONS OF AT LARGE.

IN FACT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DISTURBED ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ESTHER'S REPORT, THE ONLY THING THAT DISTURBED ME IS – BECAUSE I FULLY SUPPORT EVERYTHING ELSE SHE SAID, IS THE NOTION OF AN AT-LARGE ORGANIZATION THAT SPEAKS WITH ONE VOICE.

THAT SOUNDS EXACTLY WHAT WE DO NOT WANT.

WE WANT THE MULTIPLE VOICES OF THIS WORLD TO BE HEARD THROUGH, IN A MULTIPLICITY OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

I DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AN ONLINE ELECTION AND AT-LARGE INVOLVEMENT, AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO APPEAR BEFORE SENATOR BURNS AND BE ABLE TO REPORT A STORY THAT ICANN IS USING ITS ENERGIES TOWARDS DOING WHAT I PERCEIVE AS NECESSARY, THE MOST CORE GOAL THAT COMES AFTER STABILITY OF THE ROOT AND THAT IS CREATING THE SET OF PRECONDITIONS TO WHEREBY WE CAN TRULY INTERNATIONALIZE.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE FOR A MOMENT THAT TELLING HIM WE'RE ENGAGING IN ONLINE ELECTIONS IS GOING TO MOVE US TOWARDS THAT GOAL ONE IOTA.

(APPLAUSE).

>>VINTON CERF: ESTHER, WAIT ONE MOMENT.

ONE MORE PERSON IN QUEUE, AMADEU, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO CALL ON YOU NEXT.

WE HAVE TOO MANY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY SPEAK.

BECAUSE THE AIRWAVES ARE SERIAL IN NATURE, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SERIALIZE THE DISCUSSION.

SO I'M GOING TO DO THAT NOW.

FIRST, LET ME ASK WHETHER THE PEOPLE WHO STOOD UP ALREADY TO SPEAK WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN THAT ORDER OR WHETHER YOU'RE WILLING TO YIELD ANY TIME?

I WOULD LIKE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED OFFHAND, AND THAT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR ME.

NOT YET.

HOWEVER, AMADEU RAISED HIS HAND FOR A QUESTION, SO IT'S GOING TO BE AMADEU, THEN IT'S GOING TO BE THE NEXT SPEAKERS WHO WERE ALREADY IN LINE, AND THEN I'LL CALL ON ESTHER AND CHUCK.

OKAY.

AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: THANKS FOR YOUR ABILITY TO NOT SEE MY HAND WHEN I FIRST RAISED IT, I HAVE CALMED DOWN.

I WILL MOVE FROM THE THREATS.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR HANS.

YOU ARE PART OF THE NAIS STUDY; CORRECT?

>>HANS KLEIN: NO.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: A QUESTION THAT PERHAPS LATER SOMEBODY CAN EXPLAIN TO ME, PERHAPS IZUMI WHO IS CERTAINLY A PART.

IF I UNDERSTOOD THAT WELL, THIS IS FOR MY EDUCATION AS A BOARD MEMBER, WHEN I FIRST RECEIVED THE ALSC REPORT IN DIFFERENT VERSIONS FROM LAST SUMMER, I ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE NAIS STUDY WAS CRITICAL ABOUT THE BASIC CHOICES OF THE ALSC.

TODAY I'M HEARING SOMEHOW SOME CONVERGENCE.

I WOULD LIKE AT A CERTAIN POINT SOMEONE FROM NAIS EXPLAIN TO ME MY IMPRESSION THAT THEY ARE NOW SUPPORTING THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION OF ALSC IS CORRECT OR NOT, AND THE EXPLANATION OF WHAT HAS CHANGED.

SO IF IT'S NOT FOR YOU, IT'S FOR SOMEBODY ELSE.

>>ALAN LEVIN: HI. MY NAME IS ALAN LEVIN. I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO SPEAK AS A SOUTH AFRICAN INTERNET USER. I'VE BECOME ENGAGED IN ICANN BECAUSE OF THE AT LARGE. I'VE ACTUALLY ENGAGED AND PARTICIPATED IN MOST OF THE CONSTITUENCIES IN ICANN, BECAUSE, AS A SOUTH AFRICAN, I NEED TO BE A GENERALIST. I NEED TO BE AWARE OF EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON AROUND ME. AND AS SUCH, I'VE BEEN ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN EVERYTHING FROM THE GAC TO ALL THE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES, BUSINESS, I PARTICIPATE IN NONCOMMERCIAL DOMAIN NAMES, I PARTICIPATE AS A USER IN THE AFRINIC PROCESS IN RIRS, ALL BECAUSE OF THE AT LARGE.

THE AT LARGE HAS GIVEN ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND FOUR, FIVE – FOUR ICANN MEETINGS. AND EVERY TIME THAT THE BOARD HAS MET, 90% OF MY VIEWS, OR OVER 90% OF MY VIEWS, HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED BY THE ELECTED DIRECTORS.

I CALL TO YOU TO PLEASE END THIS ANALYSIS PARALYSIS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INTERNET, WHICH NEEDS TO WORK. AND IN THE NAME OF STABILITY, PLEASE MAKE SOME DECISION.

I SUPPORT ESTHER'S PROPOSAL. THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>:ALEXANDER SVENSSON: MY NAME IS ALEXANDER SVENSSON. I AM DNSO GENERAL ASSEMBLY ALTERNATE CHAIR, BUT SPEAKING AS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO SIGNED UP FOR ICANN AT LARGE A COUPLE OF – WELL, ALMOST YEARS AGO NOW, IT SEEMS.

I AM AMAZED AT THE AMOUNT OF CONVERSION – CONVERGENCE I SEE. I AM NOT PART OF THE NAIS STUDY, I AM NOT PART OF THE ALSC. I'VE BEEN WATCHING THE REPORTS FROM ALL OF THE SIDES, AND I THINK, OF COURSE, ALSO BECAUSE THE ACCRA MEETING IS THE FINAL POINT IN TIME WHERE A MEANINGFUL DECISION CAN BE MADE, THAT WE ARE NOW AT THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE PROPOSALS ON THE TABLE. AND A DECISION HAS TO BE MADE.

AND ONE OF THE WAYS FORWARD WOULD BE THAT THE DIRECTOR'S SEATS ARE KEPT AS A GUARANTEE THAT THE ICANN BOARD SENDS A MESSAGE WE WANT TO KEEP USER PARTICIPATION AND REPRESENTATION.

THE QUESTION HOW IT WILL BE ORGANIZED, THAT IS, OF COURSE, THE QUESTION WHY IT HAS TAKEN SO LONG TO COME TO A CONCLUSION, WE HAVE NOW, IN MY VIEW, A GOOD REPORT FROM THE ALSC AND FROM NAIS. AND WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS, WITH THE ALSC REPORT HAVING AN EXTRA FOUR OPTIONS.

IF THE BOARD WOULD NOT TAKE A DECISION NOW, I THINK THEY WOULD SEND THE TOTALLY WRONG SIGNAL. THEY WOULD SEND THE SIGNAL THAT THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS ABOUT AT LARGE, WHICH HAS BEEN GOING ON AND ON AND ON FOR AN ETERNITY, WILL NEVER COME TO AN END.

SO I URGE THE BOARD TO TAKE DECISION TO KEEP THE AT LARGE BOARD MEMBERS AND TO IMPLEMENT AN ORGANIZING COMMITTEE.

THERE ARE ALREADY EFFORTS UNDERWAY OF SELF-ORGANIZING. I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYONE HAS SEEN THE CURRENT SIGNUP AT ICANNAT-LARGE.COM. IT'S TWO WEEKS OLD. WE HAVE 50 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. IT'S A SHOW UP FOR INTEREST, NOTHING MORE.

IT WON'T WORK IF THE ICANN BOARD DOESN'T SEND A MESSAGE THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE AT LARGE.

SO I URGE YOU, TAKE A DECISION NOW.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU.

>>BRET FAUSETT: THANK YOU, MY NAME IS BRET FAUSETT, I'M A LAWYER FROM LOS ANGELES, AND I'M SPEAKING TODAY PRIMARILY AS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO VIEWS HIS PRIMARY RELATIONSHIP WITH ICANN AS AN AT LARGE MEMBER. THE AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP HAS REALLY BEEN ON A LONG, STRANGE TRIP THAT STARTED IN 1998 WITH THE MAC. WE DID OUTREACH AFTER THE MEMBERSHIP OUTREACH COMMITTEE. WE HAD THE ONLINE ELECTIONS IN 2000. WE SEATED FIVE BOARD MEMBERS THAT ALWAYS MAKE ME VERY PROUD TO SEE THEM SITTING UP THERE ON THE BOARD.

AND WE STARTED WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE DOWNSIDE OF THAT PROCESS WITH THE REPORT THAT THIS BOARD COMMISSIONED LAST YEAR IN THE ALSC.

AND I WOULD – WHEN I READ THAT REPORT, I REALLY SEE THE END IN SIGHT FOR CREATING A WORKABLE AT LARGE. AND I WOULD ASK THIS BOARD TO DO MORE TOMORROW THAN THANK THE ALSC FOR ITS EFFORT. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU ADOPT THE REPORT AND YOU TAKE POSITIVE STEPS TO IMPLEMENT IT. THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>ADAM PEAKE: I'M ADAM PEAKE, AND I AM A NAIS MEMBER. SO, AMADEU, PERHAPS I CAN TRY AND ADDRESS SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS, WHICH, I THINK, IZUMI WILL PROBABLY ALSO HAVE A WORD.

I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORIGINALLY ALSC REPORT, THEY BEGAN WITH THE IDEA OF A DOMAIN NAME AS THE REPRESENTATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL. WE HAVE SEEN A GREAT MOVEMENT, WE SEE THE DOMAIN NAME PLUS OPTION DESCRIBED.

THE NAIS REPORT BEGAN WITH A REITERATION OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2000. WE HAVE MOVED TOWARDS THE PAYMENT OF FEES AND HAVE QUITE IN SOME DETAIL TRIED TO DESCRIBE HOW THAT MIGHT HAPPEN.

PINDAR AND I, FOR EXAMPLE, WORKED DURING THE EARLY PART OF FEBRUARY TRYING TO WORK OUT HOW WE COULD APPEAR ON THE AGENDAS OF THE ASO MEETING IN BANGKOK, TALKING TO THE ATPLD, TRYING TO TALK TO THE REGIONAL REGISTRIES. SO WHAT WE WERE DOING WAS REACHING, AS ALEXANDER SAID, A GOOD DEAL OF CONVERGENCE.

I'LL BE QUITE HONEST, I WAS EXPECTING – I WOULD HAVE HOPED WE COULD HAVE COME OUT OF THIS MEETING WITH A VERY SOLID, IMPLEMENTABLE PROPOSAL. AND I'M NOT JUST SAYING THAT. BECAUSE I HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT WE WERE CONVERGING VERY STRONGLY.

AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE HELD VERY DEAR TO OUR HEARTS SIX, NINE MONTHS AGO, WE WERE BEING PERSUADED OTHERWISE. WE HAD SOME LAST DISCUSSIONS TO GO. I WAS VERY INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT THE ALSC HAD TO SAY TO SOME OF OUR QUESTIONS. BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. AND I THINK THAT'S VERY DISAPPOINTING.

MY LAST COMMENT IS TO COMMEND THE ALSC ON THEIR WORK AND THANK THEM FOR IT.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU.

LET ME INTERPOSE BEFORE IZUMI. THERE ARE THREE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ASKED TO SPEAK. ESTHER, YOU ASKED TO, AND CHUCK, AND PINDAR HAS.

SO LET ME TAKE ESTHER FIRST.

>>ESTHER DYSON: YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO STUART'S COMMENT AND AMEND WHAT I SAID. NOT A SINGLE VOICE, BUT A COHERENT VOICE.

AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT IF YOU HAVE NO STRUCTURE TO ORGANIZE THE COMMENTS AND CREATE A MINORITY REPORT, A MAJORITY REPORT, WHATEVER, WHAT THE AT LARGE NEEDS IS SOME KIND OF RECEIVING MECHANISM SO THAT IT CAN SAY SOMETHING THAT IS INTELLIGIBLE AND SO THAT THE NOISE WILL DISSIPATE. THAT'S ALL.

THANK YOU.

>>STUART LYNN: IF I CAN JUST SAY, I ASSUMED THAT WAS MORE OF WHAT YOU MEANT. WHAT I'M GOING TO KEEP TRYING TO EMPHASIZE IS I HOPE WHATEVER COMES THROUGH IN AT LARGE WILL BE A MULTIPLICITY OF DIFFERENT WAYS OF PULLING THINGS TOGETHER.

>>ESTHER DYSON: YES. AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE – THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT REGIONAL BOTTOM-UP ORGANIZATION.

I HOPE SOMEDAY THERE WILL ALSO BE SOMETHING THAT IS FOCUSED AROUND ISSUES AS WELL AS SIMPLY GEOGRAPHY, THAT WERE AT AN EARLY TIME.

>>VINTON CERF: CHUCK, DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND.

>>CHARLES COSTELLO: THANK YOU. TWO POINTS OF CLARIFICATION, THAT'S ALL, ABOUT HANS'S REMARKS.

FIRST IS THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE AT-LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE ACT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES. SO IT WAS, INDEED, INACCURATE FOR HIM TO REFER TO ME AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CARTER CENTER ANYMORE THAN ANY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE REPRESENT INSTITUTIONS. WE'RE ACTING INDIVIDUALLY. IN THAT SENSE, CLEARLY, I DO NOT REPRESENT THE CARTER CENTER. THERE'S ONLY AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP ON THE AT-LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE.

SECONDLY, HE MADE REFERENCES TO THREATS, VEILED OR OTHERWISE – AND, AGAIN, I WOULD WANT TO CLARIFY THAT MY OWN REMARKS DID NOT INTEND THREATS, VEILED OR OTHERWISE.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU, CHUCK. PINDAR.

>>PINDAR WONG: I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE REPORTS.

FIRST OF ALL, BEGIN WITH A PERSONAL REMARK.

HANS, YOU REFERRED TO THE RAPID CHANGE IN THE DECISIONS IN THE CAIRO COMPROMISE.

AS BY WAY OF A PERSONAL MOTIVATOR OF WHY I'VE SPENT THE LAST YEAR OF MY LIFE ON THIS TOPIC WAS BECAUSE I FELT THAT WE MADE A MISTAKE. WE CHANGED AT THE LAST MINUTE. AND I DID NOT KNOW THE CDT. I DID NOT RECOGNIZE THEM. BUT I DEFERRED TO MY U.S. COLLEAGUES AT THAT POINT IN TIME WHO HAD BETTER UNDERSTANDING THAN I DID. I WENT WITH THAT DECISION. I'VE REGRETTED IT FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME.

THAT IS WHY OVER THE LAST YEAR THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLE STUDY, NOT RUSHED, OUTREACH. THIS MORNING WE WERE ON CHOICE FM RADIO TRYING TO GET GHANAIANS TO COME HERE.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, REGARDLESS OF THE RESULT, IN OUR CHARTER, WE WERE CHARTERED TO TRY TO FORGE A CONSENSUS.

NOW, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH ELECTIONS AS BEING THE BEST MECHANISM, AND THAT'S CLEAR THAT DISCUSSION CAN GO A LONG WAY, THAT CREATING MECHANISMS FOR INFORMED PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINED, INFORMED PARTICIPATION IS KEY.

I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU CAN ASK AND WHILST WE'RE STILL FORMALLY ESTABLISHED, THAT WE CAN DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE TWO REPORTS TO FIELD SPECIFIC QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. I HOPE YOU WOULD NOTE THAT THE DISCUSSIONS IN THE FORUM ENGAGEMENT WITH NAIS, WE'VE COME A LONG WAY, AND UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN, I BELIEVE THERE IS CONSENSUS WITH SOME OF THE GROUPS, THE MAJORITY OF THE GROUPS WHO PARTICIPATE IN THAT DISCUSSION. AND I THINK THAT SHOULD BE NOTED.

SO QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE REPORTS, PLEASE.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: YES, I HAVE ONE.

>>VINTON CERF: HANG ON. WE HAVE THE PROBLEM NOW OF THE PRECEDENT. BECAUSE WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL IN QUEUE.

IZUMI AND ALEX ARE IN QUEUE. IT'S 4:00, AND BIOLOGICAL MATTERS MAY BE PRESSING.

LET ME SUGGEST WE DO THE FOLLOWING: THE LAST PERSON ON MY LIST IS GOING TO BE AMADEU – I'M SORRY, ANDY HAS ONE.

I DON'T WANT THIS CONVERSATION TO GO MUCH BEYOND ANOTHER TEN MINUTES.

HANG ON.

NO, BECAUSE WE HAVE TOO MUCH TO DO AFTER THE BREAK, ANDY.

SO LET'S TRY TO FOLLOW IT THIS WAY.

LET ME TAKE IZUMI NEXT. AND THEN ALEX. ALL RIGHT? YOU'RE SKIPPING?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I'LL YIELD.

>>VINTON CERF: ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE IZUMI, THEN AMADEU, ANDY. AND THAT'S IT.

>>IZUMI AIZU: THANK YOU, AMADEU, FOR INVITING ME AGAIN. AND THANK YOU VINT.

IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, I WASN'T TOO SURE – I WAS NOT REALLY CONCENTRATING WHEN YOU WERE TALKING, BUT –

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: SORRY. IT WAS A SIMPLE QUESTION. I KNOW IT'S VERY HARD TO CONCENTRATE ON WHAT I SAID.

THE QUESTION WAS, I THOUGHT FOR ALL THE PROCESS THAT NAIS AND AT-LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE IN GENERAL PROPOSED VERY DIFFERENT MECHANISM.

BUT TODAY I AM HEARING SOMEHOW THAT SOME NAIS PEOPLE ARE ASKING US TO ADOPT THE REPORT. AND I AM ASKING WHETHER THIS IMPRESSION IS CORRECT OR I AM WRONG IN THE IMPRESSION.

>>IZUMI AIZU: THANK YOU. GRACIAS.

WE, AS NAIS, ISSUED A STATEMENT ON FEBRUARY 23RD, WHICH EXPLAINED WELL, I THINK, WHY WE ARE ENDORSING THIS AND THAT AND WHY NOT. WHILE WE REMAIN IN PRINCIPLE, WE STRONGLY BELIEVE THIS, BUT FOR THE FEE ISSUES OR NUMBER OF SEATS, IF THE BOARD IS TO ADOPT THE NUMBER OF BOARD FROM NINE TO SIX, THEN WE'D LIKE TO SEE SUPERMAJORITY –

>>ESTHER DYSON: JUST SAY "YES." JUST SAY "YES."

>>IZUMI AIZU: YES.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>IZUMI AIZU: I'M SORRY. BUT ONE MORE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE IS, AS FAR AS I – WHY I'M COMMITTED TO NAIS IS NOT JUST ONE WAY, PUSHING THE ONE IDEA OF NAIS THINKING, BUT WE ARE PART OF THE PROCESS AND PART OF THE MECHANICS OF SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES TO FORGE CONSENSUS, WHERE WE CAN FIND THE CONSENSUS. THAT'S MY COMMITMENT. THAT, I THINK, WILL EXPLAIN WHY WE ARE DOING THAT.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU. AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OH, NO.

>>VINTON CERF: DID YOU ALREADY FINISH? ARE YOU DONE?

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: WITH IZUMI, THIS TIME, YES.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU. IN THAT CASE, I THINK, ANDY, YOU HAVE THE LAST WORD.

>>ANDY MUELLER-MAGUHN: YES. IS THIS WORKING?

I HAVE A QUESTION TO THE ALSC. JUST IN CASE STUART LYNN'S PROPOSAL FOR REFORM CAME BY RANDOM AND NOT BY THE MOTIVATION TO KILL THE AT-LARGE DEBATE AND DECISION, AND JUST IN CASE IT REALLY COMES FROM THE NEED FOR STRUCTURAL REFORMS, BECAUSE I HEARD SOME PEOPLE AGREEING THAT WE DO HAVE PROBLEM WITHIN ICANN AND THAT MIGHT BE STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS, INDEPENDENT FROM THE AT-LARGE QUESTION.

WHAT KIND OF WAYS WOULD THE ALSC SEE TO SUPPORT THE, IN MY EYES, ONGOING DEBATE ABOUT THE STRUCTURES OF ICANN, WHETHER CONTINGENCY PLANNING OR WITH THE QUESTION ON THE TIME FRAME, YOU WOULD ALSO NEED TO PREPARE AN ELECTION OF HOW MANY BOARD SEATS, HOWEVER.

>>PINDAR WONG: EXCELLENT QUESTION. THE ALSC DOES NOT HAVE ANY FORMAL VIEW WITH RESPECT TO MR. LYNN'S REFORM PROPOSAL WHATSOEVER. THAT'S THE SHORT ANSWER.

THROUGHOUT OUR WORK, WE'VE BEEN VERY AWARE TO TRY TO BRING STABILITY TO ICANN AND TO PUT THE ISSUE OF THE AT LARGE SORT OF ONCE AND FOR ALL, FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS, AT LEAST, TO ONE SIDE, TO TRY TO ENSURE SOME STABILITY TO THE ORGANIZATION.

AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAD TO BALANCE BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE. AND SO IF I DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE IMPLEMENTATION REPORT, YOU WILL SEE A VERY, VERY AMBITIOUS AND TIGHT SCHEDULE WITH RESPECT TO DOING ANYTHING, WITH RESPECT TO GETTING BOARD DIRECTORS SEATED AT THE END OF THIS YEAR.

NOW, – NINE MONTHS.

NOW, WE DO NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE MARINA DEL REY MEETING, I MEAN, AGAIN, WE'VE TRIED TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO VERY PRACTICAL ISSUES IN TERMS OF SCHEDULE. IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE, BUT IT WILL REQUIRE A LOT OF COORDINATED WORK, PERHAPS A LOT OF RESOURCES, TO IMPLEMENT WHAT WE HAVE MENTIONED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION REPORT.

THAT BEING SAID, IF THE ORGANIZATION HAS MANY STRUCTURAL ISSUES, FINE. BUT I THINK THE KEY PRINCIPLE HERE IS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE MECHANISMS FOR INFORMED PARTICIPATION BY INDIVIDUALS IN THE ICANN PROCESS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT – HOW ICANN IS RESTRUCTURED.

SO I DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE COVER LETTER SENT, AGAIN, BY OUR CHAIR, MR. CARL BILDT, AS PART OF OUR IMPLEMENTATION REPORT. THANK YOU.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU, PINDAR.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINTON CERF: IF I – YOU FORGOT SOMETHING. YES, GO AHEAD.

>>PINDAR WONG: AGAIN, THIS IS – I THINK, BRINGS TO THE END THE WORK OF THE ALSC FORMALLY. AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS FOR THE RECORD, THANK ALL THE ORGANIZATIONS, ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS OVER THE LAST YEAR WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO OUR WORK, ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ALSC, AND AS CARL WOULD SAY, IN PARTICULAR, WE'D LIKE TO THANK DENISE MICHEL. PLEASE STAND.

(APPLAUSE.)

SHE GOT VERY LITTLE SLEEP OVER THE LAST YEAR.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PINDAR.

I AM ABOUT TO CALL FOR A BREAK. I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE ONE OBSERVATION –

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I WAS ON YOUR LIST.

>>VINTON CERF: I'M SORRY?

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I WAS ON YOUR LIST. I WAS SIMPLY RESTATING MY QUESTION TO IZUMI. BUT I WAS ON THE LIST FOR THIS ISSUE.

>>VINTON CERF: I WAS ASKING YOU EARLIER IF YOU WERE FINISHED.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: WITH IZUMI, YES. BUT FOR LATER. I WAS TRYING TO RESPECT THE LIST FOR ONCE IN MY LIFE.

I HAVE A QUESTION – PINDAR REGARDING THE REPORT.

THERE IS SOMETHING CONTRARY IN MY MIND. THE ASSUMPTION EVERYBODY IN THE QUEUE IS MAKING HERE IS THAT THERE ARE OUT THERE A LARGE AND STRONG AND HIGHLY, DEEPLY INTERESTED COMMUNITY IN ICANN, OF COURSE.

BUT MY READING OF MANY OF THE AT-LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE DOCUMENTS SEEMS TO QUESTION THIS ASSUMPTION, THAT IS, THE ASSUMPTION OF THE, YOU KNOW, AT-LARGE COMMUNITY REALLY INTERESTED IN ICANN ISSUES.

COULD YOU PLEASE TRY TO STATE THAT, YOU KNOW, IN UNDERSTANDABLE WAY TO ME, WHAT'S THE GENERAL FEELING OF THE AT-LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE ON THIS ISSUE.

>>PINDAR WONG: AGAIN, WE GO BACK TO THE REPORT. YES, THERE ARE QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO EXACTLY HOW BIG THIS COMMUNITY IS OUT THERE, ITS NUMBERS.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHICH IS KIND OF THE REASON WHY WE WENT AND DO THE OUTREACH TO THE ORGANIZATIONS, WE SENT 350 REQUESTS OUT. WE GOT 46 REPLIES. WE SENT OUT MAILS TO 6,000; WE GOT 2,000 REPLIES. LAST YEAR'S ELECTION, THERE WERE OVER 100,000 PEOPLE INTERESTED.

THIS REALLY SAYS TO US THAT THERE IS A SEED, NUCLEUS, SOMETHING THERE. EXACTLY WHAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW. BUT THERE'S SOMETHING.

THERE WAS A MENTION OF THE ICANNATLARGE.COM. AND LACK OF READERSHIP OR WHATEVER, IT'S THERE.

THERE ARE OVER 500 INDIVIDUALS SIGNING THERE, I THINK THERE'S $17,000 PLEDGED THERE. IS THAT MATERIAL? IT'S A START. IT'S VERY, VERY SMALL.

WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS PERHAPS SOME SIGNAL FROM ICANN THAT, YES, IT DOES VALUE THIS INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION IN THE ICANN PROCESS, THAT IT WANTS TO SEE, REALLY, THIS COMMUNITY COME FORWARD, TO CHALLENGE THE COMMUNITY TO SELF-ORGANIZE, TO SAY, YES, YOU'RE WELCOME HERE, BUT YOU HAVE TO GET ORGANIZED. AND THEN SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.

>>PINDAR WONG: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>>VINTON CERF: JONATHAN.

>>JONATHAN COHEN: JUST TWO SECONDS. IS IT ON?

ISN'T THERE STILL A PROCESS FOR APPROVING NEW SOS? CAN'T YOU JUST APPLY TO THE BOARD TO APPROVE AN SO? THAT'S HOW I WAS APPROVED. WHEN I STARTED THE IPC, WE PUT TOGETHER A PROPOSAL, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD, AND IF IT MET THE CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING A NEW SO, IT WAS APPROVED, END OF STORY.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: IT WAS A CONSTITUENCY, NOT AN SO.

>>JONATHAN COHEN: I KNOW. BUT, STILL, THE SAME THING.

>>: NO.

>>: NO.

>>: NO.

>>VINTON CERF: LET'S JUST LET THAT COMMENT SIT.

>>PINDAR WONG: TO TRY AND RESPOND, NOT TO PUT TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON LABELS, BECAUSE I THINK FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, WE CHOSE THE LABEL AT-LARGE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, THE PRINCIPLE THAT NEEDS TO BE BORNE IN MIND, THESE PEOPLE, WHOEVER THEY ARE, THEY WILL BRING TO ICANN VIEWS, AND THEY NEED TO BE TREATED AS PEERS WITH OTHERS.

>>VINTON CERF: NO. NO MORE COMMENTS; NO MORE QUESTIONS.

I HAVE ONE OBSERVATION THAT I WANT TO MAKE.

IN MY OWN MIND, I AM SEPARATING THE VALUE OF INDIVIDUAL – I'M SORRY. ESTHER, IS THERE A PROBLEM?

>>ESTHER DYSON: I'M TALKING TO PINDAR. IT SAYS "THESE AMERICAN PEOPLE." IT SHOULD NOT BE AMERICAN.

>>VINTON CERF: IT'S DISAPPEARED. WE'LL TAKE CARE OF IT LATER. IN MY OWN MIND, AS I LISTEN TO THE DISCUSSIONS, I'M SEEING TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON. ONE IS A THEME WHICH HAS BEEN REPEATED OVER AND OVER ABOUT THE VALUE OF INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE AND INPUT ON THE KINDS OF DECISIONS THAT THIS BOARD MUST MAKE.

AND I BELIEVE THAT YOU'LL FIND A FAIRLY BROAD SENSE THAT THERE IS EXTREMELY HIGH VALUE IN HAVING THAT FEEDBACK.

I SEPARATE, IN MY OWN MIND, THAT MECHANISM, WHATEVER IT IS, FOR GETTING INFORMED COMMENTARY AND DIVERSE COMMENTARY FROM THIS WHOLE MATTER OF ELECTIONS.

AND I CAN IMAGINE THE POSSIBILITY, AS THE PRESIDENT HAS IMAGINED, THAT WE CAN STRUCTURE VERY, VERY HIGH-QUALITY INPUT FROM AN INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY, AN AT-LARGE COMMUNITY, AND SEPARATELY CONSIDER QUESTIONS ABOUT ELECTIONS.

I AM SURE THERE ARE MANY WHO WOULD NOT AGREE WITH THAT SEPARATION. BUT IN MY – I WANT TO CONFESS TO YOU, IN MY OWN MIND, I SEE THOSE TWO THINGS AS SEPARABLE. WITH THAT, LET ME SUGGEST WE ADJOURN – NOT ADJOURN, BUT BREAK UNTIL ABOUT 4:35. COULD WE DO THAT? 4:35. AND RECONVENE.

(BREAK)

>>VINTON CERF: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WOULD YOU PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS.

WOULD BOARD MEMBERS PLEASE TAKE THEIRS.

I SEE WE HAVE SOME ABSENT BOARD MEMBERS, BUT WE MUST PRESS ON.

WE'RE GOING TO RECONVENE, AND LET ME GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT'S COMING.

WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING TOPICS, SOME OF WHICH WERE NOT ON THE ORIGINAL AGENDA.

THEY WERE JUST, BY ACCIDENT, LEFT OUT.

WE HAVE DOMAIN NAME DELETION PROCEDURES NEXT, THEN WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE DOT INFO COUNTRY NAMES, THEN A COMMUNIQUE FROM THE CCTLD ORGANIZATION, AND THEN A DISCUSSION ABOUT NEW TLD EVALUATION REPORT.

THOSE ARE THE FOUR ELEMENTS THAT WE NEED TO COVER.

AND AFTER THAT, IF THERE ARE PEOPLE WITH ENERGY LEFT, WE WILL OPEN THE MICROPHONE FOR GENERAL DISCUSSION.

I'M NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO BE ONE OF THE PEOPLE WITH ENERGY LEFT.

YOU MAY HAVE TO WAKE ME UP AFTER IT'S OVER.

ALL RIGHT.

SO I NEED TO FIND OUT WHO IS GOING TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION ON DOMAIN NAME DELETION PROCEDURES.

MR. HALLORAN.

>>DAN HALLORAN: THANKS, VINT.

I'M DAN HALLORAN ON OUR AGENDA THE NEXT TOPIC IS DOMAIN NAME DELETION.

>>VINTON CERF: I'M SORRY, DAN, TO INTERRUPT.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IN THE BACK.

YOU ARE INTERFERING WITH THIS, INCLUDING MR. MCLAUGHLIN.

HEY, SHUT THAT RED-HAIRED GUY UP.

(LAUGHTER).

>>VINTON CERF: AND CLOSE THE DAMN DOOR.

(LAUGHTER).

>>VINTON CERF: THAT'S THE DEAF GUY, HOPING THAT, THANKS TO MY CAPTIONING FOLKS HERE, I CAN SURVIVE WITHOUT IT, BUT LET'S GET THE DOOR CLOSED SO THE NOISY PEOPLE WON'T BOTHER US.

I'M SORRY, DAN.

PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>>DAN HALLORAN: THANK YOU.

ON THE AGENDA, IT'S DOMAIN NAME DELETION PROCEDURES.

I HAVE IT UP HERE AS REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD FOR DELETED NAMES.

IT'S A PROPOSAL WE PUT UP ON THE WEB SITE ABOUT A MONTH AGO.

IT'S, IN A NUTSHELL, THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD WOULD BE A SAFETY NET TO CATCH INADVERTENTLY DELETED DOMAIN NAMES IN THE – WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE UNSPONSORED TLDS HERE.

THE IDEA IS TO TAKE ALL DOMAIN NAMES DELETED BY REGISTRARS AND PUT THEM ON A REGISTRY HOLD FOR 30 DAYS.

REGISTRY HOLD MEANS THE DOMAIN WOULD NOT RESOLVE, WHICH MEANS THE NAME WOULD STILL BE HELD BY THE REGISTRY BUT THE WEB SITE WOULDN'T WORK, THE E-MAIL WOULDN'T WORK.

THIS WOULD GIVE A CHANCE FOR THE REGISTRANT AND REGISTRAR TO CORRECT – TO NOTICE AND CORRECT ANY MISTAKEN OR INADVERTENT DELETIONS.

LIKE I SAID, WE PUT IT UP A MONTH AGO.

WE'VE RECEIVED, BY AND LARGE, VERY POSITIVE FEEDBACK ABOUT THE PROPOSAL.

THERE WAS A MEETING THIS WEEK OF GTLD REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS AND REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE UP TO DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE FEEDBACK, BUT IT WAS POSITIVE.

WE ALSO CREATED A MAILBOX TO RECEIVE COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE IDEA.

WE GOT 47 MESSAGES THAT WERE GENERALLY ON TOPIC, PLUS A LOT OF SPAM.

28 OF THE COMMENTS WERE POSITIVE, SEVEN NEGATIVE, AND 12 WERE OFF TOPIC.

JEFF WILLIAMS, NEUTRAL, ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.

(LAUGHTER).

>>DAN HALLORAN: HALF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE POSITIVE JUST SAID SOMETHING LIKE, "THIS IS A GREAT IDEA," OR "WHY DIDN'T YOU HAVE THIS ALREADY?"

OR "GOOD IDEA, EXCELLENT SOLUTION." WE DID RECEIVE SOME NEGATIVE COMMENTS.

MOST OF THEM WERE FOCUSED ON TANGENTIAL ISSUES THAT INVOLVE BIGGER QUESTIONS ABOUT DOMAIN-NAME POLICY, LIKE THE TIMING OF DELETIONS, HOW SOON AFTER EXPIRATION A REGISTRAR SHOULD DELETE A NAME.

THERE'S A LOT OF FRUSTRATION ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE PRACTICES VARY FROM REGISTRAR TO REGISTRAR.

BUT THAT'S NOT EXACTLY TALKING ABOUT THE TOPIC WE HAVE HERE WHICH IS JUST A SIMPLE SAFETY NET.

THERE WERE ALSO COMMENTS, BOTH FROM THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SIDE, ABOUT THE PROPOSED REGISTRANT SERVICE CHARGE.

THE IDEA HERE WOULD BE THAT THERE WOULD BE A REASONABLE AND COST-BASED FEE THAT THE REGISTRY WOULD CHARGE TO RECOUP ITS COSTS FOR VERIFYING, REDEEMING, ANY SPECIAL HANDLING INVOLVED.

SEVERAL OF THE COMMENTATORS WHO WROTE IN HAD ACTUAL PERSONAL HORROR STORIES DOMAIN NAMES THEY HAD REGISTERED AND FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER DIDN'T GET THEIR RENEWAL NOTICE OR MISSED IT OR IT WENT TO A WRONG ADDRESS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEIR DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED TO SOMEBODY ELSE, IT WAS POINTING AT SOME OTHER SITE, AND IT'S A NIGHTMARE TO GET IT BACK.

THERE'S NO SIMPLE PROCEDURE FOR RECOVERING A NAME IN THAT SITUATION.

THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS A DOMAIN CAN BE DELETED, WE SAY UNINTENTIONALLY OR WITHOUT THE INTENT OF THE REGISTRANT TO HAVE IT DELETED.

IT CAN BE A SIMPLE FAILURE TO PAY THE INVOICE.

IF YOU ONLY HAVE 15 OR 30 DAYS YOU MIGHT OVERLOOK THE INVOICE.

IN SOME CASES, THE REGISTRANT MISTAKE, THAT'S OFTEN KEEPING THE CONTACT DETAILS UP-TO-DATE.

IF YOU HAVE AN OLD E-MAIL ADDRESS YOU ME MISS ANY RENEWAL NOTICE THE REGISTRAR SENDS YOU.

THERE ARE ALSO FROM TIME TO TIME REGISTRAR MISTAKES WHERE OUT OF 30 MILLION NAMES, ONCE IN AWHILE THE REGISTRAR IS GOING TO DROP THE BALL ON ONE OF THEM, AND THEY HAVE TO HURRY TO GET IT BACK.

AND THERE'S ALSO RARE CASES OF DOMAIN HIJACKING, WHERE A DOMAIN HAS BEEN COMPROMISED, AND SOMEONE WILL DELETE IT GET A CLEAN NAME SOMEWHERE ELSE.

I'LL RUSH THROUGH THIS.

THE CURRENT PRACTICES THAT RESULT IN THESE DELETIONS, THE REGISTRY UPON REGISTRATION DELETE AUTO-RENEWS THE NAME.

THE REGISTRAR HAS TO GET A RENEWAL PAYMENT.

IF THEY DON'T GET IT THEY DELETE THE NAME, AND THAT NAME OFTEN INSTANTANEOUSLY BECOMES AVAILABLE FOR REREGISTRATION.

LIKE I SAID, THE EFFECTS OF THAT CAN BE DEVASTATING.

IT CAN BE HELD UP FOR RANSOM, BASICALLY, FROM THE NEW REGISTER OF THE NAME IF YOU WANT TO TRY TO GET IT BACK.

SOME PEOPLE HAVE ASKED FOR NUMBERS ON THIS AND IT'S HARD TO COME BY GOOD STATISTICS.

WE HEAR HORROR STORIES FROM TIME TO TIME.

THERE WAS ONE STATISTIC WE CAME ACROSS IN A STORY LAST WEEK, I THINK IT'S FROM OTTAWA, A CANADIAN PAPER, NATIONALPOST.COM, A STUDY SAID – SOMEONE IS MONITORING THESE AND SAID 3,000 DOMAINS PER WEEK PREVIOUSLY CONTAINED INNOCENT CONTENT BUT NOW CONTAIN PORNOGRAPHY.

SO MANY OF THOSE MIGHT BE NAMES SOMEBODY DIDN'T WANT ANYMORE AND SOMEBODY ELSE REGISTERED AND POINTED AT WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO POINT AT.

OUR FEELING AND THE INFORMATION WE HAVE SO FAR AT LEAST SOME OF THOSE ARE NAMES THE ORIGINAL REGISTRANT HAD NO INTENT TO DELETE.

THIS IS A BARE OUTLINE OF A PROPOSAL WE PUT UP SO FAR.

THERE'S STILL IMPORTANT TECHNICAL DETAILS THAT NEED TO BE WORKED OUT, SO THE SUGGESTED ACTION FOR TOMORROW IS TO CONVENE A TECHNICAL STEERING GROUP THAT WOULD INCLUDE A REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR PERSONNEL TO WORK OUT SOME OF THE DETAILS.

THEY WOULD DEVELOP A CONCRETE PROPOSAL, PUT IT ON THE ICANN WEB SITE, INVITE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ACTION, HOPEFULLY AT THE NEXT MEETING OR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

AND THAT'S THE CONCLUSION OF MY....

I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO ASK JEFF AND A COUPLE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES TO COME UP AND SPEAK.

>>VINTON CERF: OKAY.

ARE THERE – THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS.

NO BOARD QUESTIONS.

PLEASE.

>>JEFF NEUMAN: HELLO, MY NAME IS JEFF NEUMAN, I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GTLD REGISTRY AND SO OFTEN THE BOARD HEARS A LOT OF CRITICISM BUT WE ACTUALLY CAME IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSAL BY ICANN.

SO YOU'LL BE HAPPY TO KNOW THAT.

WE BELIEVE – THE GTLD'S BELIEVE THE SAFETY NET IS AN EXCELLENT PROPOSAL AND THAT 30 DAYS TO US SEEMS QUITE REASONABLE.

THE GTLD REGISTRY ALSO SUPPORTS THE NOTION THAT REGISTRANTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE THEIR REGISTRAR.

NOW, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A DISAGREEMENT, NOT NECESSARILY ON A POLICY-WISE BUT ON A FEASIBILITY OF HOW A REGISTRANT WHOSE NAME IS DELETED, HOW THEY CAN ACTUALLY GO TO ANOTHER REGISTRAR AND PROVE THAT THEY ARE WHO THEY SAY THEY ARE SO THERE'S AN AUTHENTICATION PROBLEM.

AND IN THAT VEIN, THE NOTION OF SETTING UP A TECHNICAL STEERING COMMITTEE IS THE WAY TO GO ABOUT THIS WITH ONE ADDITION; THAT NOT ONLY SHOULD THERE BE A TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THIS STEERING COMMITTEE BUT THERE SHOULD BE SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THE BUSINESS PROCESSES THAT REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES HAVE TO GO THROUGH. WHILE SOME THINGS, AS WE ALL KNOW, MAY BE TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE, THERE ARE OTHER ITEMS AS TO HOW THINGS ARE ACTUALLY DONE FROM A BUSINESS PROCESS.

AND WE ALSO SUPPORT THE NOTION OF A – AND I WANT TO STRESS – A REASONABLE FEE TO REACTIVATE SUCH A DOMAIN NAME.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU.

I ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO INJECT A QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I SHOULD ASK DAN OR YOU, SO YOU HANG AROUND FOR JUST A SECOND.

THIS IS A NAIVE QUESTION.

IN YOUR PRESENTATION, DAN, YOU MENTIONED, I THOUGHT, THAT THE REGISTRAR DOES THE DELETION.

AT LEAST THAT'S THE WAY I WAS READING IT.

IS THAT THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING?

SO IT'S NOT THE REGISTRY THAT DELETES –

>>DAN HALLORAN: CHUCK, MAYBE YOU COULD COME UP AND EXPLAIN THE CURRENT PROCESS, BRIEFLY.

>>CHARLES GOMES: ACTUALLY, DELETION CAN OCCUR BY THE REGISTRANT OR REGISTRAR.

THE SITUATION WHERE THE REGISTRAR DOES IT, IF THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED PAYMENT AFTER THE ANNIVERSARY DATE, AND WHATEVER PROCEDURES THEY DETERMINE, THEN AT SOME POINT IN TIME – THEY HAVE A 45-DAY GRACE PERIOD, AND THIS IS TRUE OF ALL OF THE REGISTRIES, AFTER THE ANNIVERSARY DATE, IF THEY DON'T RECEIVE – IF WE, AS THE REGISTRY, DON'T RECEIVE A DELETION NOTICE DURING THAT 45-DAY GRACE PERIOD, THEN IT'S AUTOMATICALLY RENEWED, AND THEY PAY THE REGISTRY FEE; OKAY?

IF THEY DELETE IT, THE REGISTRAR DELETES IT BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T RECEIVED PAYMENT N THE 45-DAY GRACE PERIOD THEY RECEIVE A CREDIT FOR THEIR REGISTRATION FEE.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU.

>>STUART LYNN: CAN I ASK A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION ON THAT?

DURING THAT GRACE PERIOD, THE DOMAIN NAME IS STILL ACTIVE.

IT ISN'T FROZEN AT ANY POINT?

>>CHARLES GOMES: THAT IS CORRECT.

>>STUART LYNN: IS THERE SOME ADVANTAGE TO, AT SOME POINT, FREEZING IT IN THAT PERIOD, SO IT'S REALLY A WAKE-UP CALL?

>>CHARLES GOMES: ABSOLUTELY, AND YOU IDENTIFIED THE REASON FOR THAT.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR MAKING THE GRACE PERIOD 45 DAYS WAS TO ALLOW REGISTRARS ENOUGH TIME SO THEY COULD SEND SOME REMINDER NOTICES AND THEN POSSIBLY EVEN HAVE A REGISTRAR HOLD PERIOD WHEN IT'S INACTIVE BEFORE THEY MAKE THE FINAL DELETION OF THE NAME.

NOW, REGISTRARS VARY IN TERMS OF WHAT THEIR PROCEDURE IS IN THAT REGARD.

DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OKAY?

>>STUART LYNN: YEAH, BUT LET ME PUSH A LITTLE BIT MORE.

HAS THE REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY DISCUSSED PUSHING THAT EVEN FURTHER?

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE LACK THE MECHANISM TO REALLY GIVE PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT THEIR DOMAIN NAMES A CLEAR SIGNAL THAT WILL NOT BE GIVEN JUST THROUGH MAILINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

>>CHARLES GOMES: I THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL ACTUALLY DOES EXTEND THAT.

>>STUART LYNN: DOES THAT.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU.

>>DAN HALLORAN: CAN I SAY REALLY QUICK, STUART, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AND GO FURTHER ON IT, REGISTRARS COULD IMPLEMENT A REGISTRAR HOLD RIGHT NOW.

THEY HAVE THAT 45 DAYS TO IMPLEMENT WHATEVER PROCEDURES THEY WANT.

SOME DO, SOME DON'T.

ICANN DOESN'T HAVE A UNIFORM POLICY ON IT.

TO MAKE UNIFORM POLICY WOULD BE SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT THING, WOULD REQUIRE THE WHOLE CONSENSUS PROCESS AS THAT'S DESCRIBED IN THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT.

THIS IS A SHORTCUT TO PUT IN SOME SAFETY NET TO PREVENT THE HORROR STORIES.

>>STUART LYNN: I REST MY CASE.

THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: MY NAME IS BRUCE TONKIN FROM MELBOURNE IT.

I'M ONE OF THE LARGER REGISTRARS AND ELECTED ON THE NAMES COUNCIL.

I WOULD LIKE TO REINFORCE THE COMMENTS DAN HAS MADE AND COMMEND THE ICANN STAFF FOR TAKING A LEAD ON THIS ISSUE AND PREPARING A VERY SUCCINCT AND CLEAR POSITION PAPER.

AND I THINK I'D SUPPORT GOING FORWARD AS PROPOSED.

JUST TO COMMENT ON ISSUES AND COMMENTING A BIT ON WHAT STUART HAS RAISED THERE, MOST OF THE LARGER REGISTRARS, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE DEALING WITH COMPLAINTS FROM REGISTRANTS REGARDING DELETED NAMES.

I MIGHT ALSO SAY THAT GIVEN COMPETITION INNOVATION IN THE INDUSTRY, THE COMPETITION FOR NAMES AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN DELETED IS SUCH THAT POPULAR DOMAINS GO WITHIN MILLISECONDS, AND SO THAT'S PARTLY THE REASON WHY WE'VE HAD TO START LOOKING AT THESE ISSUES BECAUSE PEOPLE THAT INADVERTENTLY LOSE THEIR NAME, LOSE IT QUICKLY INDEED.

THE WHETHER PEOPLE ARE OPERATIONALLY USING A WEB SITE AND HENCE WOULD EVEN NOTICE IF YOU REMOVED THEM FROM THE ZONE FILE, VERSUS SOME THAT MIGHT HAVE REGISTERED A NAME WITH THE INTENT TO USE IN THE FUTURE AND ARE NOT CURRENTLY ACTIVELY USING THE NAME.

AND JUST SIMPLY PUTTING THE NAME ON HOLD IS NOT A SUFFICIENT INDICATOR FOR THOSE PEOPLE TO REALIZE.

IT'S NOT A SIMPLE ISSUE, I GUESS IN SUMMARY.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE CHUCK, JEFF, BRUCE, DAN HALLORAN, LOUIS AND ALL THOSE WORKING HERE BECAUSE I THINK THAT REMEMBERING OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND TO IMPLEMENT THE NAMES MARKET, WE HAVE NOT INTRODUCED COMPETITION TO LOWER THE MARKET SHARE OR COMPANY OR MAKE NEIGHBOR HAPPY EXCEPT TO PROVIDE BETTER SERVICES TO THE REGISTRANTS.

AND THIS SAFETY NET I THINK GOES IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, GIVING CERTAIN VERY MUCH NEEDED GUARANTEES TO THE REGISTRANTS.

REGARDING WHAT DAN HAD SAID, I THINK I STILL WOULD ADVOCATE TO WORK IN A CONSENSUS POLICY REGARDING A REGISTRAR HOLD OF THE, LET'S SAY, DOMAIN NAMES DURING THE SAFETY-NET PERIOD BECAUSE THIS IS, IN MOST CASES, THE ONLY WAY TO GET ATTENTION OF THE REGISTRANT, WHICH NORMALLY HAS PROVIDED SOME E-MAILS FOR PEOPLE WHO PERHAPS DON'T WORK THERE ANYMORE.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR MANY REGISTRARS TO CONTACT THEM.

SO I STILL WOULD ENCOURAGE BOTH CONSTITUENCIES TO PUSH FOR THAT CONSENSUS POLICY WITH THE NAMES COUNCIL.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT COME FROM THE FLOOR OR FROM THE BOARD?

IF NOT, I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT TOPIC.

I HAVE THE RATHER PECULIAR JOB OF CALLING ON MYSELF TO MAKE A REPORT.

IF I COULD ASK THE STAFF TO PUT UP THE REPORT ON THE ICNG -- .INFO COUNTRY NAMES DISCUSSION GROUP-- PLEASE.

I WAS ASKED TO CHAIR THIS PARTICULAR COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD, AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU FIND ME IN THE PECULIAR POSITION OF CALLING ON MYSELF.

IF I COULD HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY.

IN SEPTEMBER OF 2001, WE WERE IN MONTEVIDEO, AND WE RECEIVED A COMMUNIQUE FROM THE GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RAISING AN ISSUE ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF COUNTRY AND DISTINCT ECONOMY NAMES IN DOMAIN-NAME REGISTRATIONS IN DOT INFO.

AND THERE WERE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS COMING FROM THAT COMMUNIQUE.

ONE OF THEM ASKED THAT WE TAKE AN ACTION AS A BOARD TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO; THAT IS TO SAY, TO PRESERVE, IN FACT, 327, BUT WE NOW DISCOVERED THERE ARE TWO MORE, SO IN EFFECT 329 NAMES.

THOSE NAMES OF GEOPOLITICAL CHARACTER WERE DERIVED FROM AN ISO DOCUMENT, 3166, BY AN ALGORITHM WHICH HAS BEEN DESCRIBED BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL IN SOME DETAIL IN THE PREPARATION OF THE DOCUMENTATION THAT INSTRUCTED DOT INFO TO PUT THESE NAMES ON HOLD; THAT IS TO SAY, TO RESTRICT ANY REGISTRATIONS IN THEM.

THIS SAME COMMUNIQUE RECOMMENDED THAT PRESIDENT STUART LYNN PREPARE AN ACTION PLAN TO ANALYZE WHAT THOSE ISSUES WERE WITH REGARD TO THAT RESERVED LIST AND TO PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH INPUT AS TO HOW TO PROCEED.

IF I COULD HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE.

AT THE SAME TIME, THE DNSO MET TO DISCUSS THIS, AMONG OTHER MATTERS, AND IT PROVIDED A RESOLUTION ON THE 11TH OF OCTOBER.

IT EXPRESSED ITS UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE GAC RAISED WITH REGARD TO THESE GEOPOLITICAL NAMES, AND IT RECOMMENDED THAT THE PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS BE CONSIDERED WITH SOME CAUTION.

THERE WAS UNCERTAINTY AS TO HOW FAR AND WHY THE RESTRICTIONS WOULD SPREAD, WOULD THEY STAY ONLY IN THE DOT INFO TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN, WOULD THIS SET A PRECEDENT THAT WOULD CAUSE RESTRICTIONS TO APPEAR IN OTHER DOMAINS WHERE IT MIGHT BE LESS APPROPRIATE?

SO THERE WERE SOME CAUTIONARY WORDS COMING FROM THE NAMES COUNCIL.

THE GAC RESPONDED TO THAT COMMENTARY ON THE 26TH OF OCTOBER; NOTED THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED, AND IT WAS CAREFUL TO DESCRIBE TO THE NAMES COUNCIL THE VERY NARROW FOCUS OF THE CONCERN THAT THE GAC RAISED.

IT SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT IT WOULD LIMIT THIS RESTRICTION, THIS CONSTRAINT ON REGISTRATIONS, TO NAMES OF COUNTRIES OR OTHER ECONOMIC AREAS ONLY IN DOT INFO, AND SPECIFICALLY DERIVED FROM ISO 3166-1.

NEXT SLIDE.

THERE WAS A MEETING, AGAIN, IN NOVEMBER IN MARINA DEL REY, AND IT WAS PROPOSED TO ESTABLISH A DOT INFO COUNTRY NAMES DISCUSSION GROUP, ICNG FOR SHORT.

AND THIS GROUP WAS TO RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD HOW TO PROCEED WITH THE RESERVED NAMES.

THE PRESIDENT ASKED ME TO CHAIR THE COMMITTEE, AND HE CONSTITUTED OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE DRAWN FROM THE GAC, FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, AND PARTICIPATION FROM WIPO AFILIAS AND THE DNSO CHAIR.

WE MET SEVERAL TIMES.

WE MET FACE TO FACE, WE MET ON THE PHONE SEVERAL TIMES, AND WE EXCHANGED A GREAT DEAL OF ELECTRONIC MAIL, AND I'M GOING TO SUMMARIZE THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE COMMITTEE NOW FOR YOU.

THE ACTUAL REPORT HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE, IT'S BEEN PUBLISHED ON THE WEB SITE.

SPECIFICALLY, THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO THE BOARD THAT IT SHOULD RESPOND IN THE FOLLOWING WAY: IT SHOULD, IN FACT, PERMIT RESTRICTION ON THE USE OF A SMALL SET OF TERMS, 329 OF THEM PARTICULARLY, IN DOT INFO.

BUT IT NOTED IN ITS RECOMMENDATIONS AND ITS REPORT THAT THIS SOLUTION HAS LIMITED UTILITY BECAUSE OF THE WIDE VARIETY OF WAYS IN WHICH COUNTRY NAMES MIGHT BE SPELLED.

AND SO EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC LIST OF NAMES THAT ARE RESTRICTED FOR USE ONLY BY APPROPRIATE PARTIES, THAT THERE MAY STILL BE SOME AWKWARD SIDE EFFECTS FROM PEOPLE WHO REGISTERED NAMES THAT MAY BE SPELLED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY, PERHAPS DELIBERATELY SO.

AND SO AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THAT, THE ICNG RECOMMENDED ONE OTHER CONSIDERATION, AND THAT WAS TO LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF CREATING A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN WITH A SET OF RULES THAT LIMITED THE USE OF ANY REGISTRATION IN THAT TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN TO THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENTS OF COUNTRIES AND DISTINCT ECONOMIES.

THIS WOULD BE A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN WHICH EFFECTIVELY IS ONLY USED BY COUNTRIES FOR PURPOSES OF DESCRIBING PLACES IN THEIR – WELL, PLACES – I'M SAYING THIS VERY BADLY.

FOR USE BY COUNTRIES TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES.

SO THESE REGISTRATIONS WOULD BE STRICTLY AND SOLELY PERMITTED BY GOVERNMENTS.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

IN THAT REPORT, THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED OR INVITED THE GAC TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY INTEREST, AND IF SO, WHAT LEVEL OF INTEREST THE GOVERNMENTS OF DISTINCT ECONOMIES MIGHT HAVE FOR A SPECIAL TLD SET ASIDE FOR THEIR USE FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES, AND IF IT WAS ESTABLISHED, WHAT CRITERIA AND GROUND RULES WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR SUCH A TLD.

WE ALSO REQUESTED COMMENTS ON THE ADVISABILITY OF A TIME LIMIT ON THESE RESTRICTIONS IN DOT INFO ON THE POSSIBILITY THAT IF SOME OF THE RESERVED NAMES WERE NEVER REGISTERED, IT WASN'T CLEAR WHETHER WE SHOULD PERSIST IN KEEPING THEM RESTRICTED.

THERE WAS NO RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE COMMITTEE AS TO HOW LONG OR SHORT SUCH A TIME LIMIT WOULD BE.

AND SO THAT STILL REMAINS OPEN.

THAT'S BASICALLY THE STATE OF AFFAIRS WITH REGARD TO THE ICNG'S RECOMMENDATION.

IN SUM, WE SUPPORTED THE RESTRICTIONS, RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW LONG THE RESTRICTIONS SHOULD LAST, AND MADE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE GAC CONSIDER A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN WITH A NEW SET OF GROUND RULES FOR USE ONLY BY GOVERNMENTS.

AND THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS MY REPORT, SPEAKING TO MYSELF.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?

PLEASE.

>>NIGEL ROBERTS: EXCUSE ME, IF I COUGH, I APOLOGIZE FOR THIS.

I'VE BEEN SUFFERING FROM SOME KIND OF THROAT COMPLAINTS SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.

>>VINTON CERF: I HOPE IT'S NOT ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTABLE.

>>NIGEL ROBERTS: I HOPE NOT, TOO.

NIGEL ROBERTS FROM THE CHANNEL ISLANDS.

IT'S A VERY, VERY INTERESTING REPORT, AND I FIND MYSELF IN AN UNUSUAL POSITION AT THE MOMENT IN THE FACT THAT WHAT I WANT TO TRANSMIT TO YOU IS NOT MY OWN OPINION BUT IT'S ACTUALLY COME FROM DISCUSSIONS THAT I'VE HELD WITH MY OWN GOVERNMENTS ON THE SUBJECT OF DOT INFO COUNTRY NAMES IN PARTICULAR.

I WANT TO TURN TO WHAT ISO 3166 ACTUALLY IS.

AND IT IS NOT A DEFINITIVE LIST OF COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES.

IT IS A DEFINITIVE LIST OF THOSE COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES WHICH THE UNITED NATIONS WISHES TO COLLECT STATISTICAL INFORMATION ABOUT.

>>VINTON CERF: THAT'S CORRECT.

>>NIGEL ROBERTS: THE CHANNEL ISLANDS IN A VERY STRANGE POSITION IN THAT WE HAVE A STATISTICAL CODE AT THE UNITED NATIONS ENCOMPASSING ALL FOUR OF THE GOVERNMENTS IN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS WHICH IS A NUMERIC CODE, AND THERE IS NO ISO 3166 CODE FOR THE CHANNEL ISLANDS, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY.

>>VINTON CERF: YOU MIGHT COUNT YOURSELF FORTUNATE IN HAVING A NUMERIC CODE ABOUT WHICH THERE WOULD BE LITTLE OR NO DEBATE.

>>NIGEL ROBERTS: THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS ARE OUTSIDE THE INTERNET ARENA, AND PARTICULARLY IN TAXATION, ARE SOMETIMES QUITE BIZARRE, BUT I WANT TO CONCENTRATE ON DOT INFO, BECAUSE THE NAMES THAT WERE RESERVED IN DOT INFO DID NOT INCLUDE THE CHANNEL ISLANDS OR THE ISLE OF MAN OR ASCENSION ISLAND.

THE CHANNEL ISLANDS IS AN AREA WHICH HAS BEEN SELF-GOVERNING SINCE BEFORE 1066.

THE QUESTION I OFTEN GET AT ICANN MEETINGS IS IS THE CHANNEL ISLANDS A COLONY OF ENGLAND?

BUT ACTUALLY IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

THAT BEING AS IT MAY, THE FOUR ISLANDS WERE LEFT OUT OF THE RESERVED LIST.

WE SPOTTED THIS JUST BEFORE, BUT PROBABLY NOT IN TIME.

CONSEQUENTLY, AT LEAST ONE OF THE ISLAND'S NAMES WAS REGISTERED UNDER SUNRISE AS A TRADEMARK.

I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT COULD HAPPEN.

OTHERS WERE REGISTERED IN LAND RUSH BY PRIVATE PEOPLE, AT LEAST SOME OF WHICH WERE IN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS SO I GUESS THAT'S OKAY.

AT LEAST ONE OF WHICH SEEMED TO BEAR NO RELATION AT ALL.

SO IN CONSEQUENCE, ALTHOUGH I SUSPECT IT'S TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT DOT INFO UNLESS YOU WANT TO INSTITUTE A UDRP FOR COUNTRIES OR SOMETHING, I WOULD URGE YOU TO CONSIDER, WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES, THAT YOU CONSIDER COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES AND NOT MAKE THE AUTOMATIC EQUIVALENCE OF THE ISO LIST MEANING COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES.

THAT'S THE MAJOR POINT.

THE MINOR POINT I'D LIKE TO MAKE, WHICH OTHERS HAVE MADE TO ME PRIVATELY, IS THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE A GTLD FOR USE OF GOVERNMENTS.

IT'S CALLED DOT GOV.

>>VINTON CERF: YES, WE UNDERSTAND THAT LAST POINT.

THERE ARE SOME COMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

JUST BY WAY OF HISTORY, THE CHOICE OF 3166-1 WAS A CHOICE MADE TO AVOID HAVING TO DECIDE WHAT COUNTRIES ARE COUNTRIES AND WHAT NAMES THEY SHOULD HAVE.

BUT THE POINTS ARE VERY WELL TAKEN AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

I'M NOT SURE HOW WE WOULD TAKE AN ACTION SPECIFICALLY ON IT, BUT IT COULD BE THE SOURCE OF SOME DISCUSSION.

MR. PISANTY, YOU ASKED TO SPEAK.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: NIGEL ROBERTS' CONTRIBUTION WAS VERY IMPORTANT.

IF I WAS ASKED TO NAME A FEW PEOPLE WHO REALLY KNOW ICANN FROM NAMES, HE WOULD BE ON MY LIST.

AND THE FACT THAT HE WAS PREEMPTED OR CAUGHT UNAWARE WITH THE REGISTRATION OF THE COUNTRY HE CARES SO MUCH FOR SHOWS YOU THAT INSIDER TRADING MAY NOT BE THE NORM HERE.

>>VINTON CERF: I THINK I MISSED SOMETHING REALLY GOOD THERE.

YES, RAUL.

>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF THE – ARE THERE PLANS TO PROTECT OR TO MAKE A LEVEL FOR THE GOVERNMENTS, NOT ONLY THE COUNTRY NAMES OR THE NAMES INCLUDED IN THE ISO LIST, ALSO THE NAMES OF BLOCS LIKE THE EUROPEAN UNION OR (INAUDIBLE). BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN THE LIST – THE FIRST LIST SUBMITTED TO BE PROTECTED. AND THERE WERE AROUND 11 DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, BUT WHO IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ISO LIST. BUT THERE ARE OTHER BLOCS THAT IF SOME IS – IF THERE IS SOME DECISION TO MAKE A LEVEL FOR THE GOVERNMENTS, THESE KIND OF NAMES, THE DECISION SHOULD BE EQUITABLE FOR EVERYBODY.

>>VINTON CERF: I THINK THE COMMUNICATION WE GOT FROM THE GAC TRIED VERY HARD TO LIMIT THE SET OF NAMES THAT WERE REQUESTED TO BE RESTRICTED. AND WE CONCURRED THAT ANY EXPANSION OF THAT LIST WOULD CAUSE ALL KINDS OF DIFFICULTIES.

SO AT THE MOMENT, THERE'S NO INTENTION TO EXPAND THAT LIST AT ALL. AND, IN FACT, WE SHOULD DISCOVER SOMETHING, I THINK, ABOUT THE UTILITY OF MAKING SUCH RESTRICTIONS BY THIS EXPERIMENT WITH THE DOT INFO, WE'LL LEARN WHETHER OR NOT IT IS USEFUL TO HAVE DONE SO. I THINK WE WANT TO KNOW THAT BEFORE WE WOULD MAKE ANY FURTHER EXPLORATION OF A BROADER LIST OF NAMES.

I'D LIKE TO CALL UPON AFILIAS TO GIVE US A QUICK SUMMARY NOW OF WHAT THEIR EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN IN DEALING WITH THE SUNRISE PERIOD AND SOME OF THE RESTRICTIONS WE'VE ASKED THEM TO INSTITUTE.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: SORRY, ANSWERING THE CONCRETE QUESTION FROM RAUL, THE EUROPEAN UNION WAS INCLUDED BECAUSE ICANN DECIDED THAT THE EU, EVEN NOT BEING IN 3166-1 LIST, WAS COMPLETELY KEY. BECAUSE THIS WAS THE RECOMMENDATION ALSO WE GOT FROM THE ISO AGENCY. SO IT'S NOT AN ARBITRARY INCLUSION AT ALL, RESTRICTIVELY OR NOT. THIS WAS THE ONLY REASON THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY – COUNTRIES THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN DECLARED AS COMPLETE EQUIVALENT TO.

>>VINTON CERF: YES, RAUL.

>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, THEN.

IS THERE AN EXPECTATION TO HAVE THE – PROTECTED THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRIES IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGE? BECAUSE THE EUROPEAN UNION, FOR EXAMPLE, I HAVE SEEN IN THE LIST, AS I SAID BEFORE –

>>VINTON CERF: THIS WAS DEBATED AT SOME LENGTH. AND THE AGREEMENT WAS TO LIMIT THE LIST ONLY TO THE ALGORITHMICALLY TRANSFORMED NAMES THAT WERE IN 3166-1 AND THIS SPECIAL CASE THAT AMADEU MENTIONED. THAT'S ALL.

>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: SORRY. I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. WHICH IS THE WAY TO – BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE IS ONLY ONE EXCEPTION. MAYBE –

>>VINTON CERF: BECAUSE – BECAUSE –

>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: MAYBE IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HAVE SOME COMMENTS FROM, FOR EXAMPLE, THE –

>>VINTON CERF: ROBERT BLOKZIJL.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: DO YOU WANT MINE?

>>ROBERT BLOKZIJL: I FULLY AGREE. THE CASE OF EUROPEAN UNION ON THE LIST IS NOT THE MOST BEAUTIFUL THING WE EVER DID. BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD WASTE TOO MUCH TIME ON IT.

I FULLY AGREE IT SHOULD NOT BE ON THE LIST. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE INTERESTING ALGORITHM AT ALL.

>>VINTON CERF: ON THE OTHER HAND, WE WERE CONFRONTED WITH A REQUEST FROM THE GAC TO TRY TO DEAL WITH THAT PARTICULAR RESTRICTED SET, SO – AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID.

ALL RIGHT. THE GENTLEMAN FROM AFILIAS, PLEASE.

>>RAM MOHAN: THANK YOU, I'M RAM MOHAN WITH AFILIAS.

WE FOUND A NUMBER OF ISSUES, DATA SUBMISSION ERRORS, BOTH BY REGISTRARS AND REGISTRANTS. WE FOUND THAT POTENTIALLY NON-TRADEMARKED NAMES HAD BEEN REGISTERED USING SUNRISE RULES, SOME OF WHICH HAVE JUST BEEN MENTIONED A MINUTE AGO, COUNTRY NAMES, OTHER GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES, REGIONS, AS WELL AS MANY GENERIC WORDS, ONLY SOME OF WHICH ARE TRADEMARKED. CAT, THE WORD "CAT" IS ACTUALLY A TRADEMARKED WORD. BUT NOT ALL SUCH GENERIC WORDS ARE TRADEMARKED.

WE ALSO FOUND THAT NOT ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THIS PROCESS EITHER READ OR HEEDED TO THE RULES OF SUNRISE. IN SOME CASES, THEY SUBMITTED REGISTRATIONS WHERE THEY DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA THAT HAD BEEN CLEARLY STATED FOR SUNRISE REGISTRATIONS.

IN SOME CASES WE FOUND REGISTRARS HAD OVERWRITTEN INFORMATION PROVIDED BY REGISTRANTS. AND IN OTHER CASES, WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN ABBREVIATIONS, MISSPELLING AND PARAPHRASES OFF AN ACTUAL EXISTING TRADEMARK NAME.

WE ALSO FOUND A NUMBER OF GAMBITS USED TO KEEP A SUNRISE NAME. WE FOUND REGISTRANTS WHO USED A THIRD-PARTY'S VALID TRADEMARK NUMBER TO CLAIM AN UNRELATED WORD.

WE FOUND, FOR EXAMPLE, 137 TRADEMARKS IN AFGHANISTAN. A LITTLE HARD TO CHECK.

WE FOUND AT LEAST IN ONE CASE, WE FOUND A REGISTRANT WHO USED, AS FAR AS WE COULD FIND, TEN PSEUDONYMS TO REGISTER DOMAIN NAMES. AND WE ALSO FOUND A WHOLE BUNCH OF REGISTRATIONS THAT CODED THE PUBLIC OF ANODYNE, WHICH AS FAR AS WE CAN FIND EXISTS ONLY ON THE INTERNET.

BUT IT WAS USED AS A TRADEMARK COUNTRY.

AFILIAS INSTITUTED A NUMBER OF REMEDIES. THE INITIAL INTENT BEHIND SUNRISE WAS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND ORGANIZATIONS COULD CHALLENGE REGISTRATIONS MADE DURING SUNRISE AND THROUGH THE WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION. THIS WAS DONE QUITE SUCCESSFULLY.

AFILIAS MOVED TO STRENGTHEN THE SUNRISE POLICIES. PROBABLY THE MOST NOTABLE IS IF A CHALLENGER REQUESTS A TRANSFER OF A NAME, THAT THEY HAVE TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE A VALID TRADEMARK.

THIS WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL RULES, AND THE MOVE TO STRENGTHEN THE RULES HAS BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE. IN FACT, BEFORE WE STRENGTHENED THE RULES, THE NUMBER OF TRANSFER REQUESTS WAS QUITE HIGH. AFTER THE RULES WERE MODIFIED, THE NUMBER OF TRANSFER REQUESTS DROPPED QUITE PRECIPITOUSLY.

WE ALSO CREATED A SHADOW WHOIS DATABASE WHICH INTENDED TO ELIMINATE THE DATA SUBMISSION ISSUES, WHICH WAS QUITE WELL USED.

AFILIAS ALSO DID A CHALLENGE OF LAST RESORT WHICH ALLOWED THE REGISTRY TO PLACE CHALLENGES FOR NAMES THAT DID NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TRADEMARK THAT IS WE COULD VERIFY.

THE OBJECTIVES WERE TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE DOT INFO DOMAIN AND THE SUNRISE RULES, AS WELL AS TO MAKE NAMES AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC WHICH WERE CLAIMED USING, YOU KNOW, REPUBLIC OF ANODYNE FOR A COUNTRY, FOR EXAMPLE.

THE STRATEGY WAS TO SCRUTINIZE EVERY SINGLE SUNRISE REGISTRATION.

WE COORDINATED WITH OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT TRADEMARK ORGANIZATIONS, USED A NUMBER OF DATABASES. THERE IS A SAMPLE OUT THERE. AND, IN FACT, THE U.K. TRADEMARK – THE OFFICIAL ORGANIZATION, WE ACTUALLY WORKED WITH THEM. THEY HELPED US REVIEW TRADEMARKS FOR DOT INFO NAMES.

WE'VE CHALLENGED ABOUT 13,000 NAMES TO WIPO SO FAR. AND OF THE DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN HANDED DOWN OF THESE BULK CHALLENGES, WE'VE WON ALL OF THEM. AND WE EXPECT A SIGNIFICANT SUCCESS RATE. I DO NOT EXPECT 100% WIN, BUT WE EXPECT A SIGNIFICANT SUCCESS RATE.

WE'VE ALSO ADMINISTRATED SOME ACTIONS, ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE LETTERS TO REGISTRANTS WHY SOMETHING SHOULD STAY IN THEIR NAME WHEN WE CAN'T FIND TRADEMARK INFORMATION THAT CAN BE VALIDATED. ASKING THEM TO PROVIDE INFORMATION. 4,000 NAMES. ANOTHER 2,000 ARE PENDING REVIEW.

LESSONS LEARNED FOR FUTURE SUNRISES. AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK SUNRISE IS AN EFFECTIVE PROCESS, AND WE HAVE FOUND THAT THIS PROCESS SUCCESSFULLY DOES PROTECT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. THERE ARE A FEW WRINKLES. IT'S THE FIRST TIME IT'S BEEN DONE ON THIS SCALE.

A GLOBAL TRADEMARK CHECK IS ONEROUS, EXPENSIVE. AND YOU REALLY CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT YOU CAN COVER THE WHOLE WORLD. A GLOBAL TRADEMARK DATABASE DOES NOT EXIST.

WE NEED TO PROVIDE MORE TIME TO CONDUCT SUNRISE REGISTRATIONS. AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO AWARD NAMES ONLY AFTER ENSURING THAT THE TRADEMARKS EXIST, RATHER THAN AWARDING THEM SIMPLY BASED ON SOMEONE VOUCHING THAT THEY OWN A TRADEMARK.

AND DOMAIN NAMES ISSUED ON VALID TRADEMARKS CANNOT BE PRIZED AT THE SAME LEVEL AS A REGULAR DOMAIN NAME, BECAUSE THE WORK INVOLVED IN FINDING OUT TRADEMARK INFORMATION FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND DETERMINING WHETHER THEY'RE VALID OR NOT IS FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT. AND IT'S CLEARLY EFFECTIVE TO WORK WITH NATIONAL TRADEMARK AUTHORITIES AHEAD OF TIME. THEY'RE VERY COOPERATIVE. WE'VE WORKED WITH PROBABLY A DOZEN. THEY'VE BEEN VERY COOPERATIVE.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S VERY CLEAR THIS PROCESS IS BY NO MEANS SIMPLE.

IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS FOR OUR REPRESENTATIVE FROM AFILIAS.

>>JOEL JAEGGLE: I HAVE ONE.

>>VINTON CERF: HERE'S A QUESTION. OKAY.

>>JOEL JAEGGLE: I SUSPECT THAT IF YOU TRIED WWW.REPUBLICOFANODYNE.ORG, YOU WOULD PROBABLY DETERMINE THE ORIGIN OF YOUR BOGUS TRADEMARK REQUESTS.

>>VINTON CERF: YOUR NAME PLEASE?

>>JOEL JAEGGLE: JOEL JAEGGLE.

>>RAM MOHAN: WE DID A LITTLE BIT OF WORK AND IN THAT CASE WE FOUND IT APPARENTLY TRACED BACK TO AN APARTMENT IN FLORIDA.

>>VINTON CERF: THAT'S PRETTY AMAZING.

OKAY. WE NOW ARE AT THE POINT IN OUR SCHEDULE WHERE A REPORT FROM THE CCTLD GROUP IS EXPECTED. I SEE WE HAVE PEOPLE APPROACHING THE LECTERN.

YOU'RE ON NOW.

>>YANN KWOK: GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M YANN KWOK. I'M THE MEMBER OF THE AFRICAN MEMBER OF THE CCTLD. AND I WILL BE PRESENTING THE CCTLD COMMUNIQUE.

REPRESENTATIVE OF 82 COUNTRY MANAGERS, 82 BEING BOTH PHYSICAL AND VIA PROXY, INCLUDING 17 MANAGERS FROM – MET ON MARCH 11. THE COUNTRY CODE MANAGERS REPORTED THEIR FINDINGS TO THE GHANAIAN MEETING ORGANIZERS. ARRANGING FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE IMPORTANT WORK OF THE CCTLD COMMUNITY.

THE GROUP WAS EXTREMELY PLEASED TO SEE THE PARTICIPATION OF SO MANY AFRICAN CCTLD MANAGERS WHO CONTRIBUTED WITH A HIGHLY – INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR LOCAL SITUATION AND ALSO INFORMED THE MEETING ABOUT THE EXPERIENCE WITH REGARD TO IANA SERVICES.

WE MET WITH MANAGERS AND MADE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. ONE MAJOR TOPIC OF CONVERSATION WAS THE RESTRUCTURING OF ICANN AS PROPOSED BY CEO STUART LYNN ISSUED ON THE 24TH OF FEBRUARY.

OUR INITIAL ASSESSMENT IS THAT WE AGREE WITH HIS CONCLUSION, THAT ICANN IN ITS CURRENT FORM CANNOT MEET ITS OBJECTIVE. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME POINTS IN HIS ANALYSIS WHERE WE DO NOT AGREE.

WE WELCOME THE RECOGNITION BY ICANN THAT CCTLDS OCCUPY A DISTINCT POSITION WITHIN THE ICANN STRUCTURE. THE PROPOSAL FOR A GEOGRAPHIC TLD NAMES POLICIES COUNCIL IS A FIRST STEP FORWARD TOWARDS ENGAGEMENT OF THE CCTLD MANAGERS PARTICIPATION. HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF.

AT LEAST ONE DEFICIENCY IS A SUGGESTION THAT CCTLD REGISTRIES – THAT ONLY CCTLD REGISTRIES THAT HAVE EXISTING AGREEMENTS WITH ICANN CAN FULLY PARTICIPATE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE NEW POLICY COUNCIL, WHICH WE FIND TO BE UNACCEPTABLE.

WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSAL LACKS A CLEAR PROCESS AND ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ABSENCE OF A CALENDAR FOR OBTAINING FORMAL COMMENTS FROM THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND THE DNSO CONSTITUENCIES.

SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CCTLD CONSTITUENCY FEEL THAT THE PROPOSAL MOVES AWAY FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL INDUSTRY REGULATION. WE REITERATED OUR COMMITMENT TO THE CREATION OF A CCTLD SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION AND THE NEED FOR A UNIQUE APPROACH TO CCTLD REPRESENTATION WITHIN THE ICANN STRUCTURE AND RESOLVE TO PROCEED FURTHER.

WE HAVE SEEN THE RECENTLY RELEASED "TOWARD A ICANN MISSION STATEMENT", AND LIKEWISE HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY EVALUATE IT. WE RECOGNIZE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO DOCUMENTS AND EXPECT TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIRST CONSIDER THE DIRECTION AND MISSION OF ICANN AS EXPRESSED IN THE DRAFT MISSION STATEMENT BEFORE BEING ABLE TO PROPERLY CONSIDER PRACTICAL, PROCEDURAL, AND STRUCTURAL REFORMS.

THE MEETING RECEIVED PRESENTATIONS ON INTERNATIONAL, INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, INCLUDING FROM SEVERAL COUNTRIES AND LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES.

WE APPRECIATED BEING INFORMED ABOUT THE LINGUISTIC, TECHNICAL, AND POLITICAL DIFFICULTIES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO THE REGISTRY POLICY ISSUES.

THANK YOU.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I THINK NOT.

THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINTON CERF: YOUR SUCCINCTNESS WAS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED.

WE NOW TURN TO A NEW TOPIC, AND THAT IS THE NEW TLD EVALUATION REPORT. AND I CALL ON STUART LYNN TO MAKE THAT REPORT. THIS IS THE UNPRONOUNCEABLE ACRONYM COMMITTEE.

>>STUART LYNN: I'M DISAPPOINTED IN YOU–"NTEPPTF".

JUST TO RECALL, BECAUSE IT'S NOW BECOMING SOMEWHAT OF A HISTORICAL FACT, THE BOARD RESOLUTION THAT ENABLED THE NEW TLD EVALUATION PROCESS PLANNING TASK FORCE BASICALLY DIRECTED THE TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP A PLAN FOR MONITORING THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW TLDS OF EVALUATING THEIR PERFORMANCE AND THE IMPACT OF THE PERFORMANCE ON THE DNS. IT'S RECOMMENDING A PLAN. WE ARE NOT DOING THE EVALUATION. I WANT TO REPEAT, MAKE THAT VERY, VERY CLEAR. WE'RE DEVELOPING A PLAN TO RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD AS TO HOW THAT EVALUATION SHOULD BE DONE.

WE ISSUED A INTERIM REPORT IN DECEMBER, SEEKING COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS.

THAT REPORT DEFINED THE AREAS OF FOCUS OF THE TASK FORCE, ADDING TO THE BOARD'S LIST OF TECHNICAL BUSINESS OF LEGAL, A FOURTH AREA OF EVALUATION, WHICH IS TO BE CONSIDERED PROCESS, THE OPERATIONAL ISSUES OF HOW THINGS WERE DONE.

WE ALSO POSED A LIST OF QUESTIONS THAT WE WERE INVITING COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ON THOUGHTS ON WHETHER THAT WAS THE RIGHT LIST OF QUESTIONS AND WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE CHANGED AS A PREREQUISITE BEFORE MOVING FORWARD, AND DEFINING CRITERIA AS TO HOW THOSE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN ANY EVALUATION.

WE DID RECEIVE, I THINK, 42 COMMENTS. ONLY 40 WERE OFF TOPIC. BUT AMONG THE OTHER – REMAINING TWO WERE TWO VERY CONSTRUCTIVE AND HELPFUL SUGGESTIONS, WHICH CAME AS A NICE SURPRISE.

IF WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

JUST TO REMIND YOU, THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THAT IS, THE FULL MEMBERSHIP, INCLUDING THE ADRIAN PINDER, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE GAC.

WE HAD A MEETING YESTERDAY, FIVE OF US WERE HERE, AND ASSESSED THAT WE WERE NOT AS FAR ALONG AS WE HAD HOPED TO BE.

I BEAR A LARGE PART OF THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT. BUT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE HAD IS THAT WHEN WE CAME DOWN TO BRASS TACKS OF TRYING TO DEFINE CRITERIA BY WHICH QUESTIONS SHOULD BE EVALUATED, IT TURNED OUT TO BE A LOT TOUGHER TASK THAN WE ANTICIPATED, AND A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT THING TO DO.

SO WE HAD THE NEXT SLIDE. ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID IN OUR MEETING THIS WEEK IS WE INVITED REPRESENTATIVES OF SIX OUT OF THE SEVEN NEW GTLDS FOR THEIR COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS ON WHETHER WE HAD THE RIGHT SET OF QUESTIONS BEING ADDRESSED OR WHETHER WE HAD MISSED ANYTHING OUT.

THAT WAS EXTREMELY HELPFUL. AND I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THOSE NEW TLD TEAMS WHO SHOWED UP, BECAUSE IT GAVE US SOME INSIGHTS THAT WE CERTAINLY WOULDN'T HAVE HAD IF WE HADN'T HAD THAT DISCUSSION, AND HAS AMPLIFIED OUR LIST OF QUESTIONS.

LET'S SEE. WE DID AN EVALUATION OF OUR WORK SO FAR AND AN ACTION PLAN UP TO THE ICANN MEETING IN JUNE.

NEXT SLIDE.

I MENTIONED THE INTERIM REPORT. OBVIOUSLY, ON THE FINAL REPORT, WE ARE LATE. WE'VE HAD, AS I INDICATED, SERIOUS CONCEPTUAL DIFFICULTIES ABOUT THE CRITERIA, THE DEFINITION OF THE NATURE OF THE CRITERIA IS VERY DIFFICULT.

WE PLAN TO NOW CHANGE OUR WORK FLOW, AIMING TOWARDS A FINAL REPORT IN JUNE. AND WITH THIS CHANGED WORK FLOW, I HAVE EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT WE WILL GET IT DONE. WE'RE GOING TO REVIEW THE AREAS OF QUESTIONS WITH THE INPUT WE'VE RECEIVED. WE'RE NOW GOING TO WEIGHT THE QUESTIONS AS TO WHAT WE THINK THEIR REAL IMPORTANCE IS TO A DECISION PROCESS BY THE BOARD. WE'RE GOING TO COMMENT RATHER THAN ESTABLISH CRITERIA ON HOW TO ANSWER EACH QUESTION, ESTABLISH A CLEAR TIME SCALE FOR HOW THE EVALUATION SHOULD BE CONDUCTED, MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD AS TO HOW THE EVALUATION TEAM SHOULD BE SELECTED, AND AS I INDICATED, A FINAL REPORT IN JUNE.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO – THAT'S THE REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE. IF I MIGHT, I'D LIKE TO ADD A PERSONAL COMMENT THAT – THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT THE TASK FORCE IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER – BUT THAT I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO FIND SOME WAYS TO MOVE FORWARD. THE MORE THE TASK FORCE LOOKS AT IT, THE MORE WE REALIZE THAT EVALUATION IS NOT ONLY ONGOING, BUT CAN TAKE A LONG TIME UNTIL REAL CONCLUSIONS CAN BE REACHED.

AND IN THE INTERIM, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE COMMUNITY AND WITH SOME HELP, PERHAPS, FROM THE TASK FORCE, NEEDS TO GIVE SOME THOUGHT TO HOW WE MIGHT MOVE FORWARD IN CERTAIN WAYS WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE FULL EVALUATION, OR EVEN A PARTIAL EVALUATION, TO BE COMPLETED. I THINK THERE ARE SOME WAYS THAT CAN BE DONE. BUT I DON'T FEEL AT LIBERTY TO LAY THOSE OUT RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? OR COMMENTS?

>>VINTON CERF: I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, STUART.

DID YOU FIND IN YOUR ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH CRITERIA THAT THE FACT THAT THE GTLDS WERE NOT UNIFORM MADE IT HARDER?

>>STUART LYNN: WE'VE ALREADY NOTED THE FACT THAT THE GTLDS WERE NOT UNIFORM THAT ENABLES US TO SEPARATE THE PROBLEMS. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WEIGHTING QUESTIONS, IT'LL PROBABLY BE DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT GTLDS.

THE PROBLEM WITH CRITERIA IS, CRITERIA IMPLIES THAT THERE ARE SOME ABSOLUTES, THAT YOU CAN SAY IT'S THREE OF THIS, THAT'S OKAY, AND TWO OF THIS IS NOT ENOUGH. THIS IS A WHOLE NEW WORLD, AND THERE'S NO REAL WAY TO SAY WHAT.

SO THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO NEED TO BE MUCH MORE SUBJECTIVE, AND THEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE BOARD ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PLACE THEIR OWN INTERPRETATIONS ON THOSE ANSWERS, WHAT IT REALLY MEANS.

>>VINTON CERF: OKAY. THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

WELL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'VE NOW COMPLETED ALL OF THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT WERE SCHEDULED FOR TODAY. WE HAVE THEORETICALLY OPEN MICROPHONE TIME FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO FEEL THE NEED TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES. AND I SEE THAT MR. FOCKLER IS ONE OF THEM.

>>STUART LYNN: CAN I MAKE ONE COMMENT BEFORE WE START. I DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THESE WONDERFUL GHANAIAN SOUVENIRS THAT I THINK ARE ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIC.

SO THE PROCEEDS FROM THIS GO TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. SO I HOPE YOU ALL CONSIDER PARTICIPATING.

THEY COME IN DIFFERENT STYLES, TOO. ANDREW HAS ANOTHER STYLE. THANK YOU.

>>KEN FOCKLER: I'M ON? MY NAME IS KEN FOCKLER. I'M A FORMER BOARD MEMBER. AND I JUST COULDN'T RESIST THE OPPORTUNITY TO FORMALLY SAY HELLO TO MY COLLEAGUES. AND I WAS AFRAID TO GET TOO CLOSE IS THE PROBLEM BEFORE.

I ASSURE YOU THERE IS LIFE AFTER AND OUTSIDE ICANN. I COULD GO FOR A WHILE. I SEE YOU YAWNING AND DOING THE THINGS WE USED TO DO.

THE WORD "PROCESSES" COMES UP A LOT. AND I USED TO BE THE PROCESS GUY ON THE BOARD BECAUSE I WOULD BRING IT UP A LOT. I FIRMLY BELIEVE IN PROCESSES AS THE WAY THAT THE HUMAN RACE HAS FOUND TO DO ITS COMMUNICATIONS OVER THE YEARS. BUT I DON'T – I'M NOT AN ADVOCATE OF LONG, LONG, DRAWN-OUT DEBATES AND PROCESSES. GET ON IT, PUT IT IN SHORT – PUT SHORT PERIODS OF TIME ON IT WAS WHAT I WAS ALWAYS SUGGESTING. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PROCESSES NO MATTER WHAT STRUCTURE YOU END UP WITH.

IT OCCURRED TO ME AS I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT THAT WE CERTAINLY PROVED THREE OR FOUR TIMES A YEAR IN OUR, QUOTE, INFORMAL BOARD DISCUSSIONS THAT WITHOUT PROCESS, WE COULD GO TO THE EARLY HOURS OF THE MORNING HAVING VIOLENT AGREEMENTS FOR HOURS ON THINGS. AND AS SOON AS WE STARTED TO INTRODUCE A LITTLE TINY BIT OF PROCESS TO THE DISCUSSION, THINGS GOT A LITTLE MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE.

CORE REFORM HAS BEEN A TOPIC. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WERE TWO PROCESSES GOING ON THAT, TO ME, WERE CORE REFORM. ONE WAS THE CCTLD POTENTIAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATION. AND THAT'S IN PROCESS AND COMING UP AND WOULD HAVE GREAT IMPACT.

AND THE OTHER WAS THE AT LARGE IN SOME FASHION, FOR EITHER AN SO OR SOME OTHER FORM OF REPRESENTATION.

AND WE LAUNCHED THOSE PROCESSES, THOSE STUDIES, WHATEVER, AND, WELL, YOU KNOW FROM MY BACKGROUND I SUPPORT BOTH AS BEING VERY IMPORTANT TO ICANN'S EFFECTIVENESS, THEIR IMAGE, HOW THEY'RE PERCEIVED, AND WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU IN SOME FASHION TO SEE THOSE. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN AS CORE REFORM PLANS FOR ICANN. AND I CERTAINLY SUPPORT BOTH OF THEM.

SO GOOD LUCK. BON CHANCE.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, KEN.

PLEASE.

>>TIM DENTON: GENTLEMEN, I BEG YOUR INDULGENCE, I'M TIM DENTON.

WE MET YESTERDAY, FOUR OF THE FIVE REGISTRARS WERE PRESENT AND A NUMBER OF THE SMALLER ONES.

WE TALKED ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THE REFORM OF ICANN AND WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE USEFUL TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE CONCLUSIONS WE ARRIVED AT AND SOME OF THE OBSERVATIONS THAT WERE MADE.

I REALIZE YOU'LL BE HEARING MORE, BUT I THOUGHT THESE WERE SUFFICIENTLY SUCCINCT TO ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION.

NOW I'M MIDDLE-AGED, I HAVE TO TAKE OFF MY GLASSES.

(LAUGHTER).

>>TIM DENTON: THE RESULTANT PRINCIPLES THAT WE THOUGHT WERE SUFFICIENTLY NONCONTROVERSIAL.

>>VINTON CERF: JUST A REMINDER, THESE FOLKS ARE GOING TO KEEP UP WITH YOU.

SO IF YOUR IDEA WAS TO READ VERY QUICKLY SO AS TO BE DONE FAST, YOU MAY MAKE IT LESS CLEAR FOR THE REST OF THESE FOLKS WHO ARE TRYING TO CAPTURE THE RECORD.

SO RELAX.

IT'S OKAY.

>>TIM DENTON: OKAY.

I'LL TAKE YOUR TIME, THEN.

WE SUPPORTED DNS AND AN AUTHORITY SUCH AS ICANN, AND THAT IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH ITS FUNCTIONS IN MANAGING THE DNS, AND THE COMPETITIVE ISSUES THAT ARISE WITHIN IT TO THE EXTENT THIS MANAGEMENT IS REQUIRED, AND NO MORE THAN THIS MANAGEMENT IS REQUIRED.

WE WISH TO ASSIST THE PROCESS OF CONSIDERING ICANN'S MISSION AND STRUCTURE, AND THINK THAT ICANN'S STRUCTURE MUST BE GOVERNED BY ITS MISSION.

WE ARE ACTIVELY CONSIDERING THE PROPOSALS FOR REFORM OF ICANN, AND WILL LIKELY HAVE A MORE CONSIDERED AND EXPANDED RESPONSE IN THE COMING WEEKS.

WE SEEK TO DEVELOP A STATEMENT OF MISSION FOR ICANN, AND A SET OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES THAT WOULD INFORM ITS RESTRUCTURING, WHICH FLOW FROM ITS MISSION.

AND WE HAVE BEGUN A DISCUSSION ALONG THESE LINES WITHIN THE REGISTRAR'S CONSTITUENCY AND ARE OPEN TO ELABORATION WITH OTHER CONSTITUENCIES.

AT OUR MEETING, WE ALSO MADE A NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS AND ATTEMPTS TO FIND PRINCIPLES THAT MAY BE USEFUL IN THE DISCUSSION THAT WILL FOLLOW.

NO VOTE WAS TAKEN IN REGARD TO THESE OBSERVATIONS, AND SO THEY DO NOT HAVE THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF SOMETHING THAT WAS VOTED ON.

THE PREVIOUS STATEMENTS I MADE WERE VOTED ON, UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THOSE PRESENT.

THE FIRST OBSERVATION WAS THAT THE GOVERNANCET OF THE DOMAIN-NAME SYSTEM SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND PROPORTIONATE TO THE NATURE AND NEEDS OF THE DOMAIN-NAME SYSTEM: A COROLLARY OF THIS PROPOSITION IS THE GOVERNANCE OF THE DOMAIN-NAME SYSTEM SHOULD NOT OUTLAST THE USEFUL LIFE OF THE DOMAIN-NAME SYSTEM.

(LAUGHTER).

>>TIM DENTON: THIS SUGGESTS THAT GOVERNANCE BE RESPONSIVE TO MARKETS RATHER MORE THAN ARRANGEMENTS AMONG STATES.

A SECOND OBSERVATION WAS THAT BOWING TO THE ROLE OF STATES, THE LEGITIMATE ROLE OF STATES, IN THE MANAGEMENT OF COUNTRY CODES, THE ROLE OF ESSENTIAL MANAGER OF THE DNS, SUCH AS ICANN, WAS NATURALLY LARGER IN RELATION TO GENERIC TLDS THAN IT IS IN RELATION TO COUNTRY CODES.

AND THE SAME OBSERVATION WAS MADE IN RELATION TO ROOT SERVERS AS COUNTRY CODES.

THE THIRD OBSERVATION WAS THAT THOSE WHO WISHED TO PLAY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE DNS SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE FUNDING OF IT, WITH SOME EXCEPTION FOR NON-PROFIT ENTITIES.

THE FOURTH OBSERVATION WAS THAT WE NEEDED A STRUCTURE WHICH RESOLVED ISSUES QUICKLY.

THE COROLLARY OF THIS PRINCIPLE WAS THAT FUTURE STRUCTURES OF ICANN OR ITS SUCCESSOR SHOULD BE TESTED AGAINST THIS CRITERION.

THIS MAY MEAN REVISING RULES TO SPECIFY ELECTORS, VOTING MAJORITIES, AND NECESSARY VOTING MAJORITIES TO CLEAR UP SOME CONFUSION AROUND WHAT CONSENSUS MIGHT CONSIST OF.

THE FIFTH OBSERVATION IS THAT DECISIONS OF STAKEHOLDERS BE ENABLED TO BE ENFORCED OR SUPPORTED BY ICANN'S BOARD.

THE SIXTH OBSERVATION WAS THAT END USERS OF COMPUTERS HAVE INTERESTS THAT ARE DISTINCT FROM THOSE OF GOVERNMENTS, AND USERS ARE AFFECTED BY WHETHER THE SYMBOLS THEY TYPE IN RESOLVE TO WEB SITES THAT THEY SEEK.

SOME AVENUE OF INPUT BY END USERS INTO THE DOMAIN-NAME MANAGEMENT, APART FROM REGISTRARS THEMSELVES, WAS AGREEABLE TO REGISTRARS.

IT WAS ALSO THOUGHT APPROPRIATE THAT END USERS PAY FOR THIS INPUT IN SOME MEASURE.

AND FINALLY, THE SEVENTH OBSERVATION WAS THAT REGISTRANTS OF DOMAIN NAMES HAVE A GREATER CLAIM ON THE ATTENTION OF ICANN THAN END USERS WHO DO NOT OWN DOMAIN NAMES.

THE INTEREST OF DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANTS ARE BROAD AND VARIED.

REGISTRARS CANNOT SPEAK FOR THEIR ENTIRE SET OF INTERESTS, EVEN THOUGH WE TRY TO SERVE THEIR NEEDS AS COMMERCIAL SUPPLIERS.

>>VINTON CERF: THAT'S A BEAUTIFUL STATEMENT.

THANK YOU.

>>TIM DENTON: YOU'RE WELCOME.

>>VINTON CERF: IT'S INTERESTING THAT THERE WERE EXACTLY SEVEN OBSERVATIONS.

SEVEN MUST BE A MAGIC NUMBER.

IT KEEPS SHOWING UP ALL THE TIME.

PLEASE.

>>MANON RESS: MY NAME IS MANON RESS, AND I WORK FOR A CONSUMER GROUP, ESSENTIAL INFORMATION IN WASHINGTON, D.C. WHICH WAS CREATED BY RALPH NADER, WHICH DOESN'T MAKE ME THE MOST POPULAR PERSON AROUND HERE.

I ALSO WORK FOR (INAUDIBLE), FOR FULL DISCLOSURE AND I WAS ASKED TO READ THE STATEMENT FROM THE CONSUMER PROJECT ON TECHNOLOGY.

THE CONSUMER PROJECT ON TECHNOLOGY IS A LINK PROPOSAL FOR RESTRUCTURING ICANN.

THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITICISM OF ICANN WHICH INCLUDE THE PROBLEMS OF MISSION CREEP, ANTI-COMPETITIVE BARRIERS TO COMPETITION, INCUMBENT REGISTRY INTEREST, AND AN OUT OF CONTROL BUDGET AND A FAILURE TO ORGANIZE THE UNIQUE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERNET AS A PROTECTOR OF FREE SPEECH.

THE LYNN PROPOSAL WOULD ELIMINATE MANY OF THE MECHANISMS THAT CURRENTLY CONSTRAIN ICANN FROM EXPANDING ITS AUTHORITY IN NEW AREAS SUCH AS THE AT-LARGE ELECTION OR THE OBLIGATION TO SEEK BOTTOM-UP CONSENSUS.

THE GUIDING LIGHTS APPEAR TO BE FINDING WAYS TO PROTECT ICANN FROM ITS CRITICS, FINDING WAYS FOR PARTIES TO SIGN ICANN CONTRACTS AND TO FIND A WAY TO TAP INTO A SOURCE OF FUNDING.

WE THINK YOU SHOULD GET RID OF THE LYNN PROPOSAL AND FIND ONE THAT GOES IN A NEW DIRECTION.

THERE ARE FIVE POINTS WE WOULD LIKE TO UNDERLINE.

ICANN NEEDS TO GET ITS BUDGET UNDER CONTROL.

ICANN SHOULD NOT ELIMINATE THE AT-LARGE SEATS ON THE BOARD, ICANN SHOULD NOT INVITE GOVERNMENTS TO HAVE SEATS ON THE ICANN BOARD.

ICANN SHOULD EXPLORE OPTIONS FOR DECENTRALIZING DECISION-MAKING.

FEW DECISIONS I CAN MAKE TODAY CANNOT BE DONE WITH A LESS CENTRALIZED POWER STRUCTURE.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO CONCLUDE BY ASKING, BEGGING THE BOARD TO CONSIDER PASSING A RESOLUTION TOMORROW TO MAKE SURE THERE'S AN AT LARGE ELECTION.

THANK YOU.

>>IVAN MOURA CAMPOS: CAN I ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION?

>>VINTON CERF: I HAVE TWO DIRECTORS WITH THEIR HANDS UP.

AMADEU AND THEN IVAN.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I WOULD LOVE HAVING MORE BOTTOM-UP PROPOSITIONS FROM THE BODIES OF ICANN BUT IT DECISION MAKE MAKING IS NOT EVERYTHING.

DECENTRALIZING IS NOT ALL IF THE PROCESS DOESN'T WORK. AND I REPEAT, I DO NOT GET MANY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COUNCILS.

>>MANON RESS: I HAVE TO READ, I'M SORRY.

I'M A NONNATIVE.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: DO YOU THINK I AM?

>>MANON RESS: YES, THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE COUNCIL, THAT'S FOR SURE.

>>VINTON CERF: AND THAT MAY BE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN SAY.

IVAN.

>>IVAN MOURA CAMPOS: IT'S JUST A CLARIFICATION.

YOU ARE PROPOSING THAT ICANN'S – ICANN DEALS WITH THE ISSUES OF FREE SPEECH AND AT THE SAME TIME THINK THAT ICANN HAS A PROBLEM OF MISSION CREEP?

>>MANON RESS: YES.

I THINK THAT IT'S INTERESTING, THIS MISSION CREEP STORY, BECAUSE WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT REDELEGATION OF DELETION OF DOMAIN NAME, THAT'S CONSUMER PROTECTION, BUT THAT'S NOT MISSION CREEP, AS FAR AS I CAN SEE.

SO THERE ARE AREAS WHERE WE WOULD DISAGREE ON WHAT MISSION CREEP IS.

AND I THINK FREE SPEECH IS NOT.

>>IVAN MOURA CAMPOS: I CAN SEE WE DISAGREE WITH THAT.

>>JONATHAN COHEN: TO BOLDLY CREEP.

>>VINTON CERF: YES, PLEASE.

>>DAVID SHORT: THANK YOU, MY NAME IS DAVID SHORT.

I'M WITH THE INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, IATA, IN GENEVA, SWITZERLAND.

WE ARE THE SPONSOR OF THE DOT TRAVEL APPLICATION WHICH WAS FILED ON OCTOBER 2ND, 2000 AND REMAINS PENDING BEFORE THE BOARD.

I WANTED TO BRIEFLY UPDATE THE BOARD ON THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TRIED TO LEARN THE LESSONS FROM THE EXPERIENCE IN THE FALL OF 2000.

SINCE THEN, OUR DIRECTOR GENERAL HAS CONVENED TWO, WHAT HE HAS REFERRED TO AS DOT TRAVEL SUMMIT MEETINGS, CEO-LEVEL GATHERINGS, ONE IN GENEVA, ONE IN NORTH AMERICA IN MONTREAL.

WE HAVE STRENGTHENED EVEN BEYOND WHAT WE HAD AT THAT TIME THE CONSENSUS OF THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY IN SUPPORT OF THE IATA PROPOSAL FOR A DOT TRAVEL TLD.

WE HAVE KEPT THE ICANN STAFF INFORMED OF THESE MEETINGS.

WE'VE INVITED THEM TO ATTEND.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DO SO.

BUT WE HAVE TRIED TO MAKE THIS AS OPEN, TRANSPARENT, AND INCLUSIVE A PROCESS AS POSSIBLE.

WE ARE HEARING EVERY DAY FROM OUR MEMBERS.

THE AIRLINES, THE OTHER TRAVEL INDUSTRY BUSINESSES, WHICH DO COMPRISE THE LARGEST SEGMENT OF E-COMMERCE, THAT THEY WERE DESPERATE FOR THE CREATION OF A TLD THAT WILL BE GOVERNED BY AND FOR THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY.

I WAS MOST ENCOURAGED BY STUART LYNN'S REMARKS CONCERNING THE GTLD EVALUATION TASK FORCE PROCESS THAT, IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO GO FORWARD WITH SELECTION OF AUTHORIZATION OF SOME ADDITIONAL TLDS BEFORE THE COMPLETE EVALUATION OF THE SEVEN INITIALLY SELECTED ONES IS DONE.

AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WOULD BE PARTICULARLY TRUE FOR PROPOSALS SUCH AS OURS, SPONSORED, RESTRICTED TLDS WHICH DO NOT ENTAIL THE SORT OF IP AND TRADEMARK ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE WITH THE BROADER, GENERIC TLDS.

FINALLY, WE RECOGNIZE IN IATA THAT RIGHT NOW THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE MUCH MORE FRONT AND CENTER ON ICANN'S AGENDA.

OBVIOUSLY, THE REFORM OF THE STRUCTURE, PROBABLY THE DOT ORG TRANSFER, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.

WE REALIZE THOSE THINGS NEED TO COME FIRST.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT WE IN IATA WANT TO BE CONSTRUCTIVE AND SUPPORTIVE OF PROCESSING THOSE ISSUES, AND AT THE SAME TIME, WE HOPE WORK ON THE GTLD EVALUATION WILL CONTINUE SO THAT ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED AT THE EARLIER OPPORTUNITY.

THANK YOU.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR REMINDING US THAT YOU'RE STILL HERE.

PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>>JANE MUTIMEAR: HELLO, MY NAME IS JANE MUTIMEAR, I'M EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY WHERE I REPRESENT AIPPI, ONE OF THE LARGEST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATIONS, WHICH HAS OVER 6,300 MEMBERS WORLDWIDE IN ABOUT 109 COUNTRIES.

THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY HAD A MEETING ABOUT A WEEK AGO BEFORE WE CAME OUT, A FACE-TO-FACE MEETING, WHERE WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS, ON A PRELIMINARY BASIS, THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT, CASE FOR REFORM.

AND OUR PRELIMINARY POSITION WAS THAT WE THOUGHT IT REPRESENTED A VERY GOOD ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEMS CURRENTLY FACED BY ICANN AND SHOULD REPRESENT – AND SHOULD FORM THE BASIS OF THE DISCUSSION FORWARD AS TO HOW THE RESTRUCTURING SHOULD GO AHEAD.

WE AGREE WITH THE COMMENT WHICH WAS MADE EARLIER IN RELATION TO THE DEFINING OF THE MISSION.

I DON'T THINK THAT YOU CAN FINALIZE A STRUCTURE WHICH WILL WORK UNTIL YOU'VE ESTABLISHED WHAT MISSION YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE.

AND ALSO, IN RELATION TO POTENTIAL INVOLVEMENT OF GOVERNMENTS ON THE BOARD, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S APPROPRIATE TRANSPARENCY IN RELATION TO THAT.

THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY IS CERTAINLY PREPARED TO WORK WITH THE BOARD IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONCERNS ARE PROPERLY REPRESENTED IN WHATEVER THE NEW STRUCTURE MAY TAKE.

AND ONE THING WHICH OCCURS TO ME IS THAT OUR CONSTITUENCY PROBABLY REPRESENT A VERY HIGH PROPORTION OF DOMAIN-NAME OWNERS, ESPECIALLY THE LARGE-BRAND COMPANIES AND TRADEMARK OWNERS.

AND ONE THING IN RELATION TO FUNDING, WHICH WE WILL TRY TO DO OVER THE NEXT SECTION WEEKS, IS TO GET FEEDBACK FROM OUR CONSTITUENTS AS TO THE PROPOSAL WHICH HAS BEEN MADE IN RELATION TO A PROPORTION OF THE DOMAIN-NAME REGISTRATION FEE BEING – COMING DIRECTLY FROM THE REGISTRANTS.

AND WE'LL TRY TO GET SOME FEEDBACK ON THAT AND SUBMIT IT.

THANK YOU.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE.

>>ANDY MUELLER-MAGUHN: I HAVE A QUESTION.

>>VINTON CERF: YES, ANDY HAS A QUESTION.

>>ANDY MUELLER-MAGUHN: EXCUSE ME, ARE YOU AWARE OF THE FACT THAT – I MEAN, NOT REFLECTING DIRECTLY TO THE THING THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED AND WE DO HAVE AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY WITHIN ICANN, THAT ICANN DOES NOT WRITE BUT STILL, ICANN DOES NOT ACT IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AS IT DOES NOT IN OTHER AREAS; RIGHT?

I MEAN, ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT FACT?

THAT THAT IS NOT ICANN'S MISSION?

>>JANE MUTIMEAR: IN RELATION TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY?

>>ANDY MUELLER-MAGUHN: RIGHT.

>>JANE MUTIMEAR: I MEAN, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, IT'S ONE OF THE CONSTITUENCIES WHICH IS CURRENTLY WITHIN THE DNSO.

>>ANDY MUELLER-MAGUHN:.

RIGHT.

STILL IT'S NOT PART OF OUR MISSION.

>>JANE MUTIMEAR: IF YOU LOOK AT THE WHITE PAPER –

>>ANDY MUELLER-MAGUHN: THAT'S AN ACCIDENT BY HISTORY, BUT STILL, IT'S NOT OUR MISSION

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE).

>>VINTON CERF: PLAINLY, THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF DEBATE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE ABOUT MISSION, ALTHOUGH I DON'T PROPOSE THAT WE TRY TO RESOLVE THAT RIGHT NOW.

>>ANDY MUELLER-MAGUHN: I JUST WANTED TO GET SURE SHE'S AWARE OF THAT.

>>VINTON CERF: JONATHAN.

>>JONATHAN COHEN: I'M AWARE THAT WE'RE USERS.

THAT PUTS US IN THE USERS' COMMUNITY.

WE'RE IN THE WHITE PAPER.

END OF STORY.

>>VINTON CERF: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

PLEASE.

>>TONY HOLMES: TONY HOLMES, CHAIRMAN OF THE ISPCP.

I'D LIKE TO OFFER SOME INITIAL COMMENTS BACK FROM THE ISP.

WE DO RECOGNIZE THE PROBLEMS SET OUT IN STUART'S PAPER.

WE DON'T VIEW THE PROPOSED SOLUTION AS VIABLE, PRAGMATIC, ACHIEVABLE OR ACCEPTABLE.

WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT SOME PARTS OF ICANN ARE WORKING WELL, AND SOME SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE.

WE DON'T ACCEPT ANY PROPOSAL THAT DESTROYS THOSE PARTS THAT HAVE PROVED A SUCCESS.

WE DO ACCEPT THAT IN ITS PRESENT FORM ICANN FACES CHALLENGES, PARTICULARLY IN REGARD TO FUNDING.

WE DON'T ACCEPT THAT A MODEL THAT REQUIRES VERY SUBSTANTIAL FUNDINGS FROM GOVERNMENTS IS VIABLE, PRAGMATIC, OR ACHIEVABLE.

IN SOME CASES IT WOULD REQUIRE MAJOR LEGISLATIVE CHANGES WHICH EVEN WITH THE BEST WILL IN THE WORLD WILL NOT BE ACHIEVED IN THE NEAR OR MAYBE EVEN THE MEDIUM TERM.

WE DO ACCEPT THE NEED TO MOVE AWAY FROM PROCESS.

WE DON'T BELIEVE IN THE NEED FOR COMPLETE RESTRUCTURING WHICH ELEVATE SOME EXISTING STAKEHOLDERS AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS.

THAT, IN OUR VIEW, WILL ONLY FUEL THE PROCESS DEBATE, NOT QUELL IT.

WE WILL DEVOTE ENERGIES AND TIME TO WORK WITH ICANN TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES IN A MANNER THAT WILL PROVIDE A PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP THAT REALLY DOES TAKE ACCOUNT OF ALL STAKE HOLDS.

AND ONE FINAL COMMENT: WE HAVE GIVEN SOME INITIAL THOUGHTS TO THE PROPOSAL THAT ICANN FUNDING SHOULD STEM FROM THE REGISTRANTS OF DOMAIN NAMES AND CURRENTLY WE LOOK VERY FAVORABLY ON THAT PROPOSITION.

THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE).

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I HAVE A QUESTION, TONY.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: ONCE AGAIN FOR MY EDUCATION, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BUT I PREFER A CLEARER STATEMENT.

YOU MAY DO IN A IN A PERSONAL BASIS IF YOU WANT.

WE SHOULD NOT DESTROY THE GROUPS THAT ARE WORKING.

ARE YOU REFERRING TO ANY (INAUDIBLE) CONSTITUENCY, THE PSO, THE BOARD, THE PSO, THE AT LARGE?

BECAUSE THE REFORM IS QUITE GENERAL, AND AS TO THE PROPOSAL I AM LOST AS TO WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.

>>TONY HOLMES: ON THE BASIS THAT THESE ARE INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS FEEDING BACK AT THIS TIME, CERTAINLY IN OUR VIEW THE ASO IS CLEARLY WORKING WELL AND ALSO THE PSO AS WELL.

>>VINTON CERF: OKAY.

NEXT.

>>NORBERT KLEIN: MY NAME IS NORBERT KLEIN FROM THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY.

I WORK FOR A NONGOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION IN CAMBODIA FOR 12 YEARS.

WE CREATED THE FIRST INTERNET CONNECTION IN 1994, THREE YEARS BEFORE TWO COMMERCIAL ISPS STARTED TO OPERATE.

I SPEAK HERE NOT FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS WHICH WERE MENTIONED THIS MORNING BY STUART LYNN.

I DO NOT REPRESENT THE 90% OF INTERNET USERS WHICH ARE REPRESENTED IN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE GOVERNMENT ADVISORY GROUP.

I SPEAK AS ONE FROM THE MINORITY, SOMEWHAT OUTSIDE.

I'M VERY HAPPY THAT I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS EFFORT OF ICANN, SINCE THE SINGAPORE MEETING IN 1998 BEFORE ICANN WAS CREATED AND THEN SINCE SANTIAGO IN THE NONGOVERNMENT – NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENTS.

I'M VERY HAPPY ABOUT HAVING HAD THIS OPPORTUNITY, AND I'M ESPECIALLY HAPPY ALSO TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

ALSO TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, BUT ESPECIALLY ANDY, KATOH-SAN.

AND ESPECIALLY (INAUDIBLE).

WE MET EACH OTHER FIRST TIME IN 1996, AND I'M NOT SURE IF WE WOULD BE HERE TODAY IN GHANA IF WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD AN AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP WHICH ELECTED YOU ONTO THIS BOARD.

AND I HOPE THAT THIS IS NOT THE LAST PARTICIPATION.

MAYBE NOT FOR MYSELF, BUT FOR THOSE WHO ARE OUTSIDE OF THE 90% AND OUTSIDE OF THE MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH

(APPLAUSE).

>>VINTON CERF: STEFANO.

>>STEFANO TRUMPY: STEFANO TRUMPY FROM SIENA, ITALY.

AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REFORM, AND IT APPEARS LIKE THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR THE MANDATE OF ICANN.

TO MY OPINION, THE MANDATE HAS BEEN CLEAR, IS CLEAR.

BUT WHAT IS MISLEADING, PERHAPS, IS THE RELATION BETWEEN THE TECHNICAL PART AND THEN THE POLICY.

AND LOOKING IN THE FUTURE, WE SHOULD TRY MAYBE TO DISTINGUISH MORE THE TWO FUNCTIONS, AND THINKING TO AN ORGANIZATION WHERE THERE IS A CORE TECHNICAL FUNCTION AND THEN A POLICY-MAKING FUNCTION.

AND I MAKE TWO EXAMPLES OF HOW THINGS ARE CONDUCTED AND ARE CORRELATING THE TWO PARTS.

THE EXAMPLE OF THE DOT INFO AND COUNTRY NAMES.

IT IS CLEAR, FOR A TECHNICAL PERSON, THAT GOING THE WAY OF RESERVED LIST OF NAMES IS THE WAY OF WASTING OUR TIME AND ENERGIES.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE FOR A TECHNICIAN IS SIMPLY TO HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF A QUICK AND RAPID AND NOT COSTLY REVOCATION OF ALL NAMES AFTERWARDS.

IF WE GO THE WAY OF RESERVED LISTS, CERTAINLY WE WILL ENCOUNTER MORE AND MORE POLITICAL PROBLEMS.

ON THE OTHER SIDE, I TAKE THE EXAMPLE OF THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM.

THE DECISION FOR SECURITY AND FOR DISASTER RECOVERY TO GO ALIGN FOR HAVING CONTRACTS IN PLACE WITH THE PRESENT OR FUTURE ROOT SERVERS IS A POLITICAL DECISION IN THE SENSE THAT WE WANT MORE CONTRACTUAL BASE, MORE SECURITY, AND SO ON, WHILE THE TECHNICIANS ARE SAYING, LOOK, THE SYSTEM LIKE IT IS NOW IS RUNNING WELL AND WE DON'T SEE THE REASON WHY THE COST SHOULD BE MULTIPLIED BY A FACTOR OF TEN, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO IN REAL LIFE, THE TWO SIDES – I MEAN, TECHNICAL AND THE POLITICAL – ARE VERY STRICTLY INTERCONNECTED.

BUT WE SHOULD MAKE AN EFFORT TO TRY TO DIVIDE THE TWO SIDES AND TO HAVE AN ORGANIZATION WHICH IS MORE QUICK IN REALIZING THE TECHNICAL MARKERS.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: STEFANO, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU THAT ICANN HAS TWO CELLS, AND PEOPLE COME TO ICANN FOR TWO SETS OF PROBLEMS.

TECHNICAL COORDINATION, ALL OF US, AND SOME OF US ALSO FOR POLICY AREAS REGARDING MAINLY GTLD'S, BUT NOT ONLY.

PERHAPS ALSO PART OF THE ROOT, IF YOU WANT.

IN MY VIEW, THIS NEEDS TO BE FURTHER CLARIFIED AS TO THE (INAUDIBLE) OF THE STAKEHOLDERS AND FUNDING AS WELL.

IN YOUR VIEW, IS THIS TO BE A CLEAR REFLECTION IN THE STRUCTURE AS WELL OF THIS DUAL CELL OF ICANN?

>>STEFANO TRUMPY: NO.

WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT ALL THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS THAT ARE MANAGED BY ICANN, MANY TIMES DISCOVERING POLITICAL ASPECTS AND THEN THE DISCUSSION ON POLITICAL ASPECTS STOPS THE EXECUTION AND DELAY THE RESULT – THE RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: BUT STILL, THERE ARE TWO CELLS TO THE FIRM VIEWS, BUT ONE ICANN BECAUSE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO SEPARATE.

THAT'S YOUR POINT?

>>STEFANO TRUMPY: YES.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU, STEFANO.

I WOULD MAKE ONE OBSERVATION, THAT THAT WHICH IS TECHNICAL DOES OFTEN HAVE COMPLEX POLICY RAMIFICATIONS, AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEPARATE THOSE TWO AND THAT'S PROBABLY PART OF OUR STRUGGLE.

PLEASE.

>>ANDY DUFF: HI, MY NAME IS ANDY DUFF.

I'M A REPRESENTATIVE FOR BASIC FUSION, A MEMBER OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY WITHIN THE DNSO.

I'M ALSO HERE REPRESENTING THE PARENT COMPANY, NEW DOT NET.

I THINK EVERYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM WOULD APPRECIATE DR. LYNN'S ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT PROBLEMS OF ICANN, BUT WE STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THEM.

AS SUCH, WE HAVE WORKED PRETTY HARD IN THE LAST THREE WEEKS TO PRODUCE AN ALTERNATIVE WHICH WE HAVE PUBLISHED ON THE NEW.NET WEB SITE AND WHICH WE HAVE SENT TO SECRETARY EVANS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

I'VE ALSO MANAGED TO PERSONALLY GIVE IT TO –

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: OF THE U.S.?

>>ANDY DUFF: ABSOLUTELY, YES.

OF THE U.S.

AND WHEN YOU READ IT, ALEJANDRO, YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND WHY THAT IS.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT COUNTRY YOU REFERRED TO.

THERE ARE SO MANY DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE IN THE WORLD.

>>JONATHAN COHEN: AND WHY ONLY TO THAT ONE?

>>ANDY DUFF: I WOULD RATHER NOT GO INTO THE DETAILED IMPLICATIONS OF THE PAPER, BUT I WILL SAY THAT IN IT WE DO ADVOCATE THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SHOULD RETAIN CONTROL OF THE EXISTING ROOT.

ANYWAY, THE PAPER IS PUBLISHED ON THE – THERE'S A LINK FROM THE WWW.NEW.NET SITE, AND I'VE HANDED IT TO SOME OF THE MEMBERS HERE.

WE CONTINUE TO CALL FOR THE POLICY MAKING FUNCTIONS WITHIN ICANN TO BE SET AS FAR AS POSSIBLE BY THE MARKET.

AND YOU WILL SEE FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THAT.

THE PROPOSAL IS CALLED A PROPOSAL FOR MORE REALISTIC DOMAIN-NAME GOVERNANCE.

I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT AT THIS STAGE THAT THE ICANN BOARD ENCOURAGES AND DIRECTS EVERY CONSTITUENCY WITHIN ICANN TO COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY YOU WILL HAVE A REALISTIC DIALOGUE ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE OF THIS ORGANIZATION AND OF DOMAIN NAME GOVERNANCE GENERALLY IS MEANT TO BE.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I CAN'T HELP THIS ONE.

YOU HAVE BEEN PROPOSING ALTERNATIVES TO CURRENT TLDS, ALTERNATIVES TO CURRENT ROOT, ALTERNATIVES TO STUART'S PROPOSAL. IT'S A PITY THAT YOU CAN'T FIND ALTERNATIVE TO U.S. CONTROL OF THE ROOT.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: JUST TRY. YOU HAVE THE IMAGINATION.

>>ANDY DUFF: AGAIN, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THE PAPER.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>: AS I SAY, IT IS A PROPOSAL FOR MY REALISTIC DOMAIN NAME GOVERNANCE.

>>: THANK YOU.

>>VINTON CERF: BEFORE YOU TAKE THE MICROPHONE, I HAVE ONE FROM ONLINE. AND ALSO, COULD I HAVE A SHOW OF HANDS OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE STILL WISHING TO MAKE REMARKS? AMADEU, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD –

(LAUGHTER.)

>>VINTON CERF: – IF YOU WOULD CENSOR YOURSELF, PLEASE.

ALL RIGHT. LET ME READ THIS ONE QUESTION, WHICH IS PROBABLY –

ARE YOU ALSO PLANNING TO MAKE REMARKS? IS THAT WHY YOU CAME TO THE FRONT? YES? I'M ASKING YOU A QUESTION. HELLO.

>>WOLFGANG KLEIUWACHTE: NO.

>>VINTON CERF: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THIS QUESTION COMES FROM DANNY YOUNGER.

HE SAYS:

"THE DNSO CONDUCTED A YEAR-LONG INTERNAL REVIEW. WHAT IS THE BOARD'S VIEW OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT FINALLY EMERGED?

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE BOARD HAS DISCUSSED IN CONCERT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. SO I DON'T KNOW. IS THERE ANYONE WHO HAS A COMMENT?

>>STUART LYNN: I DON'T BELIEVE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE FORTHCOMING. I THINK THE DNSO HAD FORMED THE STRUCTURES TASK FORCE TO MOVE THE ISSUE FORWARD.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: JUST TO AMPLIFY THAT. AS MR. SHEPPARD INDICATED, THERE IS A PAPER THAT I RECEIVED TODAY OF A DRAFT INTERIM REPORT THAT – AND PERHAPS ALEJANDRO, I KNOW, WAS PRESENT WHEN THEY VOTED TO PASS IT UP TO THE BOARD WITH, I THINK, OUT APPROVAL. IS THAT FAIR, ALEJANDRO?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I WOULD RATHER NOT COMMENT ON THE PROCESS, BECAUSE WHAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US IN – I WOULD CALL OTHER BOARD MEMBERS TO CONSIDER ALL INPUTS POSSIBLE. THE DNSO REVIEW PROCESS HAS BEEN LONG, IT HAS HAD MANY PHASES. SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN SELF-ORGANIZING, SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN STRUCTURED BY THE NAMES COUNCIL IN A VERY ORDERLY WAY.

AND THEY HAVE BEEN PROCEEDING AND MORE RECENTLY HAVE TRIED TO ADAPT TO THE FACT THAT THERE'S ALSO A PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE WHICH IS THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE BLIND TO IT.

SO I THINK THAT WHAT WE WILL HAVE TO DO IS SET A SCHEDULE FOR OURSELVES – I MEAN, FOR THE BOARD WORK, FOR ICANN'S WORK, AND CONSIDER WHATEVER INPUT IS AVAILABLE, AND QUALIFY IT IN TERMS OF HOW FORMAL OR UNANIMOUS OR NONUNANIMOUS APPROVAL IS.

SO IF IT'S A DRAFT OF A DRAFT OF A DRAFT WITH SEVEN MINORITY CONSIDERATIONS THAT ADD UP TO A MAJORITY, WE WILL READ IT AS SUCH.

>>VINTON CERF: THIS SOUNDS LIKE AN INTERIM, TEMPORARY, APPROXIMATE DRAFT SOMETHING OR OTHER.

ALL RIGHT, PLEASE.

I BELIEVE YOU MAY BE THE LAST SPEAKER.

>>:SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET:

(SPEAKING IN FRENCH)

(TRANSLATION NOT AUDIBLE)

YOU HAVE ACCENT HERE BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE TO TRANSLATE EVERYTHING, FROM FRENCH TO ENGLISH AND ENGLISH TO FRENCH. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AS THE AFRICAN PEOPLE GIVE US THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN MY OWN LANGUAGE, TO SPEAK IN MY OWN LANGUAGE.

AND IF YOU WISH TO AGAIN TRANSLATE, BUT I WILL SPEAK IN FRENCH.

– CELEBRATED LAST YEAR THE HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE DECISION OF – WITH THE NON(INAUDIBLE) AIMS, AND ALSO FOR THIS ORGANIZATION, THAT ICANN HAD THE WILL NOT TO MAKE PROFITS, SO THE EXAMPLES THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT ARE VERY INTERESTING. THAT IS THE REASON WHY I PROPOSE STUART LYNN, THE PRESIDENT OF ICANN, TO COME AND SEE WHAT IS GOING ON IN FRANCE. BECAUSE THERE IS A DECISION EXISTING WHERE THERE IS IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENTS, THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE USERS OF THE VARIOUS TECHNICIANS, AND IN THESE FUNCTIONS, RATHER WELL.

AND THAT FOR THE CASE STUDIES SET IN CONCRETE, IN CASE THIS IS HAPPENING.

(IN ENGLISH) I WILL TRANSLATE IF YOU WISH. BUT MAYBE YOU UNDERSTAND ENOUGH.

>>: NO PROBLEM.

>>: I THINK THIS TRANSLATION ON THE BOARD HERE REALLY DESERVES APPLAUSE.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINTON CERF: YOU WERE NOT THE LAST SPEAKER.

>>ERICK IRIARTE: I THINK THAT I AM THE FINAL SPEAKER. BUT I WANT – I WANT TO SPEAK IN SPANISH AND ASK TO ALEX TO TRANSLATE TO ME, PLEASE, BECAUSE I HAVE VERY BAD ENGLISH.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: FOR THE SAKE OF TIME, I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO PROCEED IN ENGLISH UNTIL YOU GET STUCK ON A WORD, AND I WILL TAKE OVER TRANSLATION.

>>: OKAY –

>>VINTON CERF: HE'S THE VICE-CHAIRMAN.

>>ERICK IRIARTE: OKAY. I WILL TRY TO SPEAK IN ENGLISH.

I REPRESENT THE NON-COMMERCIAL CONSTITUENTS. ALL I WANT TO SAY IS SOME IDEAS ON THE NON-COMMERCIAL. THE IDEAS ARE THAT MR. STUART LYNN'S PROPOSAL IS ONLY HIS PROPOSAL. IT'S NECESSARY TO TAKE THE INFORMATION FROM THE TASK FORCE OF THE DNSO AND NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE CCSO PROCESS, AND NECESSARY TO TAKE MORE DOCUMENTS. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE THAT ALL THE GROUPS ARE ONLY REACTIVE AND NOT PROACTIVE. RESPONSE IS NOT ONLY ONE PERSON OR TWO PEOPLE. IT'S A GROUP, IT'S ONLY TO PUT MORE DOCUMENTS ON THE TABLE. IT'S ONLY NONCOMMERCIAL IDEA.

THANKS.

>>VINTON CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND THAT WAS WELL DONE, BY THE WAY.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, SINCE I DON'T SEE AMADEU RAISING HIS HAND, I THINK – I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE FOR US TO CALL TODAY'S MEETING TO A CLOSE.

LET ME THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PATIENCE, STAMINA, AND YOUR IDEAS, AND YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU, WE WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW MORNING.

(APPLAUSE.)

(MEETING ADJOURNED)

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers