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 Links and information may be outdated or incorrect.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 Meetings in Kuala Lumpur

GNSO Council Meeting

Tuesday, 20 July 2004

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the GNSO Council Meeting held on 20 July, 2004 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Although the captioning output 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.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
THIS IS BRUCE TONKIN. I AM CHAIR OF THE GNSO COUNCIL. AND I'D LIKE TO GET THE MEETING STARTED.
FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO DO IS JUST CONFIRM WHO IS CURRENTLY ON THE TELEPHONE LINE. DO WE HAVE JISUK WOO ON THE TELEPHONE? ANYONE ON THE TELEPHONE LIKE TO JUST STATE WHO THEY ARE.

>>PHILIP COLEBROOK: PHILIP COLEBROOK.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: PHILIP COLEBROOK, THANKS.
WELCOME, PHILIP. ANYONE ELSE ON THE PHONE?

>>MARC SCHNEIDERS: MARC SCHNEIDERS IS ALSO ON THE PHONE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: GREAT.
THANKS, MARC. ANYONE ELSE PRESENT ON THE LINE?

OKAY.
SO WE'VE GOT PHILIP COLEBROOK AND MARC SCHNEIDERS.
JUST BRIEFLY, GO AROUND THE TABLE HERE AND INTRODUCE EACH OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND WHAT CONSTITUENCY THEY REPRESENT.

BRUCE TONKIN, I REPRESENT THE REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY, AND CHAIR OF THE GNSO COUNCIL.

>>MARILYN CADE: I'M MARILYN CADE WITH AT&T. AND I REPRESENT THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY ON THE COUNCIL.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: PHILIP SHEPPARD, REPRESENTING THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

>>LUCY NICHOLS: LUCY NICHOLS, REPRESENTING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY.

>>KIYOSHI TSURU: KIYOSHI TSURU, REPRESENTING THE IPC.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: NIKLAS LAGERGREN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL. AND BEING A LAWYER AND SITTING HERE, I AM NOT REPRESENTING THE IPC. I AM ONE OF THE NONCOM APPOINTEES.

>>ROSS RADER: MY NAME IS ROSS RADER, AND I AM DOING MY BEST TO REPRESENT THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY.

>>DEMI GETSCHKO: DEMI GETSCHKO NONCOM, APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL.

>>ALICK WILSON: ALICK WILSON, NONCOM.

>>GREG RUTH: GREG RUTH REPRESENTING ISPCP.

>>CARY KARP: CARY KARP, REPRESENTING THE REGISTRIES.

>>KEN STUBBS: KEN STUBBS, REPRESENTING THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY.

>>THOMAS KELLER: THOMAS KELLER REPRESENTING THE REGISTRARS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE TONY HOLMES JOINING US, FROM THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS. DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE HAVE TONY HARRIS AS YET.

THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING TODAY CONSISTS OF A REPORT FROM THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SITE FINDER AND ALSO PROGRESS SO FAR ON LOOKING AT DNSSEC.

WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON PROGRESS ON THE WHOIS TASK FORCES. WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR GTLD REGISTRY CHANGES. WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON THE REASSIGNMENT OF DOT NET. AND AN UPDATE ON DISCUSSIONS WITH ICANN STAFF FOR GETTING RESOURCING. AND AN UPDATE ON OUR MEETING WITH THE CCNSO REGARDING LIAISONS.

IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE AGENDA?
OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON WITH THAT AS THE AGENDA.

>>MARILYN CADE: GRANT HAS ADVISED US HE CAN'T GET ONLINE BECAUSE THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE ALREADY ON. SO WE HAVE A COUNCILLOR ON A CELL PHONE WHO IS NOT ABLE TO DIAL INTO OUR MEETING.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I BELIEVE THERE'S TWO PEOPLE ONLINE SO FAR, WHICH IS MARC SCHNEIDERS AND PHILIP COLEBROOK. WE -- APPARENTLY WE HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT CAN'T DIAL IN. IS THERE....

>>BARBARA ROSEMAN: IT WAS SET UP FOR FOUR PEOPLE. SO IF THERE ARE NOT FOUR PEOPLE ON THE DIAL, HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DIAL IN. EXCUSE ME, IT WAS SET UP FOR FIVE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. WELL, WE'LL TRY AND WORK ON THAT TECHNICAL ISSUE.

THE FIRST ITEM IS NOT FOR VOTE, IN ANY CASE.

I'D LIKE TO INVITE STEVE CROCKER, AS CHAIR OF THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, TO GIVE US A SUMMARY OF THE OUTCOMES OF THAT AND GIVE US AN UPDATE ON DNSSEC AND IN PARTICULAR WHETHER WE NEED TO BE IN CHARGE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DOT NET TENDER.

>>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU, BRUCE.
AND IT'S A PARTICULAR PLEASURE TO BE HERE SINCE BRUCE IS A VALUED MEMBER AND STRONG CONTRIBUTOR OF THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND ALSO PLAYED A VERY SPECIAL ROLE IN ANOTHER ELEMENT OF THE -- OH, THANK YOU.

I'M ALL TANGLED UP HERE. BUT MORE IMPORTANT, WHERE DO I CONNECT?
THERE WE GO.
EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
NOW, OKAY, SO IDEALLY, IF I HIT THIS, -- LOOK AT THAT. LOOK AT THAT. IT WORKS.
OOPS. I CAN'T SEE WHAT I'M DOING, SO I'LL DO IT -- THERE WE GO.

I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT TWO THINGS, THE WILD CARD REPORT THAT WE ISSUED A LITTLE MORE THAN A WEEK AGO AND DNSSEC, WHICH IS THE SECURITY PROTOCOL FOR THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM.

THESE HAVE AN INTERESTING SORT OF LIMITED RELATIONSHIP WITH EACH OTHER.

THIS FIRST REPORT, THE FIRST TALK WILL BE LOOKING BACKWARD AT THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED. AND THE OTHER ONE WILL BE LOOKING FORWARD AT THINGS WE HOPE WILL HAPPEN.
WAS THAT A -- AN INTERRUPT THAT I NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO?

>>MARILYN CADE: NO. WE'VE JUST HAD ANOTHER ONE OF OUR COUNCILLORS JOIN US.
THANK YOU, STEVE.

>>STEVE CROCKER: GOOD.
OKAY.

THE URL FOR THE REPORT IS LISTED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE. SOME LONG THING. IT'S AVAILABLE ON THE ICANN SITE.

AS MOST OF YOU PROBABLY KNOW, OUR COMMITTEE, SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, REPORTS TO THE BOARD OF ICANN. IT'S AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMPOSED ENTIRELY OF UNPAID VOLUNTEERS WHO ARE DRAWN FROM VARIOUS TECHNICAL EXPERTISES, DOMAIN -- ROOT OPERATORS, GTLDS, CCTLD OPERATORS, REGISTRARS, ADDRESS REGISTRIES, SECURITY EXPERTS, AND THE LIKE.

WE OPERATE SOMEWHAT INDEPENDENTLY. WE DON'T SPEAK FOR ICANN; WE TEND TO SPEAK OUR MIND. WE TEND TO SPEAK NOT ONLY TO THE BOARD, AS WE'RE CONSTITUTED TO DO, BUT TO THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. WE FOCUS PRIMARILY ON SECURITY AND STABILITY MATTERS AS OPPOSED TO THE POLITICS OR THE CONTRACTUAL SITUATIONS. THESE THINGS ARE OBVIOUSLY INTERRELATED. BUT OUR PRIMARY FOCUS IS ON THE NUTS AND BOLTS, IF YOU WILL.

LAST SEPTEMBER, VERISIGN INTRODUCED A CHANGE INTO THE COM AND NET REGISTRIES. THE CHANGE WAS PREVIOUSLY IF YOU HAD TYPED A -- MISTYPED A DOMAIN NAME THAT ENDED IN "COM" OR "NET," YOU WOULD GET BACK THE ERROR CODE SAYING "NO SUCH DOMAIN," "NO SUCH NAME." AND THEY SUBSTITUTED INSTEAD AN IP ADDRESS OF A SERVER THAT THEY OPERATED. AND THEN IF YOU FOLLOWED UP, IF YOUR SYSTEM FOLLOWED UP WITH A QUERY TO THAT -- OR ATTEMPT TO CONNECT TO THAT SERVER, THEN, DEPENDING UPON WHAT PROTOCOL YOU WERE USING, IF YOU USED THE HTP PROTOCOL, YOU WOULD GET A SERVICE THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE HELPFUL AT NAVIGATING YOU WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GO OR PROVIDE OTHER SERVICES. AND IF YOU WERE USING SOME OTHER PROTOCOL, MAIL OR ANY OF THE QUITE LARGE NUMBER OF OTHER PROTOCOLS, THEN TYPICALLY, YOU WOULD JUST BE TOLD NO SUCH CONNECTION, ALTHOUGH MAIL WAS HANDLED IN A SOMEWHAT SPECIAL WAY.

THERE WAS VERY SWIFT AND BROAD AND VOCAL COMMUNITY RESPONSE, ALL NEGATIVE, OR VAST MAJORITY NEGATIVE. THERE WAS A RATHER HEATED SET OF EXCHANGES, CULMINATING IN ICANN SPEAKING FROM A CONTRACTUAL POINT OF VIEW, AND VERISIGN SUSPENDING THE CHANGE. LIKE OTHERS, WE ISSUED IN OUR COMMITTEE A QUICKLY PUT TOGETHER ADVISORY, NOT QUICKLY ENOUGH, IN MY VIEW, BUT, IN ANY CASE, SAYING LET'S ROLL BACK TO WHERE WE WERE AND LET'S TAKE SOME TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT. AND THEN WE HELD SOME MEETINGS IN, TWO MEETINGS, AND HAD A NUMBER OF PRESENTATIONS. AND THERE WERE TRANSCRIPTS TAKEN. ALL OF THIS IS AVAILABLE ON THE ICANN WEB SITE.

THEN WE SET ABOUT TO WRITE A REPORT. AND WITH CONSIDERABLE EMBARRASSMENT, I HAVE TO SAY THAT IT'S ESSENTIALLY MY FAULT, IT FELL INTO A BLACK HOLE, AND THERE WAS A LONG DELAY. BUT THE REPORT IS NOW OUT AND DELIVERED TO THE BOARD.

AND THE NEXT STEPS WILL BE FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER IT AND DECIDE WHAT IT WANTS TO DO.

I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE REPORT IN THE FORM OF EIGHT FINDINGS AND FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE THE ESSENCE OF THE REPORT. THE MEAT OF THE REPORT, THE BODY OF IT, IS ABOUT 25 PAGES. AND THEN THERE IS AN EXTENSIVE SET OF APPENDICES, SO THE TOTAL IS ABOUT 85 PAGES. AND I COMMEND TO YOU TO READ THE DETAILS THERE IF YOU'RE INTERESTED.

WE PUT SOME TIME INTO TRYING TO CRAFT THE WORDING INTO TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS THAT ARE OF INTEREST. THERE'S PLENTY MORE THAT COULD BE SAID, OF COURSE. BUT WE WANT TO BE SELECTIVE.

TWO SLIDES OF THE FINDINGS.

THE FIRST FIND SOMETHING THAT THERE WAS, IN FACT, A CHANGE TO THE REGISTRY AND THAT THAT CHANGE DID CAUSE HARM TO NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WHO HAD NO SAY IN THE MATTER, IT WAS JUST SORT OF IMPOSED ON THEM. THE NATURE OF THIS CHANGE IS THAT IT BLURRED THE ARCHITECTURAL LAYERS AND VIOLATED THE ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES THAT THE NETWORK HAS BEEN BUILT ON, AND THAT THAT CHANGE, BY VIRTUE OF REDEFINING THE ERROR RESPONSES WHICH ARE A LEGITIMATE PART OF THE PROTOCOL AT THE DNS LEVEL, HAD THE EFFECT OF PUTTING VERISIGN INTO THE LOOP OF ALL CURRENT AND FUTURE PROTOCOL CHANGES, SO THAT IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO DESIGN A NEW PROTOCOL, THEN THEY -- SORT OF INTERTWINED WITH HOW VERISIGN SERVERS MIGHT INTERPRET NEGATIVE RESPONSES AND THEN HAVE TO DEAL WITH ALL THAT.SO THESE THREE FINDINGS ARE NOT TEMPORAL IN NATURE; THEY'RE JUST SORT OF FACTS ABOUT THE SITUATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SEQUENCE OR THE PROCESS. THE FOURTH FINDING SPEAKS TO THE FACT THAT THIS CHANGE WAS INTRODUCED IN A FAIRLY ABRUPT MANNER, WITHOUT ANY REAL COORDINATION WITH THE COMMUNITY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE HAD BEEN A VERY LONG INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. THE REACTIONS FROM THE COMMUNITY WERE NOT ONLY VOCAL, THEY WERE IN ACTIONS. CHANGES WERE MADE IN THE NUMBER OF SYSTEMS, PATCHES TO VARIOUS SOFTWARE. THE MOST VISIBLE, THE ONE THAT GETS THE MOST ATTENTION, IS PATCHES WERE MADE TO BIND PROVIDED BY INTERNET SYSTEMS CONSORTIUM.

HOWEVER, THEY WERE NOT THE ONLY ONES TO MAKE CHANGES. ISPS PUT CHANGES IN THEIR ROUTING AND OTHER CHANGES WERE IMPOSED. ALL OF THOSE CHANGES INVOLVED DECISIONS BY THE END USERS, NOT BY UNILATERAL IMPOSITION FROM ANOTHER VENDOR OR ANOTHER PROVIDER. BUT THE COLLECTION OF THESE PATCHES AND COUNTER CHANGES LEAD TO A FAIRLY RICKETY ENGINEERING PICTURE. IT DOES NOT LET ANYBODY WHO'S GOT AN ENGINEERING BACKGROUND SLEEP VERY WELL TO SEE COUNTERVAILING CHANGES BEING ISSUED AT A VERY RAPID RATE.

SOME OF THOSE CHANGES, EVEN AFTER THE INITIAL CHANGE FROM VERISIGN WAS WITHDRAWN, SOME OF THE OTHER CHANGES HAVE REMAINED DEPLOYED. AND ONE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THAT IMPACT IS GOING TO BE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. BE HAPPY TO EXPLAIN THAT IN MORE DEPTH. BUT PROBABLY IT'S NOT A DRAMATIC ISSUE, BUT IT MEANS THAT THERE ARE SORT OF LITTLE POTHOLES LYING IN WAIT FOR THE UNSUSPECTING AT SOME FUTURE TIME. THE E-MAIL SITUATION WAS A RATHER INTERESTING AND SPECIAL CASE.

WITH RESPECT TO ALL THE OTHER PROTOCOLS, THE VERISIGN SERVERS THAT WERE INTERCEPTED, EXCEPT FOR, OF COURSE, THE WEB SERVERS, WHICH IS WHAT THEY WERE INTERESTED IN, SIMPLY SHUT THE DOOR ON AN ATTEMPT TO CONNECT. SO IF IT WAS A TCP CONNECTION, IT JUST SAID REFUSED. AND IF IT WAS A UDP PACKET, SIMPLY THREW IT AWAY. THIS STRATEGY DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL FOR E-MAIL, BECAUSE E-MAIL SENDERS TYPICALLY WILL KEEP TRYING. THEY EXPECT TEMPORARY OUTAGES. AND SO RATHER THAN RETURNING BACK TO THE USER, SAYING, "CAN'T CONNECT," THEY WOULD KEEP TRYING FOR THE TYPICAL NUMBER IS THREE DAYS AND THEN SAY "UNABLE TO DELIVER MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS," RATHER THAN EXPLAINING THAT THE ADDRESS WAS WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO THEIR SENDER -- SO THEY BUILT A SYSTEM THAT OPENED THE DOOR TO CONNECTING -- SORT OF ACCEPTING THE CONNECTION AND THEN CAREFULLY REFUSING TO ACCEPT MAIL FOR ANY OF THE USERS. BUT THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT IS THAT THE NAMES OF THE USERS ACTUALLY ENTERED THEIR MACHINES. THIS -- AND VERISIGN WAS VERY VOCAL AND INSISTENT THAT THEY DIDN'T KEEP THAT INFORMATION OR MAKE USE OF IT. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

THE ISSUE IS SOMEWHAT LARGER THAT, IF STRATEGIES LIKE THAT ARE DEPLOYED, THEN IT'S NOT CLEAR WHAT HAPPENS TO THE NEXT PERSON, THE NEXT COMPANY THAT DEPLOYS THAT. AND IT LEFT A DEGREE OF NERVOUSNESS FROM A PRIVACY POINT OF VIEW.

ALSO IN THE PRIVACY ASPECT, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE WEB PAGES THAT WERE DELIVERED WHEN YOU ACTUALLY DID MAKE -- WERE MAKING WEB ACCESS CONTAINED CLASSIC COMMERCIAL SPYWARE FROM OMNITURE.

AND NOT THAT THAT WAS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HAPPENS IN OTHER COMMERCIAL PAGES, EXCEPT THAT IT'S PRETTY -- IT WAS PRETTY SURPRISING TO A LARGE NUMBER OF USERS THAT IT WOULD COME AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SIMPLY MAKING A DOMAIN -- DOMAIN NAME LOOKUP.

AND THE LAST FIND SOMETHING THAT, COLLECTIVELY, ALL OF THIS LEFT A VERY STRONG SENSE OF UNEASE AND LOWERED LEVEL OF TRUST THAT THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE IS BEING MANAGED AND IS PREDICTABLE.

WE ENCAPSULATED OUR RECOMMENDATIONS INTO FOUR ELEMENTS.

THE FIRST AND MOST STRAIGHTFORWARD IS, LET'S NOT DO THIS. LET'S NOT USE WILD CARDS IN "A" RECORDS, IN TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. THE ACTUAL WORDING IS A LITTLE MORE PRECISE AND CAREFUL, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF DETAILS. BUT THAT'S THE ESSENCE OF IT. WILD CARDS ARE A PARTICULAR WAY OF SYNTHESIZING A RESPONSE, AND WE TALK ABOUT SYNTHESIZED RESPONSES, IN GENERAL, AS OPPOSED TO WILD CARDS. BUT THAT'S THE ESSENCE OF IT. NECESSARILY, WE HAD TO OBSERVE THAT WILD CARDS HAD BEEN USED AND ARE CONTINUING TO BE USED IN A HANDFUL OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. THEY ARE GENERALLY FAIRLY SMALL. BUT AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE AND ALSO WHEN ONE LOOKS AT SCALING ISSUES, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY, WELL, WE'LL JUST SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT VERISIGN WAS DOING THIS IN COM AND NET AND JUST CAREFULLY IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE.

AND AS A SEPARATE RECOMMENDATION, WE SUGGESTED THAT THIS USAGE BE ROLLED BACK, KNOWING THAT IT'S AN AWKWARD SITUATION, BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE TO MAKE AN ADDITIONAL CHANGE, AND THAT AFFECTS BOTH THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PROVIDING THAT AND ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE DEPENDING UPON IT. SO SOME CARE IS NEEDED THERE. AND WE WANT TO WORK OUT WHAT THAT PATH IS.

IN A NUMBER OF CASES, THE REASONS WHY THE WILD CARDS ARE BEING USED ARE FOR PURPOSES WHICH COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED IN SOME OTHER SORT OF MORE GENTLE AND MORE CAREFUL WAY. AND THE EXPECTATION IS THAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT EACH CASE AND WORK OUT THE BEST POSSIBLE PATH. WE ALSO RECOMMEND THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS THAT EXIST, WHICH ARE, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, AMBIGUOUS AND SOMEWHAT DIFFIDENT ABOUT THE USE OF WILD CARDS, BE CLEANED UP. THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A DEGREE OF UNEASE AND SORT OF LAYERS OF BEST PRACTICE ABOUT ADVICE ABOUT ALL THIS. AND WE WOULD REQUEST OF THE IETF OR OTHER BODIES TO CLEAN THAT UP. WHETHER THEY WILL OR NOT IS A WHOLE 'NOTHER MATTER. BUT THAT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION.

AND, FINALLY, IRRESPECTIVE OF THIS PARTICULAR EVENT, THAT THE PROCESS OF BRINGING CHANGES OUT IN CORE SERVICES LIKE REGISTRIES REALLY DEMANDS COORDINATION, COOPERATION, AND CONSENSUS WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AFFECTED, WHICH IS THE USER COMMUNITY, AS OPPOSED TO A SORT OF PRIVATE BUSINESS DECISION.

AND SO OUR FOURTH RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THERE BE A DISCIPLINED AND OPEN AND EFFECTIVE PROCESS, THAT IS TO SAY, INVOLVES CONSENSUS, NOT JUST SORT OF UNILATERAL DECISION. SO THAT'S THE ESSENCE OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE ON THE COMMITTEE.

I'M FOND OF SAYING THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT WORD IN OUR COMMITTEE'S TITLE IS "ADVISORY."
WE'RE THE -- WE OFFER OUR ADVICE AND THEN IT BECOMES FOR OTHERS TO IMPLEMENT OR DEAL WITH IT AS IT WILL. THIS HAS NOW BEEN TRANSMITTED FORMALLY TO THE BOARD AND REMAINS FOR THE BOARD TO TAKE SOME ACTION ON IT.

I'D BE HAPPY TO PAUSE HERE FOR QUESTIONS.

BRUCE, YOU TAKE THE LEAD IN MEDIATING OR FACILITATING HERE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SURE.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF COUNCIL ON THE REPORT?
MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU, BRUCE.
STEVE, I WANT TO COMMEND THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND I WANT TO SAY THAT I LEARNED A GREAT DEAL IN HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND THE VARIOUS PUBLIC EVENTS THAT THE COMMITTEE HELD. BUT I ALSO DID REFRESH SOME OF THAT MEETING IN READING THE REPORT.
AND THANK YOU TO YOU AND THE COMMITTEE FOR YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS.

I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT MAY BE VERY CLEAR TO YOU AND TO OTHERS, BUT IT WOULD HELP ME A BIT TO UNDERSTAND A COUPLE OF THINGS FURTHER. IN THE PUBLIC WORKSHOP THAT WE HELD IN TUNISIA, WE DID HEAR FROM A COUPLE OF CCTLDS ABOUT HOW THEY WERE USING WILD CARDS IN THEIR MUCH-SMALLER ZONES. AND I DID TAKE NOTE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

COULD YOU TELL ME WHETHER -- HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE SINCE YOU'VE BEEN HERE TO TALK WITH THE CCS ABOUT THE REPORT OR WILL YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT IT?

>>STEVE CROCKER: MARILYN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND PARTICULARLY LET ME THANK YOU FOR THE SUPPORT THAT YOU PROVIDED DURING THE PROCESS AND THE PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT WE HAD. MUCH APPRECIATED.

WE HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK IN DEPTH AT THE VARIOUS CCTLDS. WE DID LOOK SOMEWHAT AT DOT MUSEUM, WHICH IS THE -- I THINK THE ONLY DOMAIN THAT'S USING IT THAT IS NOT A CC. I MUST SAY THE MOST VISIBLE OF THE CCS THAT HAS BEEN RESPONDING HAS BEEN PW.
BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'VE HAD MORE THAN SORT OF PUBLIC EXCHANGES SAYING, YOU KNOW, WHY DID YOU DO THAT? AND WE KEEP SAYING, "WELL, HERE'S WHY WE DID IT." MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS. BUT NOTHING SPECIFIC HAS BEEN ORGANIZED. IT FEELS LIKE I'VE BEEN HERE FOREVER. BUT THE WEEK IS STILL YOUNG. SO IF THERE'S A DESIRE TO HAVE THOSE KINDS OF DISCUSSIONS, I'M READY AND AVAILABLE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. GO AHEAD.

>>MARILYN CADE: AND I JUST HAVE A FOLLOW-UP. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE ARE EXPRESSIONS OF CONCERN IN SOME PLACES ABOUT WHERE INNOVATION TAKES PLACE. AND I KNOW THAT ALL OF US ARE BELIEVERS IN INNOVATION.

THE QUESTION IS, OF COURSE, THE BALANCE OF INNOVATION AND SECURITY AND STABILITY. BUT DO YOU SEE YOURSELF IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS -- SORRY, IN THE ADVICE THAT YOU HAVE PROVIDED, DO YOU SEE YOURSELF ANY INDICATIONS THAT YOU THINK WOULD LIMIT THE FUTURE SOFTWARE CHOICES THAT A REGISTRY OR REGISTRAR MIGHT HAVE BECAUSE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS PUTTING FORTH SUCH THAT LOOKING AT THE RECOMMENDATIONS, THERE MIGHT BE A NARROWING OF THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO REGISTRIES OR REGISTRARS?

>>STEVE CROCKER: I SUPPOSE IF I JUST SAY "NO," THAT WOULDN'T BE QUITE A SATISFACTORY ANSWER.

>>MARILYN CADE: WELL, I MIGHT BE HAPPY WITH NO, BUT THE AUDIENCE MIGHT NOT.

>>STEVE CROCKER: THE ANSWER IS NO.
BUT I WAS LISTENING VERY CAREFULLY AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND. LET ME GO BACK OVER IT A BIT.
YOU TOUCH ON TWO VERY IMPORTANT THINGS THAT ARE A BIT DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER. ONE IS THIS LIGHTNING ROD OF THE WORD "INNOVATION." WE ARE, AS MUCH AS ANYBODY, VERY STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF INNOVATION. WE ARE ALSO IN FAVOR OF STABILITY AND ENABLING OTHERS TO INNOVATE. THESE THINGS ARE TOO BROAD AND GENERAL AS TERMS TO BE TAKEN IN THE ABSOLUTE AND WITHOUT CONTEXT. THE INTERNET IS BUILT VERY STRONGLY ON THE NOTION OF PUTTING AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE INTO THE CORE. QUITE THE OPPOSITE, SAY, OF THE CLASSIC TELEPHONE SYSTEM, WHERE IN ORDER TO MAKE A CHANGE AND BRING OUT A NEW SERVICE, YOU HAD TO MAKE A RATHER MASSIVE CHANGE IN THE TELEPHONE SWITCHES THAT IN THE U.S., AT&T USED TO HAVE THE MONOPOLY, AND IT TOOK YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS BEFORE ANY CHANGE COULD BE PUT IN.

THE GENIUS OF THE INTERNET DESIGN IS THAT THE CORE IS AS THIN AS POSSIBLE AND THAT INNOVATION TAKES PLACE OUT AT THE EDGES. AND THE WHOLE WORLDWIDE WEB, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS JUST AN APPLICATION BY A BUNCH OF PHYSICISTS OUT IN SWITZERLAND, NOT IN A PLANNED OR CONTROLLED WAY. THAT SAID, IT IS RELATIVELY VITAL THAT THE CORE BE VERY STABLE, THAT THE PEOPLE WHO BUILD ON TOP OF THAT DEPEND UPON THINGS NOT CHANGING. AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE A RATHER INTERESTING TWO-EDGED VERSION OF THIS, THE SORT OF UPSIDE AND DOWNSIDE.
WHERE THE CORE IS IS THE IP PROTOCOL ITSELF AND WHAT'S GROWN OVER TIME, THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM. AND WE HAVE ENORMOUS OPPORTUNITY ABOVE THAT AND ENORMOUS OPPORTUNITY BELOW THAT FOR DRAMATIC CHANGES.

IN THE EARLY DAYS OF NETWORKING, THE LINES THAT CONNECTED THE MACHINES TOGETHER WERE 50-KILOBIT LINED THAT WERE ENORMOUSLY EXPENSIVE. ETHERNET WAS INVENTED. WIRELESS HAS BEEN INVENTED. FIBEROPTICS HAS BEEN INVENTED. THE TECHNOLOGY THAT'S USED BELOW THE CORE, IF YOU WILL, HAS EVOLVED ENORMOUSLY. WE HAVE TREMENDOUS BANDWIDTH AND WE HAVE DRAMATIC CHANGES IN THE COST. AND, OF COURSE, ALL THE TECHNOLOGY ABOVE HAS EVOLVED. WE HAVE THE CLASSIC PROTOCOLS OF FTP AND E-MAIL AND TELNET. AND THEN WE HAVE DRAMATIC NEW TECHNOLOGIES, THE WEB AND VOICE OVER IP AND SO FORTH. SO THERE'S NO HESITATION TO BE STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE OF INNOVATION. BUT INNOVATION TAKES PLACE WITHIN A FRAMEWORK THAT ONE CAN DEPEND UPON.

I THINK THAT THAT'S THE KIND OF SPEECH THAT MANY OF US COULD GIVE AND WILL GIVE OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AND IT PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE EMPHASIZED.

THE OTHER ASPECT OF WHAT YOU TOUCHED ON, MARILYN, WHICH I FOUND TOOK IT IN A DIRECTION I WASN'T EXPECTING IS WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO BE FORCED INTO A LIMITED SET OF CHOICES WITH THE SOFTWARE TO BE RUN. AND I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT QUESTION WOULD EVEN COME UP, BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANYTHING AT ALL THAT SUGGESTS THAT HERE.

IF ONE LOOKS AT RESOLVER SOFTWARE AND DNS, BIND IS ONE OF THE MORE DOMINANT PIECES OF SOFTWARE BUT IT DEFINITELY IS NOT THE ONLY ONE. VERISIGN HAS ITS OWN PROPRIETARY SERVER. ULTRA DNS RUNS BIG SERVERS. ANYBODY CAN WRITE, IF THEY WANT, A DNS RESOLVER THAT MEETS THE SPECIFICATIONS AND WILL OPERATE. AND I DON'T HAVE A CATALOGUE OF ALL OF THE DNS SOFTWARE THAT EXISTS BUT I'M SURE IT WOULD BE RATHER MORE THAN YOU COULD THINK ABOUT. DOES THAT GET AT THE POINT?

>>MARILYN CADE: YES, IT DOES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST A COUPLE COMMENTS IN CHANGES IN THE REGISTRIES THAT HAVE BEEN AT THE CORE. ONE IS THE CONCEPT OF SUPPORTING INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS A CHANGE. ANOTHER HAS BEEN THE RECENT ANNOUNCEMENT FROM VERISIGN REGARDING THE SPEED WITH WHICH THE NAME SERVERS ARE UPDATED AFTER A CHANGE FROM A REGISTRAR. SO IN OTHER WORDS, THE ZONE FILES ARE BEING UPDATED MORE OFTEN. SO THOSE ARE THINGS WHERE THERE'S SOME TANGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE OCCURRING IN THE CORE. I DON'T BELIEVE THE CORE IS STATIC. IT IS EVOLVING.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: IF I MIGHT, THOSE ARE TWO VERY GOOD EXAMPLES BUT THERE IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION, I'LL TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT HERE. THE INTRODUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL NAMES IS, INDEED, A VERY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, VISIBLE TO THE END USERS, BUT IS TAKING A REASONABLY LONG PERIOD OF TIME REQUIRED EXTENSIVE PROCESSES, DEBATE AND QUITE A BIT OF ACTIVITY JUST AS IT SHOULD. IT'S A MESSY PROCESS, PROBABLY CONSIDERED EXPENSIVE. BUT THERE'S NO REAL CHOICE. I MEAN, ONE CAN GET INTO THE DETAILS AND GET INTO BIG ARGUMENTS, AND FORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE A STAKE IN IT EITHER WAY. THE CHANGE -- OTHER CHANGE THAT YOU MENTIONED IS QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT, ABOUT THE SPEED WITH WHICH CHANGES ARE INTRODUCED, UPDATES ARE INTRODUCED. WHEN ONE LOOKS AT THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM, THERE'S KIND OF TWO SIDES TO IT. THERE IS THE LOOK-UP PROCESS THAT QUERIES ARE MADE BY END USERS AND THEY GET BACK RESPONSES. THE OTHER SIDE OF IT IS THE ENTRY AND CHANGES TO ENTRIES OF INFORMATION FROM REGISTRANTS. THAT'S A FAR LESS VITAL -- "VITAL" ISN'T THE RIGHT WORD -- LESS SENSITIVE PROCESS BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHO ALL THE PLAYERS ARE, WHO ALL THE REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES ARE.

SO CHANGES IN THAT PROCESS AREN'T NEARLY OF THE SAME MAGNITUDE. HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF IMPACT THAN CHANGES TO THE RESPONSES THAT ONE GETS TO A QUERY. AT LEAST THAT'S MY VIEW OF THAT. AND I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO KEEP IN MIND THAT WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH THE TOTALITY OF ALL THE USERS WHO HAVE NO DIRECT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP AND ARE NOT SORT OF EASILY CORRALLED ALL IN ONE ROOM THAT'S A MUCH DIFFERENT MATTER THAN THE CONTROLLED BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE REGISTRANTS AND REGISTRARS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, STEVE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL ON THAT?
ROSS.

>>ROSS RADER: THANKS AGAIN, STEPHEN, FOR THE INFORMATIVE PRESENTATION.

SORT OF FOLLOWING ON TO THE COMMENTS YOU MADE YESTERDAY, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT YOUR USE OF THE TERM SPYWARE IN THE SLIDE DECK. IF YOU COULD JUST SORT OF DESCRIBE PRECISELY WHAT THAT COMPONENT WAS, HOW IT WORKED. FOR INSTANCE, WAS IT EXECUTABLE CODE OR JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE ALONG THOSE LINES.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: I WAS LOOKING OUT IN THE AUDIENCE AND THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY DID ARE IN THE AUDIENCE. WOULD SOMEBODY FROM VERISIGN LIKE TO DESCRIBE THE ACTIVE SOFTWARE THAT WAS DELIVERED AS PART OF THE RESPONSES?

>>CHUCK GOMES: I DON'T THINK YOU WANT ME RESPONDING TO A TECHNICAL ISSUE. IT CERTAINLY --

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
>>>: THERE IS NO MIKE.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: COME ON UP, CHUCK.

>>CHUCK GOMES: I'M NOT THE RIGHT ONE TO RESPOND TO THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS A TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION. MY PERSONAL REACTION, I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T CALL IT SPYWARE. BUT THE PERSON WHO WAS HERE AT THESE MEETINGS, MATT LARSEN AND WHO COULD RESPOND TO THAT IS IN ANOTHER MEETING RIGHT NOW. SO I AM NOT QUALIFIED. I DON'T THINK RUSTY IS GOING TO SAY HE IS, EITHER, TO RESPOND TO THAT. I CERTAINLY WOULD OBJECT TO THE TERM SPYWARE.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: WOULD YOU OFFER UP ANOTHER TERM?

>>CHUCK GOMES: WELL, I -- I'M NOT PREPARED TO GIVE YOU ANOTHER TERM ON IT RIGHT NOW. WE CAN COME UP WITH ONE.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: AUTOMATICALLY INSERTED USER TRACKING BEHAVIOR SOFTWARE?

>>CHUCK GOMES: IT CERTAINLY WASN'T FOR THE PURPOSES OF SPYING.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: JUST ACCUMULATING INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE USERS WERE DOING?

>>CHUCK GOMES: RIGHT.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: THAT'S NOT SPYING. I UNDERSTAND.

>>ROSS RADER: SO IF I HAD ANY SORT OF FOLLOW-UP TO THAT, ARE THERE ANY LONGER TERM IMPLICATIONS FOR REGISTRARS AND REGISTRANTS AS A RESULT OF THAT THING THAT THEY WERE SUBJECTED TO?

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IN POLITE TERMS IS EVEN THOUGH THE SERVICE HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN, FOR THOSE USERS WHO DID MAKE SUCH QUERIES, IS THAT SOFTWARE STILL OPERATING ON THEIR MACHINE IN SOME FASHION, AND THE ANSWER IS I DON'T KNOW.

>>ROSS RADER: THAT WAS PRECISELY THE QUESTION I WAS ASKING. THANKS.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: I REMEMBER NOW FROM YESTERDAY THAT THAT'S WHERE YOU WERE HEADED.
AMADEU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: TO BE FAIR, I DON'T THINK THE PRINCIPLES OF THE PRESENTATION ARE REALLY WHAT ARE THE MAJOR FINDINGS. I DON'T THINK THE INTENT OF WHAT STEVE IS TRYING TO DO IS SAY TECHNICALLY WHAT EVERY PIECE OF SOFTWARE DID. I THINK IT'S THE CONCEPT THAT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT SOFTWARE COULD HAVE BEEN DOWNLOADED THROUGH THAT CHANGE IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT THE SOFTWARE ACTUALLY DID. WOULD THAT BE FAIR?

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: YEAH. I MEAN, THERE IS -- THERE WAS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD EVIDENCE THAT THAT SOFTWARE FROM OMNITURE WAS INCLUDED, AND I THINK THE BEHAVIOR OF THAT SOFTWARE IS UNDERSTOOD, ALTHOUGH I HAVE NOT TRIED TO SCHOOL MYSELF IN THE DETAILS OF ALL OF THAT. AND THEN I APPRECIATE YOUR POINT, THAT THAT'S WHERE WE STOP AND NOT TRY TO GO ANY FURTHER THAN THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY. THANKS. STEVE, SITE FINDER, CROCKER -- HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS TOPIC IN ICANN MEETINGS NOW?

THE QUESTION IS YOU'VE BEEN DEALING FOR MONTHS, TOO MANY MONTHS ACCORDING TO PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY, BUT YOU'RE USED TO THAT, WITH THIS SUBJECT. AND YOU'RE DEALING WITH WHAT WE CALL IN ICANN TERMINOLOGY NEW REGISTRY SERVICES FROM AN EX POSTE EXPERIENCE. AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP AN EXAMPLE SITUATION OF SOME OF THESE REGISTRY SERVICES TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCES THAT YOU HAD TO DEAL WITH.
MY CONCRETE QUESTION IS FROM THE THOROUGH REPORT AND EVALUATION YOU HAVE MADE. ARE THERE ANY CONCRETE LESSONS, PARAMETERS, QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE INCORPORATED IN AN EXAMINATION OF THESE NEW REGISTRY SERVICES? AND I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT, EITHER HERE OR AFTERWARD, SOME INTERACTION BETWEEN YOUR GROUP AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL WHO IS DRAFTING THIS RECOMMENDATION ON YOUR SERVICES.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: LET ME SEE IF I'VE GOT THE ESSENCE OF THIS. IT IS A QUESTION REALLY OF LESSONS LEARNED GOING FORWARD FOR WHAT GUIDANCE OR CONSTRAINTS TO PUT ON NEW REGISTRY SERVICES. AND I THINK THE -- THE STRAIGHTFORWARD PART OF THIS IS KEEP THE REGISTRY -- THE RESPONSES TO LOOKUPS RATHER THAN THE INTERACTIONS ON THE REGISTRANT SIDE -- JUST NOT SPEAKING TO THAT, BUT KEEP THE RESPONSES TO THE QUERIES CLEAN, STRAIGHTFORWARD, AND NOT SYNTHESIZED RESPONSES.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A PRESCRIPTION THAT SAYS WE'VE SEEN ALL THE POSSIBILITIES OF THE FUTURE AND HERE'S THE SAFE PASSAGE THROUGH ALL OF THAT EXCEPT PERHAPS THAT OUR FOURTH RECOMMENDATION IS ANYTIME ONE GETS ADVENTURESOME IN THAT AREA LET'S PROCEED CAREFULLY AND HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE LOOK AT THAT AND SORT OUT WHAT THE EQUITIES ARE.
AS AN ASIDE, WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE PROSPECT OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS BEING INTRODUCED AND NOTED THAT, PURELY AS A NATURAL STATISTICAL PHENOMENA, THAT THERE IS LIKELY TO BE FAILURES AND THAT THOSE FAILURES ARE LIKELY TO BE CATASTROPHIC FOR THE REGISTRANTS. AND THAT THERE'S AN AREA TO LOOK AHEAD AND MAKE SOME PROVISION FOR. AND THERE'S BEGINNINGS OF LONG DISCUSSION, WITHOUT TRYING TO BE OVERLY PROSCRIPTIVE. BUT TO BE VERY CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE RISKS GO UP AS YOU INCREASE THE NUMBER OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.

THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY A REASON NOT TO DO THAT BUT IT IS A REASON TO HAVE THE EYES OPEN IN THE PROCESS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, STEVE. WE'RE RUNNING SHORT ON TIME. I KNOW YOU HAD SUGGESTED TALKING BRIEFLY ABOUT DNSSEC. IS IT WORTHWHILE BEING VERY BRIEF OR WOULD YOU RATHER --

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: I CAN TRY TO BE VERY BRIEF, BUT I SERVE AT YOUR PLEASURE HERE. SO IF YOU -- I'VE GOT -- ONLY TO BE HELPFUL TO YOU, SO IT'S YOUR CHOICE. GIVE ME A TIME BUDGET.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK WHAT WOULD BE USEFUL IS DNSSEC HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY FOR QUITE A WHILE.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: RIGHT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: WE'RE COMING UP TO A STAGE NOW WHERE WE'RE STARTING TO LOOK AT NEW TLDS, WE'RE LOOKING AT A TENDER PROCESS COMING UP FOR DOT NET. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I WOULD HAVE FROM THE COUNCIL PERSPECTIVE IS, IS THERE ANY ACTION WE NEED TO BE TAKING AT THIS TIME REGARDING DNSSEC OR IS IT STILL WORK IN PROGRESS AND THAT THAT WOULD BE KIND OF THE FLAG DROP PUT ON IT?

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: I APPRECIATE THAT, AND LET ME TRY TO SPEAK RATHER DIRECTLY TO THAT. THE SHORT ANSWER IS IT'S TIME TO ADOPT DNSSEC. IT SHOULD BE PART OF THE PLANS GOING FORWARD. SO THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE WITH RESPECT TO SORT OF PLANNING KIND OF THING. SO LET ME TRY TO HOLD IT TO THREE OR FOUR MINUTES, AND I'LL JUST RACE THROUGH THIS AND NOT BE AS EXTENSIVE.

WHAT DNSSEC? IT'S A (INAUDIBLE) CRYPTOGRAPHIC SIGNATURES AND THE BASIC IDEA IS THAT AN END SYSTEM MAKES A QUERY, GETS BACK A SIGNED RESPONSE AND IS ABLE TO CHECK THROUGH A CHAIN OF SIGNATURES UP TO A ROOT THAT THAT'S A CORRECT RESPONSE AND THEN HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTITUTED OR TAMPERED WITH ALONG THE WAY.

AS BRUCE SAID THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A VERY LONG TIME. THE SPECS ARE NOW EMERGING FROM THE IETF AND THE FOCUS IS MOVING TOWARD HOW TO GET THIS DEPLOYED. DEPLOYMENT WILL NOT BE A SIMPLE OR STRAIGHTFORWARD OR COMPLETELY AUTOMATIC PROCESS. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CHICKEN-AND-EGG PROBLEMS, AND ADOPTION PROBLEMS. AND SO A NUMBER OF US HAVE TURNED OUR ATTENTION TO THE DEPLOYMENT PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO THE SPECIFICATION AND DESIGN PROCESS.

BROADLY, THERE WILL BE AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF ADOPTION, AND THIS MEANS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE DNS TREE, WE'LL MOVE GRADUALLY FROM A CURRENT PERIOD WHERE NOTHING IS SIGNED TO A FEW ZONES SIGNED IN VARIOUS PLACES TO A FEW MORE ZONES SIGNED AND IT WILL GRADUALLY FILL IN. THE COMPLEXITY COMES DURING THIS MIDDLE PERIOD. IT'S EASY TO SEE HOW THINGS WORK TODAY, IT'S EASY TO SEE HOW THINGS WILL WORK WHEN EVERYTHING IS SIGNED. WHEN YOU HAVE A SPOTTY DEPLOYMENT, THEN NOT ALL THE SIGNATURE CHAINS GO ALL THE WAY UP TO THE ROOT AND YOU HAVE A MUCH MORE COMPLEX SITUATION.

ICANN IS INVOLVED IN PERHAPS TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. IT HAS A SPECIAL ROLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ROOT AND THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, AND THEN OUR COMMITTEE HAS BEEN VERY BUSY LOOKING AT THE DEPLOYMENT ISSUES.

WE DISCOVERED THAT THERE IS MORE WORK TO BE DONE THERE THAN WE CAN DO WITHIN THE STRUCTURE OF THE COMMITTEE AS IT IS. SO WE'VE PARTICIPATED IN CREATING A NEW PROJECT THAT OVERFLOWS THE BOUNDS OF OUR COMMITTEE AND INDEED OVERFLOWS THE BOUNDS OF ICANN ITSELF, AND THE ESSENCE OF IT IS TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN A PICTURE OF WHAT THAT ADOPTION PROCESS LOOKS LIKE, A PROCESS WE CALL VIRTUAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT. AND THERE'S SOME FUNDING COMING FROM GOVERNMENT AND A GROWING SET OF PLAYERS AND OTHER THINGS IN THERE.

LET ME JUST SKIP THROUGH WHAT ALL THAT PROCESS IS IN THE INTEREST OF TIME. THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE RESOLVED THAT ARE NOT COMPLETELY STRAIGHTFORWARD. SOME OF THEM REVOLVE AROUND THE ROOT KEY, SOME REVOLVE AROUND THE END SYSTEMS. THERE IS THE GENERALIZATION OF THE ROOT KEY, WHEN YOU HAVE THIS DISCONNECTED SET OF ZONES THAT ARE NOT -- WHERE THE SIGNATURE CHAINS DON'T GO ALL THE WAY UP, SO THE TOPS OF EACH OF THOSE SORT OF SHORT TRAINS, OFTEN CALLED TRUST ANCHORS OR SECURE ENTRY POINTS, HOW DO YOU MANAGE THOSE, HOW DO YOU MANAGE CHANGE DURING THIS PROCESS.

AND THEN THERE'S KIND OF AN ANNOYING PROBLEM THAT HAS EMERGED HAVING TO DO WITH PRIVACY, BECAUSE THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE DNSSEC PROTOCOL MAKES IT MORE EFFICIENT TO FIND OUT WHAT ALL OF THE ENTRIES ARE IN A SIGNED ZONE. AND THAT'S GETTING SOME ATTENTION.

THERE'S FUNDING COMING FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND WE'RE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTS. RUSS MUNDY AND I AND FOLKS AT NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ARE HEAVILY INVOLVED ON THE U.S. SIDE ALONG WITH A HOST OF OTHER PLAYERS, SUZANNE WOLFE AND OTHERS ARE INVOLVED. IN EUROPE, THERE'S VERY ACTIVE AND LONGSTANDING LEADERSHIP IN SWEDEN AND IN AMSTERDAM AND OTHER PLACES. AND A SERIES OF STEERING GROUPS BEING FORMED.

ONE OF THE WAYS TO TRACK THE PROGRESS IS TO SEE THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES. GTLDS, CCTLDS, SOFTWARE VENDORS, MAJOR ORGANIZATIONS ADOPTING IT. I WOULD EXPECT THAT THERE WILL BE, AS THERE IS IN ANY ADOPTION PROCESS, LEADERS IN EACH OF THOSE AREAS, AND THEN OTHERS THAT ARE TRAILING BEHIND, SO TO SPEAK.

SO OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, AND NOT SO LONG, I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE SOME CCTLDS ADOPTING DNSSEC AND SOME GTLDS ADOPTING DNSSEC AND SOME FORWARD PROCESS OF THE ROOT SERVER AND SOFTWARE MADE AVAILABLE. BIND 9.3.0 WILL BE IN EFFECT SHORTLY IN DNSSEC AND SO FORTH. THAT'S THE FASTEST I'VE EVER DONE THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S VERY IMPRESSIVE TO GET THROUGH THAT SO QUICKLY. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION AND THEN MOVE ON.

>>KEN STUBBS: STEVE, THIS ISN'T SO MUCH A QUESTION AS IT WOULD BE A SUGGESTION I THINK FOR A VERY INTERESTING AND TIMELY SESSION IN CAPETOWN. I WOULD HOPE THAT YOUR GROUP MIGHT CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF PUTTING ON SOME SORT OF A SMALL WORKSHOP OR SOMETHING ALONG THE LINE, BECAUSE AS SOMEONE WHO IS MORE INVOLVED AS A USER, USER EXPERIENCE, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE. WHAT DOES THIS DO?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK MY COMMENT ON THAT, KEN, FAIRLY BRIEFLY, WOULD BE WE'RE DOING SOMETHING FAIRLY SIMILAR WITH INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAMES AT THIS PARTICULAR ICANN MEETING, AND -- STEVE'S PRESENTATION WAS FAIRLY RAPID. IT DOES REQUIRE A FAIR DEGREE OF UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT ENCRYPTION AND SECURITY IS TO EVEN UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE SLIDES. AND I SUSPECT, THEREFORE, WE'D PROBABLY NEED A HALF DAY OR A DAY JUST TALKING ABOUT THE SECURITY, WHAT ARE THE ISSUES THERE AND GETTING SOME PERSPECTIVES THERE.
THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT STEVE RAISED IN HIS SLIDES, SOME OF THE CCTLDS HAVE GOT SOME PRIVACY CONCERNS. I THINK IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE AS A SORT OF A ONE-DAY WORKSHOP, PERHAPS, AT THE NEXT ICANN MEETING.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: YEAH, I THINK YOU MAKE A VERY GOOD POINT, KEN. AND I'LL TAKE YOUR SUGGESTION AND I'M SURE OTHER PEOPLE WORKING IN THE AREA WILL. THAT WILL BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY, AND IF YOU OR BRUCE HAVE SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO STRUCTURE THAT AND WHERE IT FITS INTO THE PROGRAM, I'M ACTUALLY QUITE OPEN TO THAT AND WOULD BE INTERESTED.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, STEVE.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: THANK YOU, ALL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE -- AN UPDATE ON THE WHOIS TASK FORCES. WE HAD A MEETING, A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE THREE TASK FORCES AND THE COUNCILS EARLIER THIS MORNING. A QUICK SUMMARY OF THAT IS THAT THERE ARE QUITE A FEW SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATIONS. THEY RANGE AS SIMPLE AS SAYING THAT WE NEED TO MAKE IT MORE OBVIOUS TO REGISTRANTS AT THE TIME THEY REGISTER A DOMAIN NAME THAT THEIR INFORMATION WILL BE AVAILABLE IN A PUBLIC DIRECTORY. THEY GO ON FROM THAT TO SUGGEST THAT POSSIBLY WE HAVE TWO LEVELS OF ACCESS. ONE LEVEL WAS A COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS PUBLIC ACCESS AND THE -- WITH A LIMITED AMOUNT OF INFORMATION, AND THE OTHER IS A LEVEL OF ACCESS TO FULL INFORMATION BUT WHERE THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON OR ENTITY REQUESTING THAT INFORMATION IS CHECKED.

NOW, THERE'S SOME IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES ON THOSE TWO TIERS THAT THE TASK FORCE WILL NEED TO ANALYZE. THOSE IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES INCLUDE IS IT IMPLEMENTABLE, IS IT POSSIBLE TO ACTUALLY SEPARATELY IDENTIFY PARTIES, WHAT IS THE COST OF DOING THAT IDENTIFICATION, AND WHO WOULD BEAR THAT COST, WOULD THE COSTS BE ABSORBED BY REGISTRARS, WOULD THE REGISTRARS CHARGE THE REQUESTERS WOULD THE REGISTRARS INCREASE THE PRICE FOR REGISTRANTS. SO IT'S A LOOK AT IS IT IMPLEMENTABLE, WHAT IS THE COST OF THAT IMPLEMENTATION, AND WHO BEARS THAT COST.

THE REPORT DOES GO INTO MORE DETAIL AND SUGGESTS THAT IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT THE TIERED ACCESS, AND IF WE DECIDED WE WERE GOING TO IDENTIFY THE PEOPLE REQUESTING THE INFORMATION, THEN WE COULD DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE WISH TO LOG THAT REQUEST IN SOME WAY. AND THEN IF WE DID LOG THE REQUEST, AND THE LOG MIGHT INCLUDE THE PERSON WHO MADE THE REQUEST AND THE NAME THEY REQUESTED, DO WE WANT TO DO FURTHER INFORMATION, DO WE NEED TO LOG THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST?

AND IF WE HAD ALL THAT INFORMATION, WHAT WOULD WE DO? WOULD WE NOTIFY THE REGISTRANT AT THE TIME THAT THE REQUEST WAS PROVIDED? WOULD WE NOTIFY THE REGISTRANT AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE? WOULD WE ALLOW THE REGISTRANT TO REQUEST THAT INFORMATION AT ANY TIME? WOULD WE REQUEST -- WOULD WE ALLOW THEM TO REQUEST IT IMMEDIATELY? OR WOULD THERE BE SOME TIME DELAY?

WOULD THE LOGS BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ICANN? AND THEN THERE'S A WHOLE DATA PROTECTION ISSUES AROUND THE LOGS THEMSELVES: WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO SEE THOSE LOGS, WHAT ARE THE PRIVACY IMPLICATIONS AROUND IDENTIFYING THE PERSON THAT'S REQUESTING THE INFORMATION.
SO THERE'S QUITE -- THERE'S EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF IMPLEMENTATION AND FURTHER ANALYSIS, AND THERE'S A WHOLE SERIES OF DECISIONS AS I LAID OUT THAT WOULD NEED TO BE CONSIDERED.
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

THERE'S SOME ASPECTS OF EXISTING POLICY. FOR EXAMPLE, REGISTRARS MUST USE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO CONTACT THE REGISTRANT IN THE CASE OF A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE DATA. AND THE TERM "REASONABLE" POTENTIALLY CAN BE DEFINED IN MORE DETAIL, AND ESSENTIALLY PROVIDE SOME MORE CONCRETE OBLIGATIONS ON THE REGISTRAR AS TO WHAT EFFORTS THEY MUST TAKE TO FOLLOW A COMPLAINT.

AGAIN, THAT'S AN ITEM THAT WILL NEED TO BE ANALYZED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF HOW DO YOU IMPLEMENT THE ADDITIONAL EFFORTS, WHAT'S THE COST OF IMPLEMENTATION, HOW IS THAT IMPLEMENTATION FUNDED.

THEN IT CAN GO TO ANOTHER LEVEL, AND THIS TASK FORCE 3 ALSO SUGGESTED POTENTIALLY DOING VERIFICATION OF THE DATA, WHICH WOULD BE A NEW OBLIGATION. AND WE NEED TO ASSESS WHAT'S THE COST OF THAT. IF WE WERE DOING DATA VERIFICATION WOULD WE DO IT FOR EVERYBODY OR ONLY IN THE CASE OF A COMPLAINT?

AND SO AGAIN, I NOTE IF IT'S DONE FOR EVERYBODY, THE COST IS INCURRED BY ALL REGISTRANTS. IF IT'S ONLY DONE IN THE CASE OF A COMPLAINT, POTENTIALLY THE COST COULD BE PASSED ON IN THAT INSTANCE.

SO THERE'S A SERIES OF STEPS AGAIN THAT TASK FORCE 3 NEEDS TO LOOK AT BETWEEN WHAT IT'S REQUESTING OF ICANN AND CAN IT BE DONE UNDER THE EXISTING FUNDING, WHAT IT'S REQUESTING OF REGISTRARS, WHAT IS THE COST OF DOING THAT, AND IN ALL OF THESE, BOTH TASK FORCE 1, 2, AND 3, WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO IDENTIFY IS WHAT SMALL STEPS CAN WE MOVE ON IN A SHORT TIME FRAME, IN A MATTER OF A MONTH OR TWO, WHERE WE GET A TANGIBLE IMPROVEMENT; TO PRIORITIZE OUR ANALYSIS AROUND THOSE SMALL STEPS. ONCE THOSE STEPS ARE TAKEN, WE CAN THEN GO TO THE NEXT STEP AND DO THE ANALYSIS FOR THE NEXT STEP AND SO ON.

SO WE SHOULD BE ATTEMPTING TO GET IMPROVEMENTS OUT REGULARLY; YOU KNOW, EVERY FEW MONTHS, RATHER THAN TRYING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM AND, HENCE, MAY NOT ACTUALLY COME TO A RESOLUTION ON THAT PROBLEM FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. SO WE WANTED TO SPEED THAT UP. THAT'S, I GUESS, A SUMMARY OF OUR MEETING THIS MORNING.

THE ROLE NOW FOR COUNCIL I GUESS IS TO DECIDE HOW DO WE APPORTION THAT WORK. DO WE WANT TO, AT THIS STAGE, COMBINE THE THREE TASK FORCES INTO ONE? DO WE WANT TO HAVE MAYBE COMBINING TWO OF THEM, PERHAPS COMBINE TASK FORCES 1 AND 2 AND THEN ALLOW TASK FORCE 3 TO WORK ON IN PARALLEL? I'LL OPEN THAT UP FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION.

>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE, I -- I'M ON TASK FORCE 2, AND HAVE BEEN AN OBSERVER, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, ON BOTH 1 AND 3 AND HAVE REVIEWED THE WORK PRODUCT WHERE I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO ACTUALLY OBSERVE. AND I GUESS MY -- I WANT TO START WITH AN END POINT ASSUMPTION, AND THAT IS THAT OUR END POINT WOULD BRING -- THAT WE WOULD, IN ESSENCE, IDENTIFY WHERE WE CAN HAVE -- WHERE WE CAN PUT FORWARD CONSENSUS POLICY TO THE BOARD, WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE SOME AMOUNT OF ISSUES THAT AREN'T READY FOR CONSENSUS POLICY OR REQUIRE MORE WORK. AND MAY ACTUALLY END UP LAYING OUT, AS YOU WERE SUGGESTING, SORT OF A WORK PLAN THAT MIGHT STRETCH OVER A SERIES OF MONTHS AND BE ITERATIVE WHERE WE COULD DELIVER SOME CONSENSUS POLICY IN THE NEAR TERM AND THEN GO ON TO A NEXT STAGE OF WORK, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IF WE WERE TO, FOR INSTANCE, SUGGEST THAT OURS IS PART OF THE SOLUTION, WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TIME FRAME.

WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD SEE IT MORE FEASIBLE TO COMBINE 1 AND 2 AND HAVE 3 WORK IN PARALLEL, BUT BRING THE 3 -- THE THEN TWO WORKING GROUPS BACK TOGETHER AGAIN TO CONCLUDE A SINGLE CONSENSUS POLICY RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD AS OPPOSED TO HAVING A POLICY RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD ON WHOIS FROM COMBINED 1 AND 2 AND THEN A SEPARATE ONE FROM 3.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. SO LET ME UNDERSTAND THAT.

WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING IS THAT YOU COMBINE TASK FORCE 1 AND 2, AND THERE'S A WORK PROGRAM WHERE WE'RE REALLY GOING TO WANT TO SEE A RESULT IN THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO.
TASK FORCE 3 WILL INDEPENDENTLY WORK ON COMING TO SOME CONCRETE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS. THEN WE WOULD RE-MEET WITH EVERYBODY TOGETHER, MUCH AS WE DID THIS MORNING, AND DECIDE ON WHICH RECOMMENDATIONS THE COUNCIL WOULD ACTUALLY PUT FORWARD AS A GROUP TO THE BOARD.

IS THAT A -- I UNDERSTAND IT?

>>MARILYN CADE: YEAH.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT AS A PROCESS?
AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY. WE HAVE MANY DIFFERENT ISSUES. WE ARE ALL TALKING ABOUT THE REFORM OF THE WHOIS POLICY. AT THE END, THE DIFFERENCE WILL BE THE THINGS THAT WE CAN REALLY IMPLEMENT, THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DELAY.

THE THREE TASK FORCES MAY HAVE BEEN VERY USEFUL FOR IDENTIFYING ALL OF THE CONCERNS IN ALL OF THE DIFFERENT AREAS. BUT THE ONCE WE REPORT THEY ARE THERE, I WOULD ADVISE THAT WE SIMPLY MERGE THE THREE TASK FORCES INTO WHOIS TASK FORCE THAT HAS TO DO THE FINAL FINALIZING OF THE WORK. BECAUSE EVERYONE IS DEPENDING ON THE NEIGHBOR OF THIS AND EVERYBODY WANTS THE OTHER PARTY TO DO THE WORK BEFORE. AND THIS IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE.

I REALLY THINK THAT AFTER DOING, YOU KNOW, THIS SORT OF REPORTS WE ALREADY HAVE, THE SITUATION IS MATURE ENOUGH TO MERGE THE THREE OF THEM.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO YOU ARE RECOMMENDING MERGING THE THREE AT THIS STAGE?
OKAY. OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT?
ROSS.

>>ROSS RADER: REGARDING MERGING THE TASK FORCES, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK AT MERGING THE OUTPUTS AS SOON AS THEY'RE TANGIBLE. THE MANDATES OR THE MARCHING ORDERS FOR 1 AND 2 ARE VERY COMPLEMENTARY AND IT WILL BE EASY TO MERGE THOSE, I THINK, AMADEU. BUT I THINK TASK FORCE 3 CAN CONTINUE WITHOUT GETTING ITS WORK INTO A TANGIBLE FORM WITHOUT MERGING. AND I THINK IN SOME WAYS IT HAS A LOT TO COMMEND BEING SEPARATE AT THIS POINT GIVEN JUST WHERE THAT TASK FORCE IS AT.

I WOULD ALSO UNDERSCORE THE NEED FOR THE COUNCIL TO BE EXTREMELY CLEAR WITH THOSE TASK FORCES WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE, JUST GIVEN THE -- YOU KNOW, WHO'S HERE, WHO'S NOT HERE IN THE VARIOUS -- YOU KNOW, THE SKILLS AND ET CETERA WITH THOSE VARIOUS TASK FORCES.

YOU KNOW, JUST GOING THROUGH THE THIRD WALK-THROUGH OF YOUR DECISION TREE THIS MORNING MADE IT REALLY CLEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, UNLESS WE'RE EXPLICIT WITH THOSE INSTRUCTIONS, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO GET LOST IN THE SHUFFLE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I WILL DO. I MEAN, WE HAD THE DISCUSSION THIS MORNING. I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REWRITE THAT UP. I BELIEVE WE HAD ICANN STAFF SUPPORT THERE, BARBARA ROSEMAN AND GLEN.

AND THERE ARE MINUTES. AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO SORT OF HAVE A LOOK AT THOSE AND GET THEM OUT TODAY.

BUT BE FAIRLY EXPLICIT ON WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE. JUST TO COMMENT ON PERHAPS LOGISTICAL ISSUE. IF YOU DO COMBINE ALL THREE TOGETHER, YOU'RE DEALING WITH QUITE A LOT OF PEOPLE. AND THEN YOU'RE TRYING TO SCHEDULE TELECONFERENCES. IT BECOMES DIFFICULT TO SCHEDULE THEM SUCH THAT EVERYONE'S AVAILABLE. AND IT BECOMES PROBABLY DIFFICULT TO MANAGE CALLS WITH, YOU KNOW, 25, 30 PEOPLE ON IT. SO JUST FROM A LOGISTICAL POINT OF VIEW, THERE MAY BE BENEFIT IN FOLLOWING MARILYN'S STEPS.

I DON'T THINK IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, AMADEU, BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THAT ULTIMATELY WE COMBINE THE RESULTS INTO A SINGLE REPORT AND THAT THE REPORT IS INTERNALLY CONSISTENT, ONE RECOMMENDATION DOESN'T CONTRADICT ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION.

BUT I THINK AS AN INTERMEDIATE STEP, I THINK THE TOPICS OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN TASK FORCE 1 AND 2 ARE CLOSE ENOUGH ALIGNED THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO -- FOR THEM TO HAVE A COUPLE OF TELECONFERENCES AND FOLLOW THE WORK WE DISCUSSED THIS MORNING, WHEREAS I THINK 3, TASK FORCE 3, MOST OF THE TOPICS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT, AND SO THAT COULD MEANINGFULLY OCCUR IN PARALLEL FOR A WHILE, FOR A COUPLE OF MEETINGS.

BUT BEFORE WE BRING IT TOGETHER FOR SORT OF THE NEXT PUBLIC COMMENT AND FOR DECISION BY THE BOARD, I AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN BE COMBINED TOGETHER AT THAT POINT.
YEAH, ROSS.

>>ROSS RADER: JUST QUICK FOLLOW-UP TO THAT, BRUCE.

IT STRIKES ME THAT THE WORK OF ACTUALLY MERGING THE FINAL REPORTS INTO WORK PRODUCT OF THE COUNCIL WOULD BE LARGELY AN ADMINISTRATIVE TASK. AND GIVEN AT LEAST MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE RECENT WORK OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, I FOUND THAT TO BE A VERY EXPEDITIOUS AND REWARDING PROCESS. WE MAY WANT TO LOOK AT THAT AS A MODEL FOR MERGING THESE THREE REPORTS AS A WAY TO CLOSE OFF THIS PROCESS RATHER THAN REQUIRING THAT OF THE TASK FORCES THEMSELVES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I'M NOT QUITE SURE I UNDERSTOOD. JUST RUN THAT ONE BY ME AGAIN. SO THE --

>>ROSS RADER: THE -- MERGING THOSE THREE REPORTS, WHEN IT COMES TIME TO DO THAT, WHEN THE CONSENSUS HAS BEEN ACHIEVED ACROSS THE THREE -- OR THE TWO TASK FORCES, I GUESS, DEPENDING ON HOW WE PROCEED, WOULD LARGELY BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE TASK.

AND GIVEN WHAT I VIEWED AS A VERY SUCCESSFUL AND EXPEDITIOUS PROCESS THAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH WITH THE DOT NET CRITERIA SUBCOMMITTEE, WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER A SIMILAR APPROACH THAT WE USED WITH THAT FOR THE MERGER OF THOSE THREE REPORTS.

SO WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY TAKE A MUCH SMALLER GROUP ACTING AS A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL JUST TO SIMPLY UNDERTAKE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE WORK OF MERGING THOSE THREE INTO ONE DOCUMENT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
KEN.

>>KEN STUBBS: YEAH, BRUCE, FIRST OF ALL, UNLESS I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU, I'D LIKE TO SUPPORT YOUR SUGGESTION WITH RESPECT TO KEEPING THREE PARSED-OUT, AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
I CAN SEE FOLDING 1 AND 2. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP TASK FORCE 3 SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL WE HAVE A MUCH BETTER AND CLEARER PICTURE OF EXACTLY WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING FORWARD AND THE METHODOLOGY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH WHOIS IN THE FUTURE. THEN I THINK IT MAY MAKE SENSE IN THE FUTURE TO BRING THEM IN. BUT RIGHT NOW, I THINK IT'S JUST NOT AN APPROPRIATE MOVE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
TONY.

>>TONY HOLMES: THANKS, BRUCE. AS ISPS, WE ARGUED VERY STRONGLY AT THE START TO HAVE ONE TASK FORCE RATHER THAN THREE.

BUT HAVING SEEN THE WAY THIS WORK HAS DEVELOPED, I THINK MERGING THE THREE AT THIS TIME WOULD THROW UP SOME DIFFICULTIES, SOME OF THE ONES WHICH YOU EXPLAINED. AND SO AT THIS STAGE, IT DOES SEEM TO MAKE SENSE TO MERGE 1 AND 2 AND KEEP 3 SEPARATE UNTIL WE GET TO THE NEXT STAGE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
NIKLAS.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SECOND WHAT TONY JUST SAID. I MEAN, ON THE QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE, I THINK THERE WAS -- THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AT THE OUTSET LOGIC IN HAVING ONE SINGLE TASK FORCE. BUT CONSIDERING THE WORK THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE AND BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEMS WE COULD FACE IN TERMS OF PROCESS, I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP IT NOW AT THIS STAGE TO THREE SEPARATE TASK FORCES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO YOU'RE GOING FOR THREE SEPARATE INSTEAD OF MERGING 1 AND 2 AND THEN KEEPING 3 SEPARATE?

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: I WOULD ACTUALLY PREFER THAT, YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. WHAT I THINK I'LL DO IS -- YEAH, ROSS.

>>ROSS RADER: I'D JUST LIKE TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT. BECAUSE IT STRIKES ME THAT'S ALMOST A NEW PROPOSAL THAT'S BEING PUT ON THE TABLE. AND I'M NOT QUITE -- I UNDERSTAND WHAT MERGING 1 AND 2 AND KEEPING 3 SEPARATE MEANS. BUT I'VE NOT HEARD ANY POINT OF VIEW THAT WOULD ALLOW ME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT KEEPING 1, 2, AND 3 SEPARATE WOULD MEAN.

SO THE IMPLICATIONS WOULDN'T BE QUITE CLEAR, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT I COULD NECESSARILY SUPPORT THAT AT THIS POINT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, CARY.

>>CARY KARP: GIVEN THE INTRICACY WITH WHICH THIS DISCUSSION IS PROCEEDING, HAVE THE CHAIRS BEEN POLLED AS TO THEIR -- THE TASK FORCE CHAIRS BEEN POLLED AS TO THEIR OPINIONS ON THIS?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S A FAIR COMMENT. WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE CHAIRS HERE. WE DO HAVE JEFF NEUMAN. SO I THINK IT IS FAIR THAT I DO ASK JEFF TO COMMENT ON THAT, AS CHAIR OF TASK FORCE 1.

>>JEFF NEUMAN: THANKS, BRUCE.
YEAH, WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE THIS MORNING WITH THE SMALLER -- WITH SOME MEMBERS OF THE WHOIS TASK FORCE. AND I THINK AT THIS POINT IN TIME, MARILYN'S SUGGESTION OF MERGING TASK FORCE 1 AND 2 AND KEEPING 3 SEPARATE MAKES THE MOST AMOUNT OF SENSE.
I THINK THE SUGGESTION OF KEEPING 1, 2, AND 3 AS THREE SEPARATE TASK FORCES IS -- WOULD CREATE A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS.

AS WE SAW IN THE PRELIMINARY REPORTS THAT CAME OUT, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS BETWEEN 1 AND 2 THAT WERE SIMILAR BUT CONFLICTED IN A NUMBER OF AREAS. AND WE HAVE A NUMBER OF AREAS IN THOSE TASK FORCES WHERE WE CAN COMBINE THE KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THE MEMBERS AND COME UP WITH A COHERENT SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS.
I FEAR IF WE HAVE THREE -- IF WE HAVE 1 AND 2 BEING SEPARATE, WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH TWO CONFLICTING REPORTS THAT WOULD BE SENT TO THE COUNCIL. AND I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU WOULD SORT THROUGH THAT ALL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
THANKS, JEFF.

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
AND THAT WE COMBINE THE WORK OUTPUT OF THOSE NOW TWO GROUPS BEFORE NEXT GOING OUT TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

>>CARLOS AFONSO: I SECOND THAT.

AND I WOULD ALSO PROPOSE THAT INSTEAD OF CALLING TASK FORCE 1 PLUS 2 OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WE CALL IT BY AN APPROPRIATE NAME WHICH IDENTIFIES THE FOCUS OF THE TASK FORCE.
SAME WITH TASK FORCE 3. SO WE WOULD HAVE ONLY TWO, ACCORDING TO YOUR PROPOSAL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
LET'S JUST VOTE ON -- SO YOU'VE SECONDED THE MOTION. LET'S -- IF WE CAN JUST, THEN, VOTE ON THAT MOTION. AND THEN WE CAN DETERMINE THE NAMES IF THAT MOTION SUCCEEDS FOLLOWING A DECISION TREE MODEL HERE.

SO FIRST I'LL JUST GO AROUND THE TABLE.
MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: PHILIP.
YOU VOTE FOR OR AGAINST?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: JUST REPEAT THE MOTION, THEN, JUST FOR CLARITY. DIDN'T MARILYN JUST ASK YOU TO REPEAT THE MOTION FOR CLARITY?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SORRY. I MAY NOT -- WHAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE, MARILYN? I MAY HAVE MISHEARD IT.

>>MARILYN CADE: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THOUGHT MARILYN SAID YES.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I'M SORRY.
YES.
OKAY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: LUCY.

>>LUCY NICHOLS: YES.

>>KIYOSHI TSURU: YES.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: DOES "WORKING TOGETHER" MEAN THE SAME AS MERGING?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES. MERGING TASK FORCE 1 AND 2, AND KEEPING TASK FORCE 3 SEPARATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE WORK PROGRAM. BUT THE RESULTS OF ALL OF THOSE WILL BE MERGED BEFORE BEING PRESENTED TO COUNCIL.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: ALL RIGHT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: YES, WITHOUT ENTHUSIASM.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ALFONSO. I GUESS YOU -- YOU SECONDED THE MOTION. DO YOU WANT TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT OR....

>>CARLOS AFONSO: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
OKAY.
ROSS.

>>ROSS RADER: I WOULD ALSO VOTE YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: DEMI.

>>DEMI GETSCHKO: YES. I THINK IT'S A GOOD WAY TO PROCEED.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ALICK.

>>ALICK WILSON: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY?

>>TONY HOLMES: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HARRIS?

>>TONY HARRIS: IN SUPPORT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: GREG RUTH?

>>GREG RUTH: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: CARY?

>>CARY KARP: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: KEN?

>>KEN STUBBS: YEAH.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ROSS --

>>THOMAS KELLER: TOM. BUT YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ON THE PHONE I THINK -- DO WE HAVE GRANT FORSYTHE?

>>GRANT FORSYTH: YES. I VOTE FOR THE MOTION. THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, GRANT.
WE HAVE MARC SCHNEIDERS.

>>MARC SCHNEIDERS: I ALSO VOTE IN FAVOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, PHILIP COLEBROOK?

>>PHILIP COLEBROOK: YES, FOR THE MOTION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, PHILIP.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I HAVE MISSED? IS THERE ANYONE ELSE ONLINE?

OKAY. WE'LL NOTE THE MOTION IS PASSED.

OKAY. CARLOS, YOU HAVE A PROXY FOR JISUK WOO. IF YOU'D LIKE -- DO YOU WISH TO VOTE THAT PROXY? CARLOS, YOU CAN SORT OF VOTE YES OR --

>>CARLOS AFONSO: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THEN SINCE CARLOS RAISED THIS ISSUE, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO CALL THE COMBINED TASK FORCE 1 AND 2? OR WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO COME UP WITH A NAME AND THEN LET YOU KNOW LATER?

>>CARLOS AFONSO: (INAUDIBLE).

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I'LL -- I'LL SEND A NOTE TO THE COUNCIL WITH A SUGGESTED NAME.
AND IF THERE ARE ANY OBJECTIONS, YOU CAN DO SO.
YES, GO AHEAD, MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: I WOULD LIKE TO JUST RAISE A VERY SHORT POINT FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.
AND THAT IS, BASED ON PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WE'VE HAD, WE WILL GET TO A POINT WHERE WE WILL NEED ADVICE FROM THE LEGAL STAFF OF ICANN ON A NUMBER OF, LIKE, DOES OUR POLICY RECOMMENDATION REQUIRE CONTRACT CHANGING, ET CETERA.

SO JUST LIKE FOR US TO NOTE TO THE STAFF NOW AND BE SURE THAT WE KEEP THEM, YOU KNOW, INFORMED, AS I KNOW WE WILL, SO THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO FACTOR THIS INTO THEIR SCHEDULED PLANNING.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. ONE OF THE THINGS I MIGHT ATTEMPT TO DO ALONG THE LINES THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED EARLIER IN THE WEEK IS QUITE A BIT OF A PROJECT PLAN AROUND THOSE THREE TASK FORCES WITH WHAT ARE THE STEPS AND AT WHAT STAGE WE WOULD NEED SUPPORT. SO I'LL ATTEMPT TO DO THAT.

OKAY. THE FOURTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR GTLD REGISTRY CHANGES.
THE STATUS OF THAT SO FAR IS THAT WE HAD DEVELOPED SOME FLOW DIAGRAMS. I'VE RECENTLY WRITTEN THAT UP INTO A REPORT WITH SOME DESCRIPTIONS OF THOSE FLOW DIAGRAMS. THE ADDITIONAL NEW WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE IS REALLY COMBINING THE VARIOUS CRITERIA THAT WE DEVELOPED IN ROME UNDER TWO MAIN HEADINGS.

ONE HEADING RELATING TO COMPETITION AND THE OTHER HEADING RELATING TO SECURITY AND STABILITY. AND I'VE PLACED THAT ON THE COUNCIL LIST. THIS WAS REALLY ONLY DONE IN THE LAST FEW DAYS. SO COUNCILLORS MAY NOT HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT. SO AT THIS STAGE, I'LL JUST INVITE ANYONE IF THEY WISH TO COMMENT.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, MY INTENT IS, IF PEOPLE COULD REVIEW IT OVER THE NEXT WEEK, GET ANY COMMENTS THROUGH TO ME, AND THEN I'LL BE ASKING THE COMMITTEE TO APPROVE PUTTING THAT DOCUMENT OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FOR THOSE THAT HAVE ACTUALLY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS?

OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE REASSIGNMENT OF DOT NET.

I WONDER IF THE CHAIR OF THAT GROUP COULD GIVE ME A QUICK UPDATE ON WHERE THAT'S AT.
JUST PROCESS-WISE, THERE'S BEEN TWO PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS. THE LAST SET OF PUBLIC COMMENTS, I BELIEVE, WAS ANALYZED IN A MEETING THIS MORNING. SO PERHAPS IF PHILIP COULD SORT OF FOCUS ON WHAT'S CHANGED, PERHAPS, AND WE'LL ASSUME THAT MOST PEOPLE HAVE SEEN THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS SO FAR.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: OKAY. SORRY FOR THE SLIGHT DELAY. I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD TREAT YOU ALL TO A STUNNING PRESENTATION OF CHARTS. AS BRUCE DESCRIBED, THE PROCESS HAS BEEN THAT.
AND I THINK THE KEY TO THIS IS THAT THE DNSO, THE GNSO WAS ASKED TO GIVE ADVICE TO THE BOARD. IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, WE FORMED A SUBCOMMITTEE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS TO DEVELOP A CONSENSUS STATEMENT ALSO INCLUDING A MEMBER OF THE AT-LARGE, OUR LIAISON TO THE COUNCIL.

AND ALSO DEVELOP A CONSENSUS STATEMENT, WE DECIDED TO DO THE SENSIBLE THING, WHICH IS TO MIRROR THE TIME LINES AND THE STRUCTURE OF WHAT'S LAID DOWN IN THE PDP. AND THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT WE DID FOR THE FIRST COMMENT PERIODS BRUCE JUST REFERRED TO.

THE REPORT IS NOW OFFERED TO YOU AS COMPLETED AT OUR MEETING TODAY WITH UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, AND WITHIN THE CONSIDERATIONS WE HAVE DONE IN THE REPORT, WE ARE ABLE TO LOOK AT EVERY SUBMISSION THAT WAS MADE EITHER TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT LIST OR SENT DIRECTLY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE VIA THE COUNCIL. AND THAT HAS ALLOWED US TO INCORPORATE WHERE WE FELT THERE WERE COMMENTS THAT WERE USEFUL AND IN SCOPE OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO, WHICH WAS TO PRODUCE SOME FAIRLY TOP-LEVEL CRITERIA, AND WHERE WE HAVE LEFT THINGS OUT, TYPICALLY, THERE WERE SOME INTERESTING COMMENTS THERE WHICH I THINK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF THE WAY THE RFP ITSELF IS SHAPED.

AND WE HAVE REFERENCED THAT ALSO WITHIN THE REPORT.

WHAT DO WE SAY IN THE REPORT? BASICALLY, WE STARTED WITH A PREAMBLE WHICH LINKS IT TO THE ICANN MISSION, WE DEMONSTRATE WHERE THERE ARE POINTS RELEVANT TO THE MISSION.
WE HAVE AN APPEAL THAT THE APPLICATION FORM FOR ICANN SHOULD NOT BE TOO BURDENSOME, IN OTHER WORDS, IT SHOULD BE PROPORTIONAL, ASK ENOUGH QUESTIONS TO FULFILL THE OBJECTIVE, BUT NOT BE ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT. WE ASK FOR IMPARTIAL EVALUATION.
AND WE DETERMINE, AS WE WERE ASKED TO DO, CERTAIN TYPES OF CRITERIA. THOSE CRITERIA WE DEVELOPED INTO TWO TYPES OF.

ABSOLUTE CRITERIA, WHICH ARE, ESSENTIALLY, QUALIFYING THRESHOLDS, AND ALSO RELATIVE CRITERIA, WHICH ARE BASICALLY THE WAY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THOSE WHO HAVE QUALIFIED FROM THOSE ABSOLUTE CRY TEAR. IA WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ABSOLUTE CRITERIA. THINGS LIKE TARGETING WHETHER IT SHOULD REMAIN AN OPEN DOMAIN, CRITERIA ON CONTINUITY. GRANDFATHERING SHOULD BE PART OF ANY APPLICATION. AND ALSO ABSOLUTE CRITERIA TO DO WITH POLICY COMPLIANCE. THAT MEANS POLICY DEVELOPMENT CAN BE BOTTOM UP. EQUAL TREATMENT FOR REGISTRARS.

AND CONCERNS IN TERMS OF STABILITY, WHERE WE LINKED TECHNICAL ASPECTS THERE TO WHAT YOU SEE ALREADY IN EXISTING DOT NET AGREEMENT. A LITTLE BIT MORE ON TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. THINGS LIKE DISASTER RECOVERY, COMPETENCE, MIGRATION PLANS AND FINANCIAL STABILITY, IF I CAN SPELL IT CORRECTLY, ALSO INCLUDED.

UNDER RELATIVE CRITERIA, WE ALSO DEVELOPED THAT INTO SECTIONS. AND RELATIVE CRITERIA IN THE REPORT ARE ALSO IN A RANKING ORDER, THE ABSOLUTE CRITERIA ARE NOT.

AND UNDER PROMOTION OF COMPETITION, WE MAKE REFERENCE TO CHOICE, VERY MUCH A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THE ICANN MISSION, THINKING MORE THERE ABOUT THE END USER.
WE TALK ABOUT PRICE AND COST, TYPICALLY COST REFERRING TO THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE REGISTRY AND THE REGISTRARS THERE AND LOOKING AT STRATEGIES OF MINIMIZING COSTS AND APPLICATIONS THAT WILL BE INCORPORATING AND THE BENEFITS TO BETTER INNOVATION, BETTER VALUE.

UNDER STABILITY, SECURITY, AND OTHER TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, WE TALK ABOUT STABILITY ALSO DERIVING FROM A PLURAL SUPPLY BASE, IMPLEMENTATION OF GNSO POLICIES, PARTICULARLY THINGS LIKE TRANSFERS AND DELETES, AND ENHANCED SERVICES AND ENHANCED REGISTRY OPERATIONS. AND THAT IS ABOUT IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, PHILIP.

NOW, THE COUNCIL REQUESTED SOME ADVICE ON THE TOPIC OF WHETHER WE ARE PROVIDING ADVICE OR WHETHER WE ARE CONDUCTING A FULL POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. SO JUST INVITE THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNCIL, DAN HALLORAN, TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR THE COUNCIL.

>>DAN HALLORAN: THANKS, BRUCE, FOR THAT.

THE ADVICE I CAN GIVE YOU IS TO BRING BACK TO WHAT IT IS, FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, WHAT IT IS WE'VE ASKED YOU TO HELP US WITH, WHICH IS TO COMPLY WITH ICANN'S OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE DOT NET REGISTRY AGREEMENT.

A FEW WEEKS AGO, THE ICANN BOARD ADOPTED A FINAL PROCEDURE FOR DESIGNATING THE SUBSEQUENT DOT NET REGISTRY OPERATOR, AND IT'S POSTED ON THE ICANN WEB SITE. JUNE 29TH IS THE DATE IF YOU SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT. AND THIS DOCUMENT LAYS OUT BASICALLY A TIME LINE GOING FORWARD. SEVEN STAGES. THE FIRST ONE IS REQUESTS FOR ADVICE ON SELECTION CRITERIA, WHICH IS SCHEDULED TO RUN THROUGH JULY 31ST. IT POINTS OUT THAT A COUPLE PROVISIONS FROM THE DOT NET REGISTRY AGREEMENT, ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT, 5.2.1 WHICH REQUIRED ICANN TO ADOPT THE PROCEDURES WE'RE LOOKING AT BEFORE ONE YEAR PRIOR TO EXPIRATION WHICH WAS JUNE 30TH. SO YOU'LL SEE WE MADE THAT DEADLINE BY ONE DAY.

THE OTHER ONE IS SECTION 5.2.4 WHICH OBLIGATES ICANN TO SELECT AS THE SUCCESSOR REGISTRY OPERATOR THE ELIGIBLE PARTY THAT IT DETERMINES -- THAT IT REASONABLY DETERMINES IS BEST QUALIFIED TO PERFORM IN THE REGISTRY FUNCTION UNDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 4.3 OF THE DOT NET REGISTRY AGREEMENT. AND THAT SUBSECTION 4.3 IS THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS, CONSENSUS POLICIES THAT WOULD BE BINDING. IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT'S IN ALL THE REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR AGREEMENTS.
SO FLIPPING BACK TO THE 4.3, WE'RE ESPECIALLY KEEN THAT YOU WOULD FOLLOW THIS, THE ROADMAP THAT'S LAID OUT IN 4.3.1 OF THE DOT NET REGISTRY AGREEMENT.

THIS LANGUAGE, WELL, THIS AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED IN MAY 2001, SO IT PREDATES EVEN THE CURRENT ICANN BYLAWS AND THE CURRENT GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS BUT IT DOES LAY OUT A SPECIFIC SET OF POLICY -- OR PROCEDURE STEPS THAT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN ORDER FOR THIS RECOMMENDATION -- IN ORDER FOR ICANN TO FULFILL ITS OBLIGATIONS, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK TO YOU TO KIND OF WORKING BACKWARDS THROUGH 4. 3.1, STEP C IS PRESENT A WRITTEN REPORT AND SUPPORTING MATERIALS, INCLUDING ALL SUBSTANTIVE SUBMISSIONS TO THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION RELATING TO THE PROPOSAL, THAT DOCUMENTS THE EXTENT OF AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT AMONG IMPACTED GROUPS; DOCUMENTS THE OUTREACH PROCESS USED TO SEEK TO ACHIEVE ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION OF THE VIEWS OF GROUPS THAT ARE, LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED, AND DOCUMENTS THE NATURE AND INTENSITY OF REASONED SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED POLICY.

ONCE YOU'VE GOT THAT REPORT, STEP "B," WE ASK TO GET FROM YOU A RECOMMENDATION ADOPTED BY AT LEAST A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE COUNCIL THAT THE SPECIFICATION OR POLICY SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED, SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION ON THE CRITERIA APPROVED BY TWO-THIRDS OF THE COUNCIL. AND THEN FINALLY ACTION OF THE BOARD ESTABLISHING IT.

SO THIS IS THE ROADMAP THAT'S LAID OUT FOR GIVING US THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE DOT NET REGISTRY AGREEMENT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO AS I UNDERSTAND, IN THAT 4.3.1, ONE OF THE DEFINITIONS OF CONSENSUS POLICY IS A RECOMMENDATION ADOPTED BY TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE COUNCIL, AND SO THAT'S THEN A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD.

THE -- SO AS FAR AS THE COUNCIL IS CONCERNED, IT'S BEEN ASKED FOR ADVICE. IT WILL VOTE ON THAT ADVICE, AND IF THERE'S AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS CONSENSUS ON THE COUNCIL THAT THAT ADVICE IS APPROVED THEN THAT'S CONSENSUS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THAT ADVICE; IS THAT CORRECT?

>>DAN HALLORAN: THAT SOUNDS RIGHT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I MIGHT ASK FOR CLARIFICATION FROM THE CHAIR.
MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS DECIDED TO USE AS A FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPING ITS ADVICE THE FRAMEWORK THAT'S IN THE BYLAWS RELATE TO GO THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THAT IS CORRECT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. NOW, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS THAT COUNCIL SEEKS? MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: YES, I DO SEEK A CLARIFICATION BEFORE WE MOVE ON. AND I'D LIKE TO GO BACK, DAN, TO THE EARLY PART OF THE PROCESS THAT YOU WERE DESCRIBING, WHICH HAD TO DO WITH THE SEEKING PUBLIC COMMENT AND THAT ASPECT OF IT.

WE COULD EITHER SCROLL BACK OR YOU MIGHT JUST GO -- IT'S PROBABLY HARD FOR ME TO SEE IT FROM HERE. BUT THE -- I WANTED TO JUST BE VERY CLEAR THAT IN THE PROCESS THAT THE GROUP IS FOLLOWING THAT WE HAVE A -- COUNCIL HAS A VERY THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF THE TIME FRAMES AND THE PROCESSES THAT WE ARE USING TO GATHER COMMENTS AND TO TAKE INPUT FROM ANY CONCERNED PARTY. AND REVIEW THAT VERY CAREFULLY, MAKE SURE THAT, IF NECESSARY, WE ARE VOTING ON ANY DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE. BUT IT'S PRIMARILY THE TIME FRAMES AND THE SEEKING THE COMMENT FROM OUTSIDE PARTIES AS WE GO THROUGH THIS THAT I WANTED TO LOOK AT AGAIN WITH YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ARE YOU MAKING A REQUEST, MARILYN, FOR COUNCIL TO REVIEW SOMETHING OR ARE YOU ASKING A QUESTION THAT HAS THE COUNCIL REVIEWED THAT AND BELIEVE THAT WE COMPLIED? WHAT --

>>MARILYN CADE: YEAH. IT'S, IN PARTICULAR, DAN, IN RELATION TO THE PROCESSES OF HAVING MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR COMMENT AND THEN TAKING THE COMMENT INTO ACCOUNT AND INCORPORATING IT. AND, YOU KNOW, ARE WE IN COMPLIANCE WITH --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: IN COMPLIANCE. WELL, LET ME JUST ASK THE QUESTION FAIRLY SIMPLY. IS IT IN THE VIEW OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY COMPLYING WITH OUR OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO FORMING CONSENSUS ON THIS ISSUE?

>>DAN HALLORAN: I THINK IT'S GOING TO -- WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME WE'VE TALKED TO YOU AND TO PHILIP. WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS, AND WE'VE WALKED THROUGH THE SAME SECTION 4.3.1 BEFORE AND WE'RE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROCESS YOU'VE BEEN FOLLOWING.

YOU'VE HAD TWO STAGES OF PUBLIC COMMENT. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ANYWHERE ON THE INTERNET WOULD ARGUE THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING OR DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON THIS.

I THINK THE QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW -- WE DON'T HAVE THE FINAL REPORT YET, SO IT'S HARD TO LOOK AT IT AND SAY IT COMPLIES OR IT DOESN'T COMPLY. AND IT'S HARD WITHOUT -- I HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH LINE BY LINE THE WHOLE INITIAL OR DRAFT REPORT AT THIS STAGE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK IT'S THE PROCESS WE'VE BEEN FOLLOWING SO FAR TO GET FEEDBACK. I MEAN, THE NEXT STEP IS THE VOTE OF THE COUNCIL, AND CLEARLY, UNLESS WE HAD A TWO-THIRDS VOTE, IT WOULD NOT MEET THE CRITERIA, AS I READ IT.

JUST FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE PROCESS. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO AT THIS STAGE IS, DURING THIS COUNCIL MEETING, INVITE ANYBODY FROM THE FLOOR THAT WOULD WISH TO MAKE A COMMENT OR A QUESTION FOR THE COMMITTEE. AND I'M ALSO PLANNING IN WORKING WITH THE ICANN STAFF REGARDING PUTTING AN AGENDA ITEM OR COVERING IT IN THE PUBLIC FORUM ON THURSDAY, TO GIVE MEMBERS OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A VERBAL COMMENT ON THE CRITERIA THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED SO FAR.

SO FIRST, THE OPPORTUNITY THAT ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE, ANYONE THAT HAS COMMENTED SO FAR IS WELCOME TO ASK QUESTIONS, ASK WHETHER THEIR PREVIOUS PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. I LEAVE THAT OPTION OPEN. IF YOU'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD, JEFF.

>>DAN HALLORAN: BRUCE, AMADEU IS IN YOUR QUEUE, I WANTED TO REMIND YOU. AMADEU HAD A QUESTION FOR ME, TOO.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AMADEU, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR DAN?

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: MY QUESTION IS NOT FOR DAN BUT IT'S FOR THE RECORD, IT'S FOR THE COMMITTEE. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE LANGUAGE USED FOR CRITERIA RELATIVE TO COMPETITION. I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP FROM COPYING FROM CERTAIN DOCUMENTS (INAUDIBLE) THAT SHOULD APPLY. THE APPLICANT SHOULD SHOW SOMEHOW HOW IT WILL INCREASE CONSUMER CHOICE IN COMPETITION. WHAT DO YOU MEAN? SPLITTING DOT NET INTO THREE DIFFERENT TLDS, THERE WILL BE MORE CHOICE, REALLY, BECAUSE REALLY THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT THE CONSUMER IS NOT THE ONLY PART. IT SHOULD ALSO SOMEHOW PROMOTE COMPETITION TO THE USERS OF THAT SERVICE WHO ARE THE REGISTRARS.

THE CONSUMERS, AND TECHNICALLY, AS THE END USERS OF THE DOMAIN NAMES DON'T BUY REGISTRY SERVICES OR DON'T KNOW THEY BUY REGISTRY SERVICES. THEY GO THROUGH A DIFFERENT PROCESS, AND THESE ARE REGISTRARS. AND 90% OF THE TIME AT LEAST, I WOULD SAY IT'S MUCH MORE THAN THAT, THEY DECIDE ON THINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REGISTRY SERVICES OR EVEN PRICES. BUT IT'S MORE ON MEANING, ON, YOU KNOW, AVAILABILITY, AND THE PACKAGE THAT THEY OFFER THROUGH ALL THESE INTERMEDIARIES.

SO I DON'T THINK ASKING A NEW -- SORRY. THE APPLICANTS FOR THE DOT NET BE THAT IN COMMON, OR THE NEW ONES, HOW THEY WILL INTRODUCE COMPETITION IN THE END USER IS IN THE APPROPRIATE AND ONLY REFERENCE TO COMPETITION. I AM EVEN CONCERNED THAT THIS IS A BAD THING. FOR A NEW TLD, THIS WOULD MAKE SENSE. FOR A TLD THAT ALREADY EXISTS, COMPETITION IN THE SENSE THAT YOU IMPLY HERE, THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BRING IS THE SORTS OF SITE FINDER, WLS, E-MAIL FORWARDING, IDN PROPOSALS THAT WE KNOW SHOULD BE DEALT IN A DIFFERENT WAY THAN JUST TRYING TO WIN, YOU KNOW, A BID FOR AN EXISTING TLD.
SO I THINK THAT HERE WE HAVE USED JUST PLACEHOLDER LANGUAGE THAT DOESN'T APPLY COMPLETELY WELL TO THIS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THERE WERE SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT MADE SOME REFERENCE TO THAT AS WELL. I WONDER IF THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE COULD RESPOND ON HOW THAT'S BEEN HANDLED.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I THINK ON BALANCE, WE FELT THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAJORITY OF RELATIVE CRITERIA, MOST OF THOSE REFER TO THE REGISTRY/REGISTRAR RELATIONSHIP. WE FELT INCLUSION WITHIN THE REPORT OF ONE TINY PARAGRAPH THAT REFERRED TO THE COMPETITIVE CHOICE FOR REGISTRANT WAS NOT INAPPROPRIATE. AND I THINK, REALLY, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN TERMS OF WHAT MAYBE COMPETITION IN TERMS OF REGISTRAR LEVEL COMPETITION, WE HOPE WE'VE CAPTURED MORE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THAT WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PARAGRAPHS THAT RELATE TO REGISTRARS WITHIN THE REPORT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK MY COMMENT, PHILIP, WOULD BE IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM A CONSUMER POINT OF VIEW, WOULD BE WHOEVER IS THE NEW OPERATOR OF DOT NET, WHETHER IT'S THE EXISTING OPERATOR OR ANOTHER COMMERCIAL ENTITY, YOU COULD LOOK AT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF WHETHER CHANGING THE WAY DOT NET OPERATES IN SOME WAY GIVES CONSUMERS A CHOICE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE BETWEEN, SAY, COM AND NET NOW, BECAUSE COM AND NET IS BASICALLY THE SAME SERVICE. SO THAT'S ONE ASPECT OF COMPETITION.

BUT I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE SEEKING IS MORE CLARIFICATION ON WHAT THE COMMITTEE MEANS BY COMPETITION. IS THAT CORRECT? SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO HAVE A LOOK AT IN THAT SUBCOMMITTEE IN CLARIFYING THE TERM, AND GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES WHAT HAVE COMPETITION MIGHT BE.

JEFF, YOUR QUESTION?

>>JEFF NEUMAN: THANKS. IT'S ON; SORRY. JEFF NEUMAN FROM NEULEVEL. AND I JUST WANTED TO ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS, AND I KNOW THAT PHILIP, AND I KNOW YOUR COMMITTEE, SUBCOMMITTEE, HAS WORKED VERY HARD ON THIS REPORT. AND NEULEVEL SUPPORTS THE ENTIRE PROCESS AND THINKS THAT YOU ALL ARE DOING A GOOD JOB. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S KIND OF BEEN LACKING IS WHEN COMMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IS KIND OF GETTING THE FEEDBACK FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WHAT COMMENTS WERE CONSIDERED AND BASICALLY FEEDBACK ON THOSE COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED. IF THEY WEREN'T ADOPTED, WHY WEREN'T THEY PLACED INTO THE REPORT. AND I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING ON A GENERAL LEVEL THAT WE ALL NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB. AND ME, AS THE CHAIR OF TASK FORCE 1, WE'VE GOTTEN A BUNCH OF COMMENTS FOR WHOIS TASK FORCE 1 AND I'M GOING TO NEED TO DO A GOOD JOB IN EXPLAINING WHY COMMENTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE NEXT REPORT OR WHY THEY WERE NOT.

ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT NEULEVEL HAD MADE IN PARTICULAR WAS A COMMENT THAT STATED THAT -- I THINK YOUR LAST RELATIVE CRITERIA IS FOR ALL EXISTING REGISTRY SERVICES, EACH BIDDER -- EACH APPLICANT WOULD DESCRIBE HOW IT WOULD IMPLEMENT THE REGISTRY SERVICE.
ONE OF THE REGISTRY SERVICES THAT'S MENTIONED IS THE WAIT LIST SERVICE. NEULEVEL HAD SUBMITTED A COMMENT THAT SAID UNLESS A REGISTRY SERVICE IS OFFERED AT THE TIME THE RFP IS ISSUED, THAT THAT SHOULD NOT BE ONE OF THE CRITERIA IN THE EVALUATION. AND MOREOVER, THAT THAT REGISTRY SERVICE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PROGRESS, AGAIN, IF IT HAS NOT BEEN INTRODUCED BY THE TIME THE RFP HAS BEEN SET FORTH.

THIS IS A COMMON PRACTICE IN MOST RFP PROCESSES THAT NEULEVEL HAS PARTICIPATED IN. AND I NOTICED IN THE LATEST DRAFT, THERE WAS A PARENTHETICAL IN THERE. I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO EXPLAIN THE PARENTHETICAL AND WHAT ITS INTENT WAS. AND MAYBE -- BECAUSE IT WAS UNCLEAR TO ME WHETHER IT COULD CLARIFY ITS INTENT SO THAT WHEN YOU DO PASS IT ON TO THE BOARD, THEY WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY; THANKS.
JEFF, DID YOU WANT ANY COMMENT ON THAT, PHILIP?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I'D LIKE TO TAKE ANOTHER QUESTION FIRST WHILE I FIND THE ANSWER TO JEFF'S QUESTION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK I MAY HAVE A -- GOING BACK TO AMADEU'S POINT, OR PERHAPS MY VERSION OF AMADEU'S POINT, YOU KNOW, I THINK OF -- AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE A -- I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION OF COUNCIL. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SUCH A VAST UNIVERSE OF USERS OUT THERE, SOME ENTERPRISES, SOME GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AND SOME OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY INDIVIDUALS. AND SORT OF TYPICALLY, WHEN WE SPEAK OF CONSUMERS, WE ACTUALLY, I THINK, REALLY MEAN CONSUMERS, WHILE USERS IS A MORE GENERIC PHRASE AND WOULD ENCOMPASS A VERY BROAD CATEGORY OF REGISTRANTS OR USERS.

AND WE'VE USED THE LANGUAGE HERE, THE COMMITTEE HAS USED THE LANGUAGE, "CONSUMER CHOICE," AND "COMPETITION." I'M THINKING THAT IT MAYBE WOULD BE BETTER TO BE "USER CHOICE," AND THEN I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN USER CHOICE AND COMPETITION. AND IF WE'RE ASKING THE COMMITTEE TO GIVE SOME EXAMPLES ABOUT HOW USER CHOICE WOULD BE IMPROVED, I THINK THOSE -- THAT IT SHOULD BE DONE -- THEY SHOULD MAKE AN EFFORT TO DEFINE HOW USER CHOICE WOULD BE IMPROVED, AND THEN SEPARATELY, HOW THEY ARE ADDRESSING COMPETITION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. I GUESS THE PROBLEM THAT I THINK AMADEU IS RAISING IS THAT "COMPETITION" IS A FAIRLY COMMON TERM AND THE CONSTRAINT HERE IS THAT DOT NET EXISTS, AND BY PUTTING TO TENDER, AND WE'RE NOT CREATING A NEW TLD, SO IT'S NOT COMPETITION IN THAT SENSE, BUT WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE -- THERE COULD BE A NEW PARTY THAT BECOMES A REGISTRY OPERATOR, AND THEREFORE WE'RE CREATING COMPETITION IN THE REGISTRY INDUSTRY, BUT NOT COMPETITION FOR DOT NET. OR WE COULD BE TALKING ABOUT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF USER CHOICE, THAT PERHAPS THERE'S SOME NEW SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE NEW OPERATOR THAT DOESN'T YET EXIST TODAY. AND SO THERE'S CHOICE. THAT'S PROBABLY THE WAY TO HANDLE IT.
OKAY.

>>JEFF NEUMAN: I JUST HAD ONE SECOND ITEM THAT I WANTED TO MAKE AND COMMENT. AND IT'S PRECISELY ON THIS TOPIC. WHEN WE THINK OF A REGISTRY OPERATOR, FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE REGISTRY OPERATOR PROVIDES ITS SERVICES TO THE REGISTRARS. AND IN THE END, OBVIOUSLY WHAT THEY'RE SELLING -- THE REGISTRARS SELL THE PRODUCT TO THE END USER.

THERE'S A LOT OF REGISTRY SERVICES OR THINGS I COULD RECOMMEND BE -- OR ANY APPLICANT COULD RECOMMEND TO ENHANCE THE SPACE. BUT IN THE END, IT'S THE REGISTRARS THAT DECIDE WHETHER THAT SERVICE IS OFFERED TO THE END USERS.

A CLASSIC EXAMPLE IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE DOT ORG COMPETITION THAT WAS A FEW YEARS AGO, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF SERVICES THAT WERE LISTED IN A NUMBER OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT WERE -- IT WAS ONE OF THE CRITERIA TO LOOK AT WHAT NEW SERVICES THEY WOULD OFFER.
AND I WOULD ASK THE COUNCIL TO LOOK BACK AT THAT AND ASK ITSELF WHICH OF THOSE SERVICES HAVE BEEN OFFERED AND WHICH HAVE NOT AND THEN THE RATIONALE AS TO WHY THOSE SERVICES HAVE NOT BEEN OFFERED. AND THE PRIMARY RATIONALE IS, AGAIN, THAT IT IS THE REGISTRARS THAT PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES TO THE END USER OR TO THE REGISTRANT.
SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT WHO THE CUSTOMER IS OR WHO THE CONSUMER IS OF THE REGISTRY, IT IS THE REGISTRAR.

NOW, WE CAN ALL AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE END USER IS THE SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE DOT NET SPACE. AND NOBODY IS TAKING ANYTHING AWAY FROM THAT. THAT IS OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE. BUT AGAIN, IT IS THAT THE REGISTRY'S CUSTOMER OR CONSUMER IS THE REGISTRAR. AND THAT'S THE WAY IT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT. AND ONE OF THE EXAMPLES WAS PRICE. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU CONSIDER PRICE, AGAIN, IT'S NOT CONSIDERING PRICE OF THE REGISTRANT, THAT THE REGISTRANT PAYS. IT'S PRICE THAT IS CHARGED TO THE REGISTRAR, WHICH WAS -- AND I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT YOU ADDED THE CONCEPT OF VALUE IN THERE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT ACKNOWLEDGED THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARILY PRICE, BUT IT IS VALUE OF THE SERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THANKS, JEFF. IN REGARD TO YOUR EARLIER QUESTION, I THINK WE'LL TAKE THAT ON NOTICE. AND AS I SAY, I'M HOPING TO ORGANIZE A TIME DURING THE PUBLIC FORUM ON THURSDAY, AND PERHAPS PHILIP CAN CONSIDER THE QUESTION AND RESPOND. UNLESS YOU'RE READY NOW OR --

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I'M HAPPY JUST TO RESPOND TO WHAT JEFF SAID EARLIER. JUST A CLARIFICATION. THE POINT YOU MADE FIRST IN TERMS OF THE EXISTING SERVICES, JEFF, WE HAD TRIED TO CLARIFY, I THINK, IN OUR LATEST VERSION WHERE WE MADE IT CLEAR IN THE LAST RELATIVE CRITERIA 3. THE QUESTION IS DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO MAINTAIN ALL REGISTRY SERVICES AT THE TIME THE REQUESTED PROPOSAL IS RELEASED AND THAT WAS OUR ATTEMPT TO CAPTURE ONE OF THE POINTS YOU HAVE MADE THERE. I THINK THE QUESTION YOU MADE ABOUT FEEDBACK IS ACTUALLY A MORE GENERAL ONE. AND PERHAPS ALSO ICANN IN ITS REBUDGETING, ET CETERA, IS TRYING TO ADDRESS.

THE SPECIFICS ALSO WE ADDRESSED ON COMMITTEE TODAY IN TERMS OF THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS BEING A BIDDING PROCESS, AND THE ETHICS OF US RESPONDING, IF YOU LIKE, PERSONALLY OR IN WRITING TO COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM POTENTIAL APPLICANTS WAS ONE THAT WE, AS A SUBCOMMITTEE, FELT A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH AND THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO BE LEFT TO ICANN STAFF TO RESPOND IN THAT WAY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE INTENT IS NOT TO HAVE AN ONGOING DIALOGUE HERE, BUT I THINK WE'LL TAKE THAT OFF-LINE. MY COMMENT IS A GNSO CHAIR POINT OF VIEW IN THE PROCESS IS THAT WE DO NEED TO, IN OUR REPORT, PROBABLY SUMMARIZE THE PUBLIC COMMENT IN SOME WAY. AND THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE THE POINT OF A STEP BY STEP RESPONSE TO EVERY PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD BE ATTEMPTING TO SUMMARIZE WHAT THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE AND HOW THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS TAKEN IT INTO ACCOUNT. SO THAT WOULD BE WHAT I RECOMMEND.
WE HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

>>CHUCK GOMES: YES. CHUCK GOMES FROM VERISIGN. LET ME PREFACE MY QUESTION WITH A COMMENT.

IN LOOKING AT ALL THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN BOTH PERIODS, AND THEN LOOKING AT THE FINAL REPORT, IN MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION, I DON'T THINK ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE VERY FIRST VERSION OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT. AND I'M NOT JUST REFERRING TO COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY NEULEVEL AND VERISIGN, BUT ALL THE COMMENTS SUBMITTED.

NOW, IN LIGHT OF THAT, LET ME ASK A SPECIFIC QUESTION. I FIND IT TOTALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE THAT UNDER RELATIVE CRITERIA, THOSE CRITERIA RELATED TO THE PROMOTION OF COMPETITION ARE RATED HIGHER THAN CRITERIA RELATED TO STABILITY, SECURITY, TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL COMPETENCE.

IN THE ITEMS YOU HAVE UNDER THE COMPETITION CATEGORY, NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE -- EVEN HAVE ANY MEANING IF YOU DON'T HAVE STABILITY, SECURITY, TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL COMPETENCE.

AND AS NEULEVEL SUBMITTED IN SOME COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED VERY EARLY, THERE'S NO CORRELATION BETWEEN REGISTRY PRICE AND REGISTRAR PRICE. THAT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED MATHEMATICALLY.

SO I WOULD CERTAINLY APPRECIATE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHY YOUR RELATIVE CRITERIA NUMBER ONE IS RANKED HIGHER THAN CRITERIA NUMBER TWO.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: I MAY HAVE A QUESTION TO CHUCK BUT I FIRST HAVE A QUESTION TO THE CHAIR OF THE GROUP. I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BY ONE STATEMENT THAT YOU JUST MADE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IT.

HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT THE RELATIVE CRITERIA WAS BEING RANKED HIGHER THAN THE ABSOLUTE CRITERIA? I, PERHAPS, AM MISUNDERSTANDING THE REPORT, BUT I THOUGHT, IN READING IT, THAT THE ABSOLUTE CRITERIA WAS AN ABSOLUTE BASELINE.

>>CHUCK GOMES: NO DISAGREEMENT THERE, MARILYN. BUT THE RELATIVE CRITERIA, AS THE REPORT STATES, RANK THE RELATIVE CRITERIA IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE. AND NUMBER ONE, THEN, IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN NUMBER TWO. AND THAT'S WHAT MY QUESTION IS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>>MARILYN CADE: WELL, YOUR QUESTION MAKES SENSE, BUT I DIDN'T READ THE REPORT THAT WAY. SO NOW I'LL TURN MY QUESTION TO THE CHAIR OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

THANK YOU. MAY I, MR. CHAIRMAN? OKAY. SO I --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: WHAT ACTUALLY IS A POINT OF ORDER, PROBABLY GET PHILIP TO RESPOND TO CHUCK'S QUESTION.

>>MARILYN CADE: AND THAT MIGHT ANSWER THE QUESTION. THANK YOU.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO TAKE THE REPORT AS A WHOLE. WE HAVE ABSOLUTE CRITERIA, AND WE HAVE RELATIVE CRITERIA.

UNDER ABSOLUTE CRITERIA, YOU'LL FIND A VERY IMPORTANT THRESHOLD CALLED ABSOLUTE CRITERIA RELATED TO STABILITY, SECURITY, TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL COMPETENCE. AND THERE'S REFERENCE IN THAT TO THE EXISTING CRITERIA UNDER THOSE CATEGORIES WITHIN THE EXISTING AGREEMENT. THAT IS A THRESHOLD THAT EACH AND EVERY ONE APPLICANT WE ARE PROPOSING HAS TO GET OVER. AFTER THAT, THERE MAY BE CRITERIA RELATING TO THOSE SAME ASPECTS IN WHICH WE ARE USING WORDS LIKE PREFERENCE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO PROPOSALS OFFERING IMPROVED IMPLEMENTATION AND SUPPORT. APPLICANTS SHOULD INDICATE HOW THEY WOULD OFFER ENHANCED PERFORMANCE. PREFERENCE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO PROPOSALS OFFERING IMPROVED RELIABILITY.

SO THERE, THERE IS IMPROVEMENT IN THOSE SERVICES ABOVE ALREADY A MINIMUM THAT WE KNOW IS WORKING SATISFACTORILY. AND THAT IS THE BASIS IN WHICH WE CHOSE OUR RANKING FOR THAT SECOND SECTION.

>>CHUCK GOMES: THANK YOU, PHILIP. CAN I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE LAST SENTENCE IN THE SECTION CALLED CRITERIA TO BE CONSIDERED? IT SAYS, "RELATIVE CRITERIA ARE LISTED WITH WEIGHTING, WITH THE HIGHEST WEIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE LIST."

SO MY QUESTION WAS, WHY IS WHAT YOU HAVE AS RELATIVE CRITERIA NUMBER ONE RATED HIGHER THAN CRITERIA NUMBER TWO? THAT'S WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THAT WAS A CHOICE OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK WHAT PHILIP IS IMPLYING THERE IS THE CRITERIA FOR STABILITY HAVE BEEN DIVIDED INTO TWO CRITERIA. ONE IS A MINIMUM THAT IT MUST MEET A CERTAIN MINIMUM LEVEL, AND THEN THERE'S A SECOND LEVEL WHICH IS BETTER THAN THE MINIMUM. AND IT SEEMS THE COMMITTEE HAS DECIDED THAT THE BETTER THAN MINIMUM IS OF LOWER PRIORITY TO SOME OF THE OTHERS. IS THAT CORRECT?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. AND THEN IF THAT -- IF THAT IS THE CASE, I GUESS IF IT'S A GENERAL SENSE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT THAT IS -- THAT THAT SHOULD BE RATED HIGHLY, THE COMMITTEE SHOULD PROBABLY SORT OF RESPOND REALLY WITH WHY. I THINK IS REALLY THE GIST OF THE QUESTION. SO I THINK THERE'S A POINT OF CLARIFICATION THAT IT'S ACTUALLY SPLIT SECURITY AND STABILITY INTO AN ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE, AND THE RELATIVE COMPONENT OF THAT HAS BEEN RATED WITH A DIFFERENT PRIORITY TO SOME OF THE OTHERS. AND I GUESS THE SUBCOMMITTEE NEEDS TO BE CLEAR AS TO WHY -- HOW DID YOU ARRIVE AT THE RELATIVE PRIORITY.

>>MARILYN CADE: I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE AN OBSERVATION ABOUT THE REPORT, AND I KNOW THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS BEEN WORKING, AND PARTICULARLY SINCE YOU HAD A MEETING TODAY, WITH SHORT TIME LINES. I THINK PERHAPS WHAT THIS DISCUSSION HAS ILLUSTRATED IS THERE'S A SKELETON HERE BUT WE MAY NEED A LITTLE MORE MUSCLE. IN TERMS OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT, YES, WE SAW THESE COMMENTS AND HERE'S WHY WE'VE PROVIDED THE CRITERIA IN THIS PARTICULAR WAY, HERE'S WHAT IT MEANS. BECAUSE THE EXPLANATION TO ME HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL, BUT IT WAS A LITTLE TOO BARE BONES FOR ME TO HAVE UNDERSTOOD THIS WITHOUT A LITTLE MORE EXPLANATION.

SO I KNOW YOU HAD VERY SHORT TURNAROUND TIME. BUT COULD I ASK A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION ABOUT THE SUMMARY OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED? WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE A SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED. AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE A LINK TO THE COMMENTS. WOULD THAT BE RIGHT?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF COMMENTS RECEIVED WERE RELATIVELY FEW. CERTAIN COMMENTS RECEIVED WERE RATHER LENGTHY, AND WENT INTO ASPECTS WE THOUGHT WERE OUT OF SCOPE. AND WE THOUGHT THE SIMPLEST WAY TO REFER TO IT IN THE DOCUMENTS WAS WITH THE DIRECT LINKS THERE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THAT THE SENSE THAT I'M GETTING FROM THE COUNCIL, ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE -- I GUESS WHAT LET'S CALL A BEST PRACTICE THAT'S IN THE BYLAWS IS THAT THERE IS AN ATTEMPT TO SUMMARIZE PUBLIC COMMENT.

BECAUSE AS YOU SAY, THERE ARE QUITE LENGTHY DOCUMENTS IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
AND I THINK THE COMMUNITY, IN READING A REPORT, WOULD -- AND THE BOARD, FOR THAT MATTER -- WOULD BENEFIT FROM A SUMMARY OF THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THEN A SECTION DESCRIBING HOW THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS IN SUMMARY FORM HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH.
SO, AGAIN, I'M NOT ASKING FOR A BLOW-BY-BLOW, YOU KNOW, THIS COMPANY HAD THIS COMMENT AND THIS IS MY ANSWER, BECAUSE THERE'S PROBABLY SOME COMMON ELEMENTS AMONGST THOSE COMMENTS. AND IN THAT SENSE, I DON'T THINK WE'RE DUPLICATING ANY KIND OF TENDER QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION THERE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS?
CARY.

>>CARY KARP: THERE'S GOING TO COME A POINT WHERE EACH OF US WHO WAS ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE, WHERE THERE INDEED WAS DISCUSSIONS, THERE ARE VARIOUS POINTS OF VIEW AND A LOT OF POINTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SHIFT GEARS AND THEN SIT ON THE COUNCIL AND DISCUSS, AS COUNCIL MEMBERS, WHAT WE AS SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PUT FORWARD TO OURSELVES. AND I WOULD EXPECT THERE TO BE SOME DEGREE OF LIKELIHOOD THAT THE ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED MOST IN COMMITTEE ARE GOING TO BE THE ISSUES DISCUSSED MOST BY COUNCIL.

SO PERHAPS THERE SHOULD BE SOME STATEMENT OF CONCLUSION OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE PHASE OF ALL OF THIS AND STATEMENT OF CLEAR INAUGURATION OF THE COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON THE REPORT SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THESE TWO INTERTWINED DISCUSSIONS GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME USING THE SAME BANDWIDTH.

>>MARILYN CADE: COULD I -- CARY, I THINK THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT. BUT I JUST WANT TO BORE YOU WITH REMEMBERING THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PREVIOUS WHOIS TASK FORCE AND THE TRANSFERS TASK FORCE, WHERE WE PROVIDED REPORTS -- THE TASK FORCES PROVIDED REPORTS TO COUNCIL, COUNCIL TALKED ABOUT THEM, AND THEN THE SUBCOMMITTEE WENT BACK TO WORK.
I DON'T -- I THINK THIS IS A STATUS REPORT FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE. AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE YET INTO -- SORT OF I THINK A PRELIMINARY FEEDBACK FROM THE COUNCIL. I DON'T THINK WE'RE YET INTO REALLY CONSIDERING THE FULL AND FINAL REPORT, ARE WE?

>>CARY KARP: I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT AT ALL. I AM SUGGESTING THAT THOSE OF US WHO PARTICIPATED IN THIS DISCUSSION AS SUBCOMMITTEE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN A DISCUSSION AS COUNCIL PEOPLE AS WELL PERHAPS -- PERHAPS YOU CAN CLARIFY FOR US WHAT OUR ROLE IS IN THE CURRENT STATE OF THIS DISCUSSION.

ARE WE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS STILL REPORTING TO COUNCIL? OR ARE WE COUNCIL MEMBERS CONSIDERING WHAT WE AS SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE SUBMITTED TO OURSELVES TO CONSIDER AS COUNCIL MEMBERS?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I WILL CLARIFY THAT FOR YOU, CARY.

WE ARE THE COUNCIL CONSIDERING THE REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE. AND BECAUSE WE'RE ON A FAIRLY ACCELERATED TIME FRAME, WE'RE ALSO SEEKING COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR. I BELIEVE THE PROCESS ISSUE IS THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME ISSUES RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THOSE ISSUES BEFORE WE EFFECTIVELY ARE IN A POSITION WHERE WE'RE VOTING ON A REPORT. BECAUSE I THINK THE REPORT, FOR EXAMPLE, SEEMS TO BE MISSING SOME POINTS OF CLARIFICATION ON THE RELATIVE WEIGHTING AND SOME POINTS OF CLARIFICATION ON TERMINOLOGY SUCH AS COMPETITION. AND IT SEEMS TO BE MISSING A SORT OF SUMMARY. IT HAS LINKS TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT BUT NOT, PERHAPS, A SUMMARY OF WHAT THOSE COMMENTS ARE AND AN EXPLANATION OF HOW THOSE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

SO I VIEW THAT THAT IS THE SUBCOMMITTEE WORK, COLLECTING THAT INFORMATION TOGETHER.
AND THEN THE COUNCIL WILL THEN BE IN A POSITION WHERE IT NEEDS TO VOTE ON THAT MATERIAL, INCLUDING US AS COUNCIL, ASSESSING WHERE WE BELIEVE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY ACCOUNTED FOR.
PHILIP.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I HAVE NO PROBLEM INSISTING THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE WORK IN TERMS OF SUMMARIZING SOME OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED. I DO JUST HAVE A CONCERN IN THAT A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ARE BY POTENTIAL BIDDERS TO THIS PROCESS, AND IT SEEMS TO BE A SLIGHTLY POISONED CHALICE COMING OUR WAY IF WE ARE TO TRY TO SUMMARIZE WHAT WAS INTENDED IN THOSE COMMUNICATIONS.

I JUST WONDER IF WHATEVER THE SUMMARY IS, HOWEVER EXCELLENT WE ARE AS DRAFTS PEOPLE AT DOING THAT, IT IS NEVERTHELESS GOING TO BE UNSATISFACTORY IN THE VIEW OF THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THOSE COMMUNICATIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE OTHER REASONS IN THE BACK OF OUR MIND WHY WE THOUGHT A DIRECT LINK IN THE REPORT TO THOSE LETTERS AND A -- AN URGING IN THE REPORT THEY NEED TO BE CONSIDERED, BECAUSE THEY'RE ALSO RELEVANT TO THE CONTENT OF THE RFP AS WELL AS OUR WORK, WAS A BETTER WAY TO PROCEED.

YOU'LL NOTE THERE'S AN EXISTING REPORT, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS FROM OTHER PEOPLE IN WHICH THERE'S A VERY BRIEF LINE DESCRIBING THE CONTENT OF THE LETTER, WHERE IT WAS EASIER TO DO THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I DON'T -- I THINK -- AND, AGAIN, I DON'T ACTUALLY SEE THIS AS GREATLY DIFFERENT TO ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS. BUT YOU ALWAYS NEED TO REFER TO THE SOURCE. AND WHEN YOU'RE SUMMARIZING SOMETHING, YOUR SUMMARY WOULD ALWAYS BE REFERENCING THE SOURCE.

IT WOULDN'T BE A SUMMARY THAT STANDS ALONE, JUST LIKE ANY SORT OF ACADEMIC WORK.
YOU'RE OFTEN IN A POSITION OF SUMMARIZING WHAT SOMEONE ELSE IS SAYING, AND YOU'RE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT, THAT THE DEFINITIVE COMMENT IS HERE, THIS IS THE REFERENCE, AND THIS IS MY SUMMARY.

SO I DON'T SEE THAT AS DIFFERENT TO ANYTHING ELSE.

WE COULD BE DOING A POLICY ON WHOIS AND, YOU KNOW, A COMPANY COULD BE SUBMITTING A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT WHICH I WOULD SUMMARIZE. I'M NOT ATTEMPTING TO BE THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THAT COMPANY. I'M MERELY SAYING THIS IS MY SUMMARY OF THAT. AND IF YOU WANT TO KEEP IT AS INDEPENDENTLY AS POSSIBLE, IT'S REALLY A TASK THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE THE ICANN STAFF PERFORM IN THE SENSE OF WRITING THAT SUMMARY FOR THAT COMMITTEE RATHER THAN SORT OF PUT IT ON AN INDIVIDUAL COMMITTEE MEMBER THAT MAY THEN BE ACCUSED OF SOME KIND OF BIAS IN THAT DECISION.

>>MARILYN CADE: AREN'T WE REALLY -- I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. AREN'T WE REALLY TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO IS A PARAGRAPH, AND IF A DOCUMENT IS SEVERAL PAGES LONG AND WE'RE AT THE 500,000-FOOT LEVEL, I THINK WE -- THE SUMMARY WOULD BE THE COMMENTS ADDRESSED THE FOLLOWING FOUR AREAS. SOME POINTS WERE. AND IT'S PRESENTED IN A VERY NEUTRAL AND BORING FASHION, AS ALL SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ARE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: CERTAINLY IN THE BYLAWS THERE WAS THE CONCEPT OF THE MANAGER OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. AND THAT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WOULD ALWAYS BE SORT OF SUMMARIZED FOR THE BOARD OR FOR THE COUNCIL, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. SO WE DO NEED, AS A PROCESS THING, TO BE FOLLOWING THAT GENERAL PROCESS.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER THIS AS ANY DIFFERENT, UNLESS, DAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW WHETHER YOU HAVE CONCERNS?

>>DAN HALLORAN: I WANT TO DRAW YOU GUYS BACK TO I HIGHLIGHTED IN SECTION 4.3.1, IT SAYS THEY WERE IN WRITTEN REPORT AND SUPPORTING MATERIALS THAT YOU WILL PASS ON MUST INCLUDE ALL SUBSTANTIVE SUBMISSIONS TO THIS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION. NOT JUST LINKS, NOT JUST A SUMMARY. BUT GIVE US THE WHOLE COMMENT, AND WE'LL TAKE IT FROM THERE, WITH YOUR NOTES ABOUT WHAT YOU CONSIDERED, WHAT YOU REVIEWED.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO THAT WOULD BE, WHAT, BY WAY OF APPENDIX OR EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN.

>>DAN HALLORAN: SUPPORTING MATERIALS TO THE REPORT. EXACTLY, APPENDIX, ALL SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS RECEIVED.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, YES. WELL, THAT'S KIND OF ALREADY THERE AS A LINK, I GUESS, AT THE MOMENT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YOU'RE SUGGESTING THE EXECUTION OF THAT SHOULD BE NOT JUST A HYPERLINK, BUT EXECUTION OF THAT SHOULD BE.

>>DAN HALLORAN: COPY AT LEAST.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: -- PHYSICAL PRINT OF EVERY COMMENT RECEIVED? TURNING MY SHORT AND SUCCINCT REPORT INTO A LENGTHY AND TEDIOUS DOCUMENT.

>>DAN HALLORAN: WE HAVE PLENTY OF ROOM ON THE ICANN WEB SERVER TO INCLUDE ALL OF THAT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: IT'S TERRIBLY OLD-FASHIONED OF YOU. BUT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT, I'M SURE ICANN STAFF CAN HANDLE THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ONE WAY OF HANDLING THAT IS VOLUME ONE AND VOLUME TWO.
SO FOR THE PURPOSES OF DOWNLOAD AND PRINTING, YOU MIGHT HAVE VOLUME ONE, WHICH IS THE SUMMARY, IF YOU LIKE.
AND VOLUME TWO IS THE 600,000-PAGE DOCUMENT, IF YOU SO WISH TO PRINT IT. BUT THAT'S REALLY JUST A WAY OF ACCESSING THE DOCUMENTS AS DISTINCT FROM THE CONTENT.
KEN.

>>KEN STUBBS: YEAH, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY, I THINK IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA FOR PHILIP TO COORDINATE IT WITH THE ICANN STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ADEQUATE SUPPORT TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS. I DON'T -- I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED AND --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I AGREE. THAT'S JUST ADMINISTRATIVE STUFF. IT'S REALLY JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, GET THIS REPORT AND STICK IT ON THE WEB SITE AND INCLUDE THIS STUFF AS APPENDICES.
IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY NEED TO BE WORK PHILIP NEEDS TO BE DOING.
ROSS.

>>ROSS RADER: I JUST WANTED TO BE -- TO QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT WE'VE ACTUALLY GOT ENOUGH TIME IN OUR SCHEDULE TO ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH ALL OF THIS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THE -- WHERE WE ARE NOW -- LET'S TAKE THAT OFFLINE IN TERMS OF SCHEDULING. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE ASKED IS REALLY A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK. IT'S KIND OF GETTING SOMEONE FROM THE STAFF, WHICH IS A DISCUSSION I NEED TO HAVE WITH ICANN. SO I NEED SOME RESOURCE TO SUMMARIZE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. THEN I'D LIKE THE COMMITTEE TO HAVE A LOOK AT THAT AND PERHAPS SUMMARIZE HOW THEY HAVE RESPONDED TO THOSE COMMENTS IN GENERAL. THE POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON COMPETITION AND SO ON. SO THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT YOU COULD EITHER DO AS A FOLLOW-UP MEETING THIS WEEK, WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT ARE HERE -- I DON'T THINK IT'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK.

BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. WE NEED TO BE CONSCIOUS OF THE TIME LINE.

>>ALICK WILSON: MY COLLEAGUES KNOW MY BACKGROUND AS A MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT.
I BELIEVE THIS TURNS A BIG JOB INTO AN ENORMOUS JOB.

WE USED TO MAKE A LIVING OUT OF DOING EXACTLY THIS A DECADE AGO. WE HAD CORPORATIONS AND GOVERNMENTS WHO PAID US ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO GO THROUGH SUBMISSIONS POINT BY POINT. I BELIEVE IF IT'S TO BE DONE IT'S A BURDEN THAT SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED ON THE VOLUNTARY MEMBERS. IT'S SOMETHING THAT ICANN STAFF WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE TO PROVIDE AND UNDERTAKE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, ALICK.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?

OKAY. AND AS I SAY, WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND ARRANGE FOR A FURTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT ON THURSDAY, BECAUSE THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A LIMITED AUDIENCE HERE IN THIS ROOM.
AND THOSE THAT ARE IN THIS ROOM CAN SPEND THE NEXT TWO DAYS THINKING UP GREAT QUESTIONS. AND SO AS I SAY, WE'LL PROVIDE A FURTHER OPPORTUNITY.

THE REMAINING ITEMS ON THE AGENDA OF THE MEETING I WILL SUMMARY FAIRLY QUICKLY.
ITEM 6 WAS AN UPDATE ON MEETINGS WITH ICANN STAFF REGARDING POLICY DEVELOPMENT.
THERE WAS A MEETING BETWEEN SOME OF THE COUNCILLORS AND SENIOR ICANN STAFF ON SUNDAY.

I HAVE POSTED THE MINUTES OF THAT MEETING TO THE COUNCIL LIST.

THE ESSENCE OF THAT MEETING WAS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT POLICY DEVELOPMENT AS A PROJECT THAT GOES ALL THE WAY FROM THE ISSUE FIRST BEING RAISED THROUGH THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ITSELF, THROUGH TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT POLICY AND THROUGH TO THE MEASUREMENT OF WHETHER THAT POLICY WAS SUCCESSFUL, AND THEN THROUGH TO THAT INFORMATION FLOWING BACK INTO COUNCIL AND COUNCIL DECIDING WHETHER THE POLICY NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED IN SOME WAY.

WE TALKED ABOUT MAKING -- ICANN CURRENTLY HAS THREE POSITION -- NEW POLICY POSITIONS AVAILABLE IN ITS JOB OPPORTUNITIES SECTION ON THE WEB SITE. AND WE DISCUSSED WHAT SORTS OF SKILLS THOSE CANDIDATES WOULD NEED TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE COUNCIL PROCESSES.
ITEM 7 ON THE AGENDA IS AN UPDATE ON THE MEETING WITH THE CCNSO REGARDING LIAISONS.
THE STATUS OF THAT WAS THE GNSO STATED THAT LIAISONS WERE USEFUL FOR INFORMATION SHARING AND ALSO FOR POTENTIALLY WORKING TOGETHER ON SHARED ISSUES SUCH AS RELATING TO THE ROOT ZONE FILE, ISSUES OF WHETHER WE ADD IDNS TO THE ROOT ZONE, ISSUES OF WHETHER WE'D SIGN THE ROOT ZONE FROM A DNSSEC PERSPECTIVE, ET CETERA.

SO THE CCNSO IS GOING TO CONSIDER THAT REQUEST EXPECT RESPOND TO THE COUNCIL.
UNDER "ANY OTHER BUSINESS," I HAVE HAD A REQUEST -- THERE IS MONEY THAT WAS PROVIDED BY CONSTITUENCIES TO, ORIGINALLY, THE NAMES COUNCIL. AND THERE IS -- WHAT ABOUT -- WHAT'S THE NUMBER? THERE IS $24,000, ROUGHLY $24,000 THAT WAS COLLECTED BY CONSTITUENCIES FOR USE FOR THE NAMES COUNCIL THAT'S CURRENTLY SITTING IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT BUT MANAGED BY ICANN. I HAVE A QUESTION OF WHETHER WE WISH TO SIMPLY HAVE THOSE FUNDS REVERT INTO THE GENERAL ICANN POOL OR WHETHER THE COUNCIL WOULD PREFER TO CONTINUE TO KEEP THAT SEPARATE AND POTENTIALLY USED TO ASSIST IN SOME OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES.
I JUST OPEN THAT FINAL QUESTION FOR ANY COMMENTS.

IN THE ABSENCE OF A PARTICULAR STRONG COUNCIL VIEW, I WOULD SUGGEST WE LEAVE IT THERE AND WE CONSIDER LOOKING AT OUR POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OVER THE NEXT 12 MONTHS, LOOKING AT THE RESOURCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE FROM ICANN, AND IF THERE'S A SHORTFALL, WE MIGHT ALLOCATE THOSE FUNDS TO ASSISTING IN THAT PROCESS.
MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE, I SUPPORT LEAVING THE FUNDS WHERE THEY ARE. THE PROCESS OF GENERATING THE FUNDS WAS QUITE ARDUOUS UPON ALL OF US. AND I THINK WE ALL LEFT THE FUNDS THERE INITIALLY WITH THE IDEA THAT WE MIGHT NEED THEM IN ORDER TO FUND -- TO HAVE A CONTINGENCY FUND TO FUND ISSUES. I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD STILL REMAIN THERE.

WE HAVE OTHER WORK THAT WE HAVE AHEAD OF US, INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COUNCIL, WHERE WE MIGHT CHOOSE TO EVEN RETAIN A RESOURCE TO WORK WITH US IN UNDERTAKING OUR ASSESSMENT OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. AND I THINK THAT LEAVING THEM WHERE THEY ARE WOULD BE THE BEST AVENUE FOR COUNCIL'S....

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT?
OKAY. WELL, THAT'S JUST CONSISTENT WITH OUR PREVIOUS MOTION ON THIS TOPIC. SO I DON'T SEE THE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT. I'LL JUST REPORT BACK TO ICANN THAT OUR CURRENT MOTION STANDS.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS ANY ONE WOULD LIKE TO RAISE?
GO AHEAD, MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: I JUST WOULD LIKE TO REMIND FELLOW COUNCILLORS THAT THE CNSO COUNCIL IS MEETING BEGINNING AT 4:15. AND WE WERE ALL INVITED, AS THE AUDIENCE SHOULD CONSIDER THEMSELVES INVITED AS WELL, ALL INVITED BY THE COUNCIL CHAIR, CHRIS DISPAIN, THE ACTING COUNCIL CHAIR YESTERDAY, TO ATTEND THEIR MEETING, WHICH IS TAKING PLACE IN A ROOM ADJACENT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
THANK YOU, MARILYN.

OKAY. IF THERE'S NO OTHER BUSINESS, I THANK EVERYBODY FOR ATTENDING AND THANK PARTICULARLY THOSE ON THE PHONE THAT HAVE SAT THROUGH THIS SESSION AND THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE.

THANK YOU.

(4:14 P.M.)

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers