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 Links and information may be outdated or incorrect.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

ICANN Public Forum

Thursday, 22 July 2004

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the ICANN Public Forum held on 22 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.

ICANN PUBLIC FORUM THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2004 KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA 9:00 A.M.

>>VINT CERF: GOOD MORNING.

WOULD THE BOARD MEMBERS KINDLY TAKE THEIR SEATS. ALL RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I THINK WE ARE NOW PREPARED TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. THIS IS THE PUBLIC FORUM PART OF THE ICANN MEETINGS. WE HAVE A VERY PACKED SCHEDULE, AS USUAL. I AM GOING TO TRY VERY, VERY HARD TO STAY ON TARGET TO CLOSE AT NOON FOR LUNCH AND THEN REOPEN AGAIN AT 2:00. THERE'S A SLIGHT POSSIBILITY THAT I WILL BE AWAY AT THAT TIME WHEN WE BEGIN AGAIN AT 2:00. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, I'LL ASK ALEJANDRO PISANTY, THE VICE-CHAIRMAN, TO OPEN THE MEETING AND CONTINUE UNTIL I RETURN. SO LET'S BEGIN. I'D LIKE TO CALL ON THE PRESIDENT AND CEO, PAUL TWOMEY, TO MAKE HIS REPORT.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT.

GOOD MORNING, BOARD. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND GOOD MORNING TO PEOPLE ON THE OTHER END OF THE ONLINE VIDEO STREAMING. IF I COULD BRING YOU THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT ON WHAT'S BEEN A VERY BUSY LAST MONTH SINCE WE LAST MET. THERE'S TWO SORT OF MAIN AREAS I THINK I'D LIKE TO TALK THROUGH IN TERMS OF AGENDA. ONE IS, AS HAS BEEN CLEAR TO ME IN THIS MEETING, WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE NOW IN THE ICANN PROCESS WHO ARE -- WHO HAVE BECOME INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS SINCE THE FORMULATION OF ICANN. AND AS HAS BEEN VALUABLE IN A NUMBER OF THE CONSTITUENCY MEETINGS THAT I HAVE ATTENDED THIS WEEK, GOING THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF THE ORIGINS OF WHY ICANN WAS FORMED AND WHAT SORT OF PROBLEMS ITS OWN STRUCTURE IS DIRECTED TOWARDS SOLVING I THINK MIGHT BE USEFUL TO REPEAT. AND THEN I THINK THE ACHIEVEMENTS SINCE ROME AND OUR ONGOING WORK. I'D LIKE JUST TO SUMMARIZE QUICKLY FOR PEOPLE WHERE WE HAVE COME FROM.

AND AS WE MAY SAY, IN THE BEGINNING, THERE WAS DARPANET. BACK IN '69, SOME PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN, AND STEVE CROCKER AND A FEW OTHERS WHO ARE IN THIS ROOM, WERE INVOLVED IN PUTTING TOGETHER THE FIRST OF THE NODES OF WHAT BECAME THE INTERNET. AND THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THESE -- OF THIS NETWORK WAS HANDLED BY A SERIES OF INDIVIDUALS, AND OFTEN UNDER VARIOUS AMENDING, CHANGING, AND SOMEWHAT FLUCTUATING AGREEMENTS WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. ONE OF THE KEY FUNCTIONS, OF COURSE, WAS THE IANA FUNCTION, WHICH JON MANAGED FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. THE TROUBLE, OF COURSE, WITH THE INTERNET, THE GREAT THING WITH THE INTERNET WAS IT BECAME TERRIBLY SUCCESSFUL. I SUSPECT THE PROBLEM FOR MANY PEOPLE WAS THAT IT BECAME VERY SUCCESSFUL. IN THE SENSE OF THAT THE MODELS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE FOR THE FIRST 30 YEARS OR 25 YEARS OR SO OF THE INTERNET BECAME UNDER INTENSE STRAIN ONCE WE HAD THE BROWSERS, ONCE WE'D HAD THE WORLDWIDE WEB, ONCE WE HAD AN INCREDIBLY GROWING COMMERCIAL AND SOCIAL INTERACTION WITH THE INTERNET. AND A WHOLE SERIES OF CONSTITUENCIES EMERGED WITH ISSUES AROUND THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM AND THE ADDRESSING SYSTEM WHICH I THINK PUT THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS UNDER BREAKING STRAIN.

NOW WE HAD THE PRESSURES OF INTEREST GROUPS FIGHTING FOR PARTICULAR THINGS THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHICH WERE INFLUENCED BY THE DNS AND LOOKING FOR A WAY IN WHICH TO TRY AND ADDRESS THESE. THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION IS THAT YOU PROBLEM, IN MANY RESPECTS, BECAUSE THE NATURAL THING FOR PEOPLE TO DO WHEN THEY'RE UNHAPPY ABOUT SOMETHING WAS TO GO AND COMPLAIN TO THE GOVERNMENT. AND THE PROBLEM THEY FACED WAS A TWOFOLD ONE. FIRST OF ALL, THEY COULDN'T FIX THE PROBLEM, BECAUSE MOST OF THE STUFF WAS NOT DONE, MOST OF THESE ISSUES WERE NOT FIRMLY IN THE GRIPS OF GOVERNMENT CONTROL. AND SECONDLY, PARTICULARLY AS THE NET GREW AND AS WE HAD A RESIDUAL MONOPOLY POSITION IN THE REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR, PARTICULARLY REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR FUNCTIONS IN DOT NET, DOT-COM, AND DOT ORG, NOW WE HAD A BOOMING MONOPOLY WITH A GOVERNMENT, TO A SINGLE GOVERNMENT CONTRACT, AND THERE WAS A CERTAIN POLITICAL/PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOMFORT ABOUT THIS WAS NOT AN APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR GOVERNMENT IN SUCH A NOW LIBERALIZING -- SUCH A GLOWING MARKET. THIS WAS THE STRAIN, I THINK, THAT JON POSTEL AND IANA SAW, THE U.S. ADMINISTRATION SAW, AND ALSO A STRAIN A SERIES OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS SAW, NAMELY CERTAINLY IN 1998, AUSTRALIA, CANADA, JAPAN, UNITED KINGDOM, AND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION ALL BEGAN TO TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE DOMESTICALLY, SAYING THIS IS THE SAME ISSUE INTERNATIONALLY AND THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SOLUTION DEVELOPED.

THERE WAS A LOT OF TOING AND FROING, BUT THE BASIC CHANGES DRIVING THIS CHANGE WAS THE INTERNET WAS GLOBALIZING, AND IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, WITH THE GLOBALIZATION OF INTERNET, I DON'T MEAN IN ANY WAY TO DISCREDIT THE MANY TECHNICAL AND ACADEMIC MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THE INTERNET FROM THE VERY EARLY DAYS. BUT IN TERMS OF GLOBALIZATION, IN TERMS OF THE AVERAGE USER, WHAT WE NOW KNOW AS THE AVERAGE USER, THE REAL BOOM TOOK PLACE FIRST IN THE UNITED STATES THEN IN NORTH AMERICA, AND THEN IN THE OECD COUNTRIES IN A WAVE OF COUNTRIES THAT I WOULD CALL OECD PLUS. IT'S BEEN WHERE IT HAS GROWN IN A HUGE J CURVE. THE ISSUES THAT EMERGED IN '95, '96, '97 WERE ESSENTIALLY AMERICAN ISSUES WHICH BECAME OECD ISSUES. IF I WAS TO SAY ANYTHING, IN 2004, THESE ISSUES ARE MORE TRUE, SOME OF THEM ARE IN TERMS OF THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE INTERNET, ITS COMMERCIALIZATION IN TERMS OF -- BOTH IN TERMS OF THE WAY ITS SERVICES ARE SOLD, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY IN TERMS OF THE ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE IT OFFERS TO THE REST OF THE ECONOMY, THE NEEDS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY, OF A FORMALIZED MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE, A LACK OF COMPETITION, AND A WHOLE SERIES OF CONFLICTS THAT TOOK PLACE AROUND TRADEMARKS AND DOMAIN NAMES AND CENSORS AND OWNERSHIP OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

THE RESPONSE TO ALL THOSE DEMANDS WAS FIRST OF ALL TO THINK THROUGH CAREFULLY WHAT ARE THE KEY PRINCIPLES THAT YOU SHOULD APPLY TO THIS. THESE PRINCIPLES FIRST APPEARED IN THE WHITE PAPER PUT FORWARD BY THE U.S. ADMINISTRATION, BUT WHICH WERE -- I THINK RECEIVED A LARGE DEGREE OF POSITIVE COMMENT FROM THE COMMUNITY. AND THESE PRINCIPLES ARE ALSO INCORPORATED INTO ICANN'S OWN OPERATIONS. I WOULD STRESS THE POINT, THE FIRST OF THESE PRINCIPLES, TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE STABILITY AND SECURITY OF THE UNIQUE IDENTIFIERS SYSTEM AND ROOT MANAGEMENT, IS NOT AS SOME PEOPLE RECENTLY SAID TO ME SOMETHING WE HAVE DECIDED TO DO RECENTLY BECAUSE IT SOUNDS SEXY. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS AT THE VERY CORE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF OPERATIONS. IT WAS THE FIRST OPERATION LAID DOWN IN THE WHITE PAPER IN 1998 BEFORE THE FORMATION OF NEWCO. SO IT'S BEEN ONE OF THE CORE PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS MULTI STAKEHOLDER INTERNATIONAL, SELF-REGULATORY MODEL FROM THE BEGINNING. TO PROMOTE COMPETITION AND CHOICE FOR REGISTRANTS AND OTHER USERS. PROVIDE A FORUM FOR MULTI-STAKEHOLDER BOTTOM-UP DEVELOPMENT OF RELATED POLICY. AND TO ENSURE ON A GLOBAL BASIS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PARTICIPATION BY ALL INTERESTED PARTIES. THESE ARE FOUR CORE PRINCIPLES. I KNOW WE HAVE, IN THE STAFF AND IN THE BOARD HAVE GONE BACK AND EVALUATED THESE AND WE THINK JUST AS TRUE THEY WERE IN THE WHITE PAPER IN '98, THEY ARE TRUE TODAY AS BEING THE CORE PRINCIPLES WHICH SHOULD GUIDE THE OPERATION OF THIS INTERNATIONAL, MULTISTAKEHOLDER SELF-REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT THAT WE ARE ESTABLISHING THROUGH ICANN.

THE POINT I'D ALSO MAKE, IT'S ACTUALLY IN THESE SLIDES, IS THE ICANN STRUCTURE AS IT PRESENTLY HAS BEEN PUT TOGETHER WITH THE ADDRESSING SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, THE GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, NOW WITH THE COUNTRY CODE NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, WITH THE ADVISORY COMMITTEES, HAS A HOME FOR EVERY ONE OF THESE INTEREST GROUPS. AND THE MODEL AS PEOPLE DESCRIBED IT SOME YEARS AGO WHEN IT WAS BEING PUT TOGETHER IS A SIMPLE ONE. THOSE WHO CREATE THE PROBLEM SOLVE THE PROBLEM. IT'S BRINGING TOGETHER A MODEL FOR COORDINATION AND COOPERATION OF ALL OF THESE VARIOUS INTEREST GROUPS. IT IS INHERENTLY NOISY, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO FIGHT ABOUT THINGS THEY THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO THEIR INTEREST GROUPS. BUT IT IS A MODEL TO ENSURE ALL THESE PEOPLE, AND OTHERS, ARE REPRESENTED.

SOME OF THE AUTHORITATIVE FUNCTIONS THAT ARE ALREADY TIED TO THAT, THE OPERATION OF THE IANA FUNCTION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE POINT ABOUT THAT WHEN IT COMES TO WHERE WE'RE BASED. JON POSTEL WAS AN AMAZING MAN. ONE OF THE THINGS HE WAS NOT -- PERHAPS NOT SO AMAZING ABOUT WAS HE DIDN'T LIKE UNIVERSITY BUREAUCRACY. SO MY UNDERSTANDING, HE HAD AN OFFICE IN A BUILDING IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TO BE AS FAR AWAY FROM THE HEAD OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY AS HE COULD AND STILL BE PART OF THE UNIVERSITY. ICANN'S NAME WAS VERY MUCH FORMATTED BY JON'S OWN THINKING AND ICANN'S LEGAL STATUS, WHERE WE WERE ACTUALLY FORMED, IS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE JON WAS. SO WE ARE A CALIFORNIA NOT-FOR-PROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION BECAUSE JON WAS BASED IN CALIFORNIA AND JON WAS GOING TO BE THE CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER OF ICANN.

IT'S A GREAT TRAGEDY FOR US ALL THAT JON PASSED ON PREMATURELY. BUT THAT'S -- YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE ORIGIN OF WHERE WE'RE BASED. IT WAS NOT SEEM DONE WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS A PRETTY KEY POINT TO MAKE.

I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO THAT LEGAL JURISDICTION QUESTION LATER IN THIS PRESENTATION. WE ALSO -- IN IMPLEMENTING THE COMPETITION MODEL FOR THE GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, WE NOW HAVE AUTHORITATIVE FUNCTION FOR THE GTLD FORMATION AND FOR THE REGISTRY AGREEMENTS; SIMILARLY, THE REGISTRAR AGREEMENTS FOR THE SECOND-PART MODEL THAT WAS CREATED TO INTRODUCE COMPETITION IN THOSE MARKETS. AND WE'RE ALSO WORKING -- WE HAVE A SERIES OF ARRANGEMENTS WITH CCTLDS TO HAVE THEM RECOGNIZED ON THE ZONE FILE. AND ONE OF THE AREAS WE WANT TO MOVE FURTHER ON IN GOOD CONSULTATION IS WHAT WE CALL ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS, JUST BEING CLEAR WITH CC'S WHAT IT IS THAT THE ICANN MODEL OWES THEM TO ENSURE A SINGLE END-TO-END INTEROPERABLE INTERNET AND WHAT IT IS THEY OWE TO THE -- IN RESPONSE. AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE WORKING THROUGH IN CONSULTATION WITH CC'S. AND WE'RE PARTICULARLY LOOKING FORWARD TO CONSULTATION WITH THE CCNSO ON ASPECTS OF THAT.

AS I SAID, THERE IS ACTUALLY A HOME IN THIS MODEL FOR ALL OF THOSE INTEREST GROUPS THAT PREVIOUSLY WERE IN DISPUTE WITH EACH OTHER OR FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER. AND, IMPORTANTLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS CONSTITUTED WITH PEOPLE ELECTED FROM EACH OF THESE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, PLUS PEOPLE, IF YOU LIKE, INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS, WHICH IS INCREASINGLY AN IMPORTANT ISSUE IN A POST-ENRON, POST-MCI CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ENVIRONMENT. WE HAVE NOMINATING COMMITTEE APPOINTED DIRECTORS -- THAT THOSE -- THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMES FROM ACROSS ALL OF THOSE INTEREST GROUPS, REPRESENTATIONS, THAT THOSE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAVE FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION TO THE ORGANIZATION AS A WHOLE, AND THE BOARD HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ONE PARTICULAR INTEREST GROUP TO CAPTURE THE BOARD. VERY CAREFUL THINKING ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE ANTITRUST STRUCTURE FOR THIS ORGANIZATION. IT WAS DONE AT THE VERY BEGINNING. AND I POINT THAT OUT TO YOU BECAUSE SOME OF YOU MAY GET A LITTLE ALARMED OR A LITTLE PERTURBED WHEN YOU HEAR ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ANTITRUST ACTIONS IN COURTS. ALL SUCH THINGS GET ALLEGED; IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE WHAT COMES OUT FROM A JUDGE. BUT THE POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO YOU IS THE STRUCTURE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING ALWAYS THOUGHT ABOUT THE VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES TO ENSURE THIS WAS AN ORGANIZATION THAT COULD NOT BE CAPTURED, THIS WAS A COMMUNITY WHICH COULD NOT BE CAPTURED BY A PARTICULAR INTEREST GROUP.

IF I CAN MOVE ON, THEN, I'D LIKE TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT WITH YOU SOME OF THE OPERATIONAL THINGS SINCE WE LAST SPOKE. FIRST ONE I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IS THE IANA FUNCTIONS. AND TO GIVE YOU SOME INDICATION OF THE EMPHASIS THAT WE HAVE BEEN PLACING ON IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN THE IANA FUNCTIONS, I WANT TO SHARE SOME INFORMATION AROUND THE ZONE FILE, NAME SERVER SERVICES PARTICULARLY TO TLDS AND CCTLDS.

THIS IS -- ACTUALLY, I'D LIKE TO THANK CENTR FOR THIS WORK THAT THEY HAVE DONE. THIS IS SOME SURVEY WORK THEY DID WITH SOME 30 OF THEIR MEMBERS. THIS IS DATA PUBLICLY AVAILABLE OFF THEIR WEB SITE SHOWING TURNAROUND TIMES IN REQUEST FOR NAME SERVER MODIFICATIONS. THE DOTTED LINE IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE PUT IN, AND IT IS ACTUALLY AN ERROR. IT SHOULD BE FURTHER TO THE RIGHT. AND THE DOTTED LINE IS MEANT TO INDICATED DOUG BARTON'S APPOINTMENT AS GENERAL MANAGER OF IANA. DOUG AND PARTICULARLY HIS TEAM MADE A VERY BIG EFFORT TO INCREASE TURNAROUND TIMES.

THIS WAS A SURVEY OF SOME 30 OR SO CCTLDS. THIS IS ACTUALLY OUR INTERNAL MANAGEMENT DATA OF ALL REQUEST FOR ZONE FILE CHANGES AND THE PROCESSING TIME. AND THE DATA SHOWS AT THE HORIZONTAL AXIS THE DAY THAT A REQUEST ENTERED THE QUEUE. AND ON THE VERTICAL AXIS, HOW MANY DAYS THAT REQUEST SPENT IN THE QUEUE BEFORE IT WAS FINALIZED. YOU WILL SEE THERE'S A FAIRLY HIGH VARIABILITY ACCORDING TO WHAT SORT OF REQUEST IS MADE. AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, A LOT OF THE REQUESTS THAT COME INTO THE IANA ARE NOT AT ALL SIMPLE. NOT ONLY BECAUSE WHAT THEY ASK FOR MIGHT BE COMPLICATED, BUT IMPORTANTLY, ALL THE INTERACTIONS WITH THE THIRD PARTIES WHO ARE INVOLVED SOMETIMES IS MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN PEOPLE MAY THINK. NEVERTHELESS, THE TREND DATA HERE, I THINK, IS VERY GOOD. WE'RE NOW LOOKING AT A MEAN OF THREE DAYS OR LESS THAN THREE DAYS FOR TURNAROUND ON ZONE FILE CHANGES IN TERMS OF IANA'S PROCESSING TIMES.

THE SECOND CHART, WHICH I HOPE YOU CAN SEE BETTER THAN I CAN. I'M COLORBLIND, SO I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH CHARTS LIKE THIS. BUT THE TOP LINE IS THE TOTAL ELAPSED TIME. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE TIME IN THE IANA. AND YOU WILL SEE THAT A LOT OF THE DELAY NOW IS NOT IN IANA PROCESSING, BUT MORE IN TERMS OF THE TIME WE NEED BEING BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS WITH THE PEOPLE MAKING THE REQUESTS AND PASSING THE REQUESTS ON TO THE FINAL STAGE. SO I THINK, GENERALLY, I'D LIKE TO CONGRATULATE THE IANA STAFF ON -- IN THIS AREA IN PARTICULAR -- A REAL FOCUS ON IMPROVEMENT OF TURNAROUND TIMES TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE CCTLD AND GTLD COMMUNITY.

ANOTHER THING THAT THE IANA STAFF HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN, WHICH BECAME TRUE YESTERDAY MORNING AT 2:00 MALAYSIAN TIME, IS THE INTRODUCTION OF IPV6 INTO THE ROOT. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT STEP FORWARD AND A MILESTONE. THERE WILL BE MORE ABOUT THIS LATER TODAY. BUT I THOUGHT I'D JUST STRESS, AGAIN, TALKING ABOUT THE ICANN MODEL, I THINK IT INDICATES THE SUCCESS OF COORDINATION AND COOPERATION THROUGH THE ICANN PROCESS. THIS REQUEST ORIGINATED FROM CCTLD MANAGERS. WE SOUGHT THE HELP OF THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHO ADDRESSED TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AND CONDUCTED A THOROUGH STUDY AND SENT AN ADVICE TO THE ICANN BOARD. THE ICANN BOARD IMPLEMENTED THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWING PUBLIC CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMUNITY, I THINK ALSO IN CONSULTATION WITH THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE STAFF OR MEMBERS. AND IT'S THROUGH THAT CONSULTATION, THEN, THAT THIS HAS MOVED FORWARD. SO I THINK THIS IS A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE ICANN MODEL WORKING IN TERMS OF COORDINATION, IN TERMS OF BRINGING SOMETHING UP FROM THE COMMUNITY, ENSURING A SENSE THAT WE ALL THINK THIS IS A GOOD THING AND WILL WORK WELL, AND IMPLEMENTING ALL FOR OUR BENEFITS. ANOTHER AREA OF PROGRESS

IN THE LAST -- SINCE WE HAVE LAST MET IN ROME DEALS WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. I WANT TO BE QUITE CLEAR WHAT THIS MOU IS, BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL GIVE YOU STORIES ABOUT WHAT IT IS WHICH ARE NOT, I DON'T THINK, NECESSARILY ACCURATE. TWO ADMINISTRATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, ONE DEMOCRAT AND ONE REPUBLICAN, HAVE COME TO A SIMILAR CONCLUSION, WHICH IS THE COORDINATION OF THOSE TECHNICAL FUNCTIONS OF THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM AND THE IP ADDRESSING SYSTEM ARE BEST DONE AS A SORT OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER, COORDINATED, INTERNATIONAL MODEL, AND THAT IT'S BEST NOT DONE BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. AND THEY HAVE BEEN CLEAR IN THEIR STATEMENTS IN THAT. HOWEVER, AS YOU WOULD EXPECT, AND I CERTAINLY WOULD EXPECT, IF THEY PREVIOUSLY HAD SOME RESPONSIBILITY IN THE FIRST 25 YEARS OR 30 YEARS OF THESE FUNCTIONS, THEY FEEL STRONGLY THEY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE A TRANSITION SHOULD TAKE PLACE WHICH IS SMOOTH, WHICH IS SHOWN TO BE STRONG, AND WHERE THEY HAVE DONE THE APPROPRIATE DUE DILIGENCE. THIS, AS IT'S BEEN PUT TO ME, THIS KEY PIECE OF INFRASTRUCTURE THEY HAVE TO -- AND TECHNOLOGY THEY HAVE TO ENSURE IT'S GOING TO WORK WELL.

THE MOU IS A TRANSITION DOCUMENT. IT IS A DUE DILIGENCE DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO ENSURE THAT WE, AS A COMMUNITY, HAVE REACHED TO THE STAGE OF OPERATIONAL AND POLICY MATURITY THAT THEY CAN HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THIS IS BEING PUT INTO A LONG-TERM, SUSTAINABLE, INTERNATIONAL, AND REPRESENTATIVE ENVIRONMENT SO THESE FUNCTIONS CAN BE OPERATED IN AN AUTONOMOUS MANNER. AND YOU CAN'T BLAME THEM, FOLKS. RIGHT?

YOU DON'T TAKE THIS STUFF AND JUST SAY, OH, WE'RE FINISHED. HAVE A NICE DAY. ALL RIGHT? THE MOU IS A PROCESS. NOW, LIKE MANY STARTUPS, AND I USED TO -- I FOUNDED AN INCUBATOR SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND WAS IN THE STARTUP BUSINESS FOR A LITTLE WHILE. I STILL HAVE SOME INTERESTS IN STARTUPS -- ALL STARTUPS, EVERYBODY WHO IS DOING A STARTUP THINKS THEY'RE GOING TO GET DONE FASTER AND QUICKER. IT ALWAYS TAKES LONGER AND IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN WHAT THEY THINK. AND I THINK ICANN AND THIS COMMUNITY HAS BEEN A CASE OF THE SAME. THAT WHEN THIS PROCESS STARTED OFF, THERE WAS AN EXPECTATION THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT MATURITY FASTER THAN TO THE DEGREE WE HAVE. SO THE MOU GOT EXTENDED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR DUE DILIGENCE WANTED TO ENSURE, JUST LIKE A VENTURE CAPITALIST DOES IN A STARTUP, WANTS TO MAKE CERTAIN THIS MODEL IS ACTUALLY WORKING AND IS MATURE.

NOW, IN THE DISCUSSIONS SINCE SEPTEMBER LAST YEAR, I THINK THE COMMUNITY HAD REACHED THAT STAGE AND THE ORGANIZATION REACHED SUCH A STAGE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FELT COMFORTABLE TO SAY, OKAY, HERE'S THE FINAL MOU. WE ARE NOW CONFIDENT THAT YOU ARE STARTING TO REACH THAT STAGE OF MATURITY. HERE'S THE FINAL MOU AND THE FINAL SET OF MILESTONES. AND THEY LAID OUT, ESSENTIALLY, 24 MILESTONES THAT THEY WANTED TO SEE FULFILLED SO THAT WE COULD THEN REACH THOSE AND MOVE ON. WE ARE NINE MONTHS INTO THAT MOU, AND SEVEN OF THE 24 MILESTONES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. AND OTHERS OF THOSE ARE ON TIME OR AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. AND I WILL GIVE YOU MORE OF AN UPDATE ON SOME OF THOSE.

IN PARTICULAR, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT CONTINGENCY PLANNING. IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ACTUALLY TALK AND DISCUSS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE IN THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE MOU, THAT IF YOU RUN A BUSINESS WELL, YOU HAVE TO HAVE CONTINGENCY PLANNING FOR THINGS GOING WRONG. AND SO ONE OF THE BUILDINGS OF -- ONE OF THE WAYS OF DIMINISHING RISK IN THE OPERATIONS OF THESE FUNCTIONS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CONTINGENCY PLANNING HAS BEEN DONE. I MAKE THAT POINT, MR. CHAIRMAN, BECAUSE THERE IS -- YOU CAN HAVE A PERCEPTION, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONTINGENCY PLANNING, THAT WE SECRETLY THINK THE RISK IS HIGHER THAN IT HAS BEEN. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. WE ACTUALLY SEE THE PLANNING FOR CONTINGENCY PLANNING AS ACTUALLY DIMINISHING THE RISK. THERE ARE TWO ASPECTS WE FEEL IT'S NECESSARY TO PLAN FOR CONTINGENCIES. THE FIRST IS THE OPERATIONS IN CASE OF A NATURAL DISASTER OR OTHER PHYSICAL OR OPERATIONAL EVENT TO ENSURE ONGOING OPERATIONS AND NO LOSS TO GLOBAL INTERNET COMMUNITY. MANY OF YOU INVOLVED IN TECHNICAL OPERATIONS AND NETWORK OPERATIONS WILL APPRECIATE EXACTLY THOSE CONTINGENCIES.

THE SECOND ONE IS BUSINESS FAILURE OR INSOLVENCY TO ENSURE ONGOING OPERATIONS AND NO LOSS TO GLOBAL INTERNET COMMUNITY. AND WE HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS VERY CAREFULLY. AND INTERESTINGLY, IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CCNSO AND OTHERS ABOUT HOW DO YOU HAVE BEST PRACTICE FOR CONTINUING OPERATIONS? I SUSPECT WHAT DO YOU DO IN THE CASE OF BUSINESS FAILURE IS NOT SOMETHING AS WELL THOUGHT THROUGH GENERALLY THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AS THE FIRST ISSUE IS. A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK ABOUT TECHNICAL FAILURE. BUT WHAT DO YOU DO IN CASE OF BUSINESS FAILURE IS NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING AS WELL CONSIDERED IN EVERY REGISTRY AROUND THE WORLD AS THE FIRST ITEM. BUT WE HAVE TRIED TO PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THIS ISSUE ABOUT WHAT YOU DO IN CASE OF BUSINESS FAILURE. SO THE FIRST OBJECTIVE ON GLOBAL OPERATIONS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, TECHNICAL, AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ICANN'S GLOBAL NATURE SO THAT WE CAN ESSENTIALLY WITHSTAND OUTAGES IN VARIOUS PLACES FOR VARIOUS DURATIONS. LET'S COME TO THE BUSINESS FAILURE OBJECTIVE. THAT IS TO ENSURE THAT THE CORE AND NECESSARY FUNCTIONS ARE CARRIED OUT AND THAT THE RELEVANT RELATIONSHIPS, AGREEMENTS, AND PUBLIC MESSAGES ARE MANAGED TO ENSURE STABILITY AND SECURITY OF THE DNS AND THE INTERNET. IT IS TO ENSURE THAT THESE FUNCTIONS CONTINUE TO OPERATE SMOOTHLY, THAT THE AUTHORITATIVE FUNCTIONS OPERATE SMOOTHLY, THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SENSE OF IT'S SUDDENLY GOING TO FALL OFF THE EDGE OF THE EARTH WHILE WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH AN ACTUAL BUSINESS FAILURE OR FINANCIAL FAILURE OF ICANN AS AN ENTITY. AND THERE'S A SERIES OF STEPS THAT HAVE BEEN WORKED THROUGH.

THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THE ICANN EXECUTIVE STAFF COMMUNICATE TO THE CHAIRMAN THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM. AND WITH BUSINESS FAILURE OR INSOLVENCY, THESE ARE SORT OF THE PROBLEMS THAT DON'T HAPPEN SUDDENLY. THEY'RE THE SORT OF THING YOU ARE GOING TO GET INDICATIONS OF THAT THIS IS A DIFFICULTY. THE SECOND IS THAT THE ICANN CHAIRMAN IS TO INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR TO CONFIRM THE NATURE OF FINANCIAL ISSUES. IF THERE'S A DETERMINATION THERE'S A RISK OF INSOLVENCY OR COMPLETE BUSINESS FAILURE, THERE IS TO BE A CREATION OF AN EXECUTIVE STABILITY COMMITTEE WITH THE UGLY ACRONYM EXSTABCOM, WITH AN APPOINTED EMINENT PERSON, ADDING THREE PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE CHAIR OF THE SECURITY AND STABILITY COMMITTEE, THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, AND AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR. THESE FOUR PEOPLE'S RESPONSIBILITY WILL BE TO ENSURE THAT EXECUTIVE DECISIONS ARE MADE SUCH THAT THE ELECTRICITY IS KEPT ON, WORK KEEPS HAPPENING. THERE WILL BE CONSULTATION AND ADVICE SOUGHT FROM THE WIDER COMMUNITY, IF APPROPRIATE, TO ENSURE ONGOING OPERATIONS OR CORE FUNCTIONS. ANOTHER THING THAT THE EXSTABCOM WILL DO IS APPOINT AN EMERGENCY NAMES AND ADDRESSING COMMITTEE. AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS COMMITTEE IS TO ASSIST THE EXSTABCOM TO EXECUTE ICANN'S TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL FUNCTIONS. AND HERE IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. TO ASSIST THAT GROUP TO FORM A REPLACEMENT OR REFORMED ENTITY. IF YOU LIKE, IF IT'S A -- IF THOSE OF YOU UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF CHAPTER 11 IN THE UNITED STATES, BANKRUPTCY RULES, THIS IS THE GROUP THAT WILL HELP IN THE RE-FORMING OF THE ENTITY, THE RE-FORMING OF THE BALANCE SHEET, THE RE-FORMING OF HOW THIS ORGANIZATION SHOULD GO FORWARD. THE EMERGENCY NAMES AND ADDRESSING COMMITTEE IS DESIGNED TO BE INTERNATIONALLY REPRESENTATIVE AND REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS. SO IT CONSISTS OF ONE GAC REPRESENTATIVE FROM EACH REGION, SO FIVE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES FROM AROUND THE WORLD; ONE APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE OF EACH OF THE GNSO CONSTITUENCIES; ONE APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ALAC, CONSUMER INTERESTS FROM EACH REGION AROUND THE WORLD, SO FIVE OF THOSE; TWO APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, ONE CC REPRESENTATIVE FROM EACH REGION. ONE ROOT SERVER OPERATOR, ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM ICANN'S TECHNICAL LIAISON GROUP; THE SSAC CHAIR, AND TWO SSAC MEMBERS; AND ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE INTERNET ARCHITECTURE BOARD. SO IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE AN INTERNATIONAL GROUP REPRESENTING GOVERNMENTS, TECHNICAL COMMUNITY, CC'S, ALL THE CONSTITUENCIES FROM AROUND THE WORLD WHO WILL BE GIVING ADVICE AS TO WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT. A COUPLE OF KEY POINTS. YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THERE IS NO SPECIAL RESERVE POSITION FOR A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. THERE IS NO SPECIAL RESERVE PLACE FOR THE USG. THERE ARE, I THINK, FIVE OR SEVEN COUNTRIES IN ICANN'S NORTH AMERICAN REGION. THE UNITED STATES MIGHT BE ONE OF THOSE IN THE GAC GROUPING FOR NORTH AMERICA; IT MAY NOT. SO THERE IS NO SPECIAL PLACE FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. IMPORTANTLY, THIS IS FULLY REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH THE INTERNATIONAL MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EXECUTIVE STABILITY COMMITTEE IS, THEY, ARE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO ENSURE THE DAILY OPERATIONS WORK AND WE DON'T END UP WITH LOG JAMS. THE ENAC IS REPRESENTATIVE, BUT IF WE WERE TO PUT EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS PURELY THIS THEIR HANDS, WE COULD END UP WITH DELAYS ABOUT MAKING CHANGES TO SERVERS OR PUTTING ELECTRICITY ON. SO IT'S A TWO-PART FUNCTION.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE POINT WHICH WAS MADE, I THINK, ALSO IN THE GAC MEETING THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WHO MADE RECOMMENDATIONS TO US ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF THIS REPRESENTATION. SO THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED AND PUT IT TO US THAT WE SHOULD ACTUALLY MAKE SUCH A MODEL AND THAT THE MODEL SHOULD BE AS INTERNATIONAL AS IT IS. I'M INTERESTED, AND YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN ON MONDAY OR TUESDAY OF THIS WEEK THAT MIKE GALLAGHER, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION, MAKING COMMENTS ON THE COMPLETION OF THOSE SEVEN STEPS AND THE MILESTONES, MADE THE FOLLOWING COMMENT WHICH YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN. I'M PLEASED THAT ICANN HAS TIMELY MET THE MOU MILESTONES TO DATE. CLEARLY MORE WORK REMAINS TO COMPLETE THOSE MILESTONES. WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY WITH ICANN TO COMPLETE THE REMAINING TASKS OVER THE COURSE OF THE MOU AS WE COMPLETE THE TRANSITION TO INDEPENDENT, PRIVATE-SECTOR MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM. SO I THINK FOR THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE INTENTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WHEN IT COMES TO ICANN, THE NATURE OF THE CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND THE PUBLIC STATEMENTS OF SENIOR OFFICIALS, I THINK, INDICATE THEIR INTENTIONS. THE CCNSO HAS MADE IN THE LAST -- DURING THIS MEETING THE COMPLETION OF THE CCNSO HAS TAKEN PLACE BETWEEN ROME AND HERE IN KUALA LUMPUR. THERE ARE OVER 40 MEMBERS. THE ELECTIONS TO THE CCNSO COUNCIL HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, AND THE WORK OF THE CCNSO LAUNCHING GROUP HAS BEEN COMPLETED. AND WITH THE FIRST COUNCIL MEETING TOOK PLACE HERE IN KL, WE WILL HEAR MORE FROM THEM LATER TODAY. BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY CONGRATULATIONS TO THOSE PEOPLE. CONGRATULATIONS TO THE FORMATION OF THE CCNSO. AND CERTAINLY FROM THE BOARD LEVEL. (APPLAUSE.)

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THERE ARE ISSUES BEING DISCUSSED IN THE GTLD BOARD. WE WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS TODAY, BUT THE ISSUES SUCH AS WHOIS, THE LAUNCH OF THE INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFERS POLICY HAS BEEN ACHIEVED. MORE POLICY ON DELETES. ALSO ON THE PROCEDURES FOR DESIGNATION OF THE SUBSEQUENT DOT NET REGISTRY OPERATOR. WE'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT TODAY.

ONE OF THE TASKS THAT WE REQUIRED TO DO IN THIS NEXT COMING SIX MONTHS IS WORK THROUGH A PROCESS OR DEVELOP A PROCESS FOR HOW WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE QUESTIONS OF INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS, IF THAT IS APPROPRIATE. AND IN TUNIS, THE BOARD RECOMMENDED -- THE BOARD RESOLVED THAT SOME INITIAL WORK BE DONE, BE TASKED FOR INPUT TOWARDS THAT CONSIDERATION. ONE IS SOME WORK TO BE DONE BY AN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS ORGANIZATION ON THE ECONOMICS OF THE GTLD MARKETPLACE. ONE WAS SOME WORK TO BE DONE BY WIPO, SOME OTHER WORK WAS TO BE DONE BY THE RSSAC, AND THE OECD HAS COMPLETED ITS REPORT, AND MANY OF YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THAT AT REGISTRATION. MUCH OF THE ATTENTION OF THAT WORK WAS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT THE POSSIBLE USE OF AUCTIONS AS A WAY OF ALLOCATING NEW GTLDS OR FINANCIAL MEASURES FOR ALLOCATING. I WON'T MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT. I'LL LEAVE IT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO READ FURTHER, BUT AS SAM (INAUDIBLE) MADE CLEAR IN HIS GTLD PRESENTATION, MADE CLEAR TO ME THE IMPORTANT PART OF THEIR REPORT WAS THE FIRST SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF IT ACTUALLY ANALYZING THE HISTORY OF ICANN AND ANALYZING WHETHER, AS AN INTERNATIONAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MODEL IT HAD BEEN EFFECTIVE IN ADDRESSING CERTAIN KEY INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC REQUIREMENTS. AND I THOUGHT I'D JUST LET YOU READ THROUGH A COUPLE OF THE QUOTES HERE BECAUSE WE SHOULD ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THIS VERY CAREFULLY. THIS IS AN ORGANIZATION OF SOME 34 GOVERNMENTS, I THINK IT IS. SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TOWARDS, IF YOU LIKE, GOOD ECONOMICS. THERE'S GOOD ECONOMIC POLICY BEING FOLLOWED. AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE PAPER IS THAT ICANN'S REFORM OF THE MARKET STRUCTURE FOR THE REGISTRATION OF GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL. THE DIVISION BETWEEN REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR FUNCTIONS HAS CREATED A COMPETITIVE MARKET THAT HAS LOWERED PRICES AND ENCOURAGED INNOVATION. THE INITIAL EXPERIENCE WITH COMPETITION AT THE REGISTRY LEVEL IN ASSOCIATION WITH A SUCCESSFUL PROCESS TO INTRODUCE NEW GTLDS HAS ALSO SHOWN POSITIVE RESULTS. ANOTHER PLACE, IT FURTHER GOES, "TRADITIONALLY, THE REGISTRATION OF DOMAIN NAMES WAS A ONE DIMENSIONAL SERVICE. THE OPENING OF THE GTLD REGISTRAR MARKET HAS, HOWEVER, BROUGHT TREMENDOUS INNOVATION IN TERMS OF NEW SERVICES AND SEAMLESSLY LINKED VALUE ADDED IN TERMS OF REGISTRATION." AND ONE OF THE FINAL ONES I'LL DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO, "WHEN OECD COUNTRIES ALLOCATE RESOURCES THEY HAVE CERTAIN COMMON OBJECTIVES IRRESPECTIVE OF THE METHOD CHOSEN OF THESE CAN INCLUDE EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF A RESOURCE AND EFFICIENT USE OF THAT RESOURCE, TRANSPARENCY IN THE AWARD OF RESOURCE, NONDISCRIMINATION, AND THE CREATION OF APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS FOR MARKET COMPETITION. THERE MAY ALSO BE OTHER WIDER ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL OBJECTIVES. THROUGH STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT ICANN SHARES THE IDEALS AND INHERENT IN THESE OBJECTIVES." SO I JUST THOUGHT YOU SHOULD ALL CONGRATULATE YOURSELVES, AMONGST THE NOISE, AMONGST TENSION, THE JOSTLING TO AND FROM IN THE LAST YEARS ABOUT THIS WHOLE MARKETPLACE, AN INDEPENDENT, THIRD GROUP HAVE HAD A REVIEW, DONE A REPORT CARD, IF YOU LIKE. AND I THINK THAT'S NOT A BAD REPORT CARD FOR THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT WE'VE MANAGED TO ACHIEVE IN THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. SOME ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS. WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF RECRUITING SOME KEY STAFF. I WILL DRAW PEOPLE'S ATTENTION HERE TO THE WONDERFUL SCREENS OUTSIDE WHICH ARE SCROLLING THROUGH. THERE ARE QUITE A NUMBER OF JOB POSITIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. WE'RE PARTICULARLY LOOKING FOR CANDIDATES FROM THE ASIA-PACIFIC, SO WE HOPE PEOPLE WILL LOOK AT THOSE JOBS EITHER ON THE WEB SITE OR ON THE SCREENS. AND IF YOU'VE GOT AN INTEREST, PLEASE LET US KNOW. THERE IS A NEW BUDGET UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND THE ADVICE PRESIDENT OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS WILL SPEAK MORE LATER. WE'RE ALSO IN THE FINAL STAGES OF AN APPOINTMENT OF THE OMBUDSMAN POSITION. CANDIDATES HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED. THERE ARE SOME OTHER ISSUES WHICH WILL BE DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD TOMORROW BUT WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO HAVING THE OMBUDSMAN SITUATION FINALIZED. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE AFRINIC DEVELOPMENTS HAVE CONTINUED. THE PROCESS OF SETTING UP AFRINIC WAS STARTED IN 2000. THE EMERGING RIR HAS KEPT US ABREAST OF ITS PROGRESS AND WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR AN UPDATE FROM THEM TODAY. AND I THINK I CAN SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE STAR AND BOARD THAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO HELPING IT BECOME A FULL OPERATIONAL RIR WITH THE DUE PROCESS. SOME OF THE OTHER ONGOING WORK, EXAMPLES IS THE COMMUNICATION OUTREACH WORK, AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIALS, YOU'LL SEE ANOTHER STEP-UP IN THE MATERIALS WHICH ICANN PRODUCES IN TERMS OF THE NEWSLETTER. WE ARE LOOKING TO TURN THAT NEWSLETTER, WITH YOUR AGREEMENT, INDIVIDUALLY WITH YOUR AGREEMENT, FROM BEING A PAPER VERSION TO MOVING TO AN ELECTRONIC VERSION. AND WE'D LIKE TO MOVE, BETWEEN NOW AND CAPE TOWN, TO START SENDING MEMBERS OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY ELECTRONIC UPDATES, IF YOU LIKE. WE'RE CONSCIOUS THAT WE PUT A LOT OF INFORMATION ON OUR WEB SITE, BUT MANY OF YOU HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO DURING DATA THAN GO TO THE ICANN WEB SITE, SO WE THOUGHT WE WOULD BE MOVING TOWARDS HAVING BRIEF ELECTRONIC BULLETINS TO UPDATE YOU ON THINGS TAKING PLACE OR CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED. THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE HAS BEGUN ITS WORK, AND CALLS FOR NOMINATION ARE UNDER WAY AND WE WILL HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE CHAIR LATER TODAY. THERE ARE, OF COURSE, LITIGATION MATTERS, WE CONTINUE TO BE IN LITIGATION. THE SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN PROCESS IS STILL UNDER WAY AND GOING THROUGH EVALUATION. WE'LL HAVE A REPORT TODAY. AND WE'LL ALSO HAVE A REPORT FROM THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SO BOARD, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PAUL.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION AFTER WE'VE COMPLETED THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS THE REPORT ON THE BUDGET -- I'M SORRY, PAUL?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I WONDER IF I CAN SAY ONE OTHER THING, VINT. I SHOULD ALSO SAY THAT CERTAINLY FROM THE STAFF PERSPECTIVE, WE HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED WITH THE ASSISTANCE AND THE HELP AND THE PLANNING BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AND THE HOST COMMITTEE HERE IN KUALA LUMPUR. IT'S BEEN A MAGNIFICENT EFFORT. WE'VE BEEN EXCEPTIONALLY PLEASED.

MY BAROMETER IS WHETHER THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE ARE HAPPY AND IN THE MORNING WHETHER THEY'RE SCOWLING OR HAVE SMILES ON THEIR FACES. THEY HAVE HAD SMILES EVERY DAY I'VE BEEN HERE. IT'S BEEN A MAGNIFICENT JOB AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE HOST COMMITTEE, THE GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA, SHARIL AND OTHERS FOR THAT (APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: WE HOPE WE'LL HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION FURTHER TOMORROW AT THE BOARD MEETING.

I'D LIKE TO CALL ON KURT PRITZ NOW TO PRESENT THE CURRENT BUDGET STATE OF AFFAIRS.

>>PAUL TWOMEY:CHAIRMAN, I THINK THE AGENDA WOULD CALL FOR THE FINANCE COMMITTEE TO REPORT BEFORE THE VICE PRESIDENT.

>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY; WHAT I'VE DONE HERE IS COMPLETELY SKIP OVER THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE AND THE MEETING COMMITTEE AND THE FINANCE COMMITTEE

(LAUGHTER.)

>>VINT CERF: OUR GUYS BACK HERE MAY BE SMILING AND MY BRAIN IS JUST NOT FUNCTIONING. MY APOLOGIES. KURT, YOU CAN BE SEATED AND I'LL CALL ON NJERI RIONGE TO PRESENT THE AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT. NJERI.

>>NJERI RIONGE: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. I'LL JUST PROCEED BY READING THE REPORT TO YOU.

THE AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT FOR JULY 2004, AND THE MEMBERS ARE RAIMUNDO BECA, WHO HAS JOINED US DURING THIS MEETING, VENI MARKOVSKI, THOMAS NILES, AND NJERI RIONGE, THE CHAIR. THE AUDIT COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED THE ACTION POINTS AND SUGGESTIONS EMERGING FROM THE LAST MEETING HELD IN ROME, ITALY IN MARCH 2004. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE ACTION POINTS OF OUR PREVIOUS MEETING AND UPDATED THE SCHEDULES FOR THE DELIVERABLES, WITH DEFINITE TIME LINES IN ORDER TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ICANN'S BYLAWS BY THE CLOSE OF MEETING IN CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA AS FOLLOWS. THE CALL FOR PROPOSAL WAS ISSUED AND WE ARE CURRENTLY WAITING FOR RESPONSES FROM POTENTIAL AUDITORS. THE COMMITTEE WILL REVIEW THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD SUCCESSFUL SHORT LISTED CANDIDATES FOR THE BOARD TO APPOINT BY THE AUDITOR BY THE NEXT MEETING IN CAPE TOWN. THE PREPARATION OF THE FINANCIAL AUDIT FOR YEAR 2003-2004 IS ON SCHEDULE AS REQUIRED BY THE ICANN BYLAWS. WE WILL REVIEW THE DRAFT AND THE FINAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT WITHIN THE 120-DAY FRAMEWORK, AND FORWARD THEM TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2004. THE BOARD WILL REVIEW AND ADOPT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS DURING THE FOLLOWING BOARD SCHEDULED CALL, SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 19TH, 2004. AS NOTED IN THE COMMITTEE'S LAST REPORT, WE ARE RETAINING THE CURRENT AUDITOR, KPMG, FOR ICANN'S FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-2004 ACCOUNTS. AN ANALYSIS OF ICANN'S RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS HAS BEEN ONGOING FOR THE LAST FOUR MONTHS, AND A CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR BUSINESS CONTINUITY IS IN THE FINAL REVIEW PROCESS. IN ADDITION, THE INTRODUCTION OF THE FINANCIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS AND INSTALLATION OF THE NEW FINANCIAL SOFTWARE ARE CURRENTLY UNDERWAY. AS MENTIONED IN OUR LAST REPORT, WE ARE COMMITTED TO THE COMPLETION OF THESE PROCESSES BY DECEMBER 2004. IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE PROJECTS, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WILL VISIT ICANN'S MARINA DEL REY OFFICES DURING OCTOBER 2004 TO DO THE FOLLOWING. CONDUCT AN OFFICIAL SITE AUDIT OF THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEM, MEET FORMALLY WITH THE CURRENT AUDITORS BEFORE THE FINAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT GOES TO THE BOARD FOR ITS APPROVAL; OBTAIN A COMPLETE REPORT FROM THE AUDITORS WHICH WILL FACILITATE THE INSTALLATION OF A FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. INTERVIEW THE SHORT-LISTED AUDITORS BEFORE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD. AND FACILITATE ASSISTANCE WHERE NECESSARY TO THE FINANCIAL TEAM REGARDING THE KEY RESULT AREAS AND THE KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS. IT IS THE COMMITTEE'S INTENTION TO MEET OUR CURRENT DEADLINE OF JANUARY 2005 BY FORWARDING THE FINAL ADJUSTMENTS IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT, POLICY, ALONG WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE AUDITORS FOR FISCAL 2004-2005 BY DECEMBER 2004 TO THE BOARD FOR REVIEW AND ADOPTION. THE COMMITTEE IS COMMITTED TO MEETING THE ACTION PLANS FOR THIS YEAR 2004-2005, WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL OFFER ICANN BOARD, STAFF, COMMUNITY AT LARGE AND THE NECESSARY SUPPORT, AS PER THE ICANN BYLAWS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, NJERI. I NOTED ONE SMALL TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. SOMEWHERE IN THE EARLY PART OF THE TEXT IT MENTIONS THAT THE BOARD WILL "ADAPT" THE REPORT. I SUSPECT WE MEANT ADOPT. IF WE ADAPT IT, THAT PROBABLY CONSTITUTES SOME ODD FORM OF ACCOUNTING AND WE'LL ALL BE IN JAIL.

>>NJERI RIONGE: SORRY. THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: THE NEXT REPORT -- SORRY?

THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM ALEJANDRO PISANTY IN HIS ROLE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE. BRIEF PAUSE WHILE MR. GATES DOES HIS THING.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: GOOD MORNING FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, CHAIRMAN, AUDIENCE. THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE HAS MET BY TELECONFERENCE SEVERAL TIMES, THROUGH E-MAIL AND EXCHANGE OF DRAFT DOCUMENTS AND HELD A PHYSICAL MEETING IN KUALA LUMPUR WHICH WAS ATTENDED BY ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.

THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE HAS FINISHED A DRAFT OF GOVERNANCE AND CONDUCT GUIDELINES FOR THE BOARD, WHICH --

>>VINT CERF: REMEMBER, THEY'RE TYPING.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: YES.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THE -- I'LL START AGAIN THIS PART.

THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE HAS FINISHED A DRAFT OF GOVERNANCE AND CONDUCT GUIDELINES FOR THE BOARD AND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BOARD AND STAFF, WHICH IS READY TO CIRCULATE AMONG THE FULL BOARD. IT HAS BEEN SIGNED OFF NOW BY THE COMMITTEE. RESPECTING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT AND THE ALREADY FULL AGENDA FOR THE MEETINGS IN KUALA LUMPUR, WE HAVE DECIDED TO CIRCULATE THE DOCUMENT TO THE FULL BOARD STARTING NEXT MONDAY. SO FOR DISCUSSION, FURTHER ELABORATION, AND ITS POSSIBLE ACCEPTANCE. THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE HAS FULFILLED ITS TASK OF PROPOSING TO THE BOARD COMPILATION OF COMMITTEES. THIS WILL BE PRESENTED LATER TODAY BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE TO DISCUSS WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS THE POSITIONS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING. IT'S A MINOR CHANGE. IT WILL BE PUT FORWARD FOR BOARD RESOLUTION TOMORROW AT THE BOARD MEETING. THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE PROPOSED TO THE BOARD FOR RESOLUTION THAT DESIGNATION OF A MEMBER OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE FOR THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE BYLAWS. AFTER A PROCESS OF CONSULTATION WITH A NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES OF NATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NETWORKS WELL ACQUAINTED WITH ICANN, THE COMMITTEE HAD A RICH CHOICE OF CANDIDATES, AMONG WHICH WAS SELECTED PROFESSOR GEORGE MCLAUGHLIN WHO IS A LEADER OF NETWORKS IN (INAUDIBLE), THAT'S REUNA AND DANTE, WE THANK THEM FOR THE HARD WORK THEY DID IN PROPOSING CANDIDATES AND TO ALL THOSE WE CONTACTED. AND WE ARE ALSO GRATEFUL TO DR. OBLINGER FOR HER AND HER ORGANIZATION'S FAVORABLE DISPOSITION IN THIS PROCESS. FINALLY, THE COMMITTEE WISHES TO EXPRESS ITS THANKS TO JOHN JEFFREY, KURT PRITZ AND PAUL TWOMEY WITHOUT WHOSE ATTENTION AND ASSISTANCE OUR TASK WOULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S A VERY POSITIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE REPORT. THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM VENI MARKOVSKI WHO IS CHAIRMAN OF THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE WITH INFORMATION ON WHERE WE ARE WITH REGARD TO FURTHER MEETINGS.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: THANK YOU.

WE HAVE HAD A MEETING IN KUALA LUMPUR WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE. AND HERE IS A SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE MADE. FIRST OF ALL, WE WANT TO THANK TO EVERYONE WHO SENT PROPOSALS FOR THE MEETINGS IN 2005, 2006, 2007. WE HAVE PRETTY GOOD VARIETY OF CHOICES, AND IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH WHERE EXACTLY AND IN WHAT CONDITIONS TO HAVE MEETINGS, ESPECIALLY THAT WE HAVE FACED IN KUALA LUMPUR SOMETHING WHICH WE HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE, THAT IT'S A PERFECT VENUE AND A PERFECT ORGANIZATION AND A PERFECT SHARIL AS A HOST, FOR WHICH WE WILL HAVE A SPECIAL THANK YOU NOTE TOMORROW.

WE ARE GOING TO SEND JOHN (INAUDIBLE) AND MICHAEL EVANS TO ARGENTINA FOR THE MARCH 2005. WE NEED TO HAVE A SIDE REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE PENDING ANY ISSUES THAT MIGHT ARISE DURING THE SITE VISIT, THE COMMITTEE WILL ADVISE THE CEO TO -- WHETHER TO ACCEPT AND HOW TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL AND TO PROPOSE IT TO THE BOARD. FOR THE JULY 2005, MICHAEL EVANS WILL BE TRAVELING TO LUXEMBOURG AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THAT BASICALLY MEANS IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. WE ALSO NEED TO HAVE A SITE REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE. FOR THE DECEMBER 2005, WE HAVE TAKEN NO DECISION AT THIS TIME. WE NEED TO MAKE FURTHER RESEARCHES ON THE PROPOSALS, AND WE ALSO NEED TO HAVE SITE VISITS ON BOTH CANDIDATES CITIES. AND WE ALSO NEED TO HAVE SITE VISITS FOR THE 2006 PROPOSALS BECAUSE THERE ARE TOO MANY -- THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE PROPOSAL FOR THE DIFFERENT MONTHS OR THE DIFFERENT MEETINGS, AND WE JUST -- WE JUST REALLY HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE GOOD AND POSITIVE LESSONS WE HAVE GAINED FROM THE KUALA LUMPUR MEETING. AND FRANKLY SPEAKING, I THINK THAT WE HAVE A THANKFUL NOTE FOR SHARIL AND THE HOSTS HERE. WE HAVE TO MAKE A SPECIAL NOTE FOR THE FUTURE, CITIES TO HOST ICANN MEETINGS, THAT THEY SHOULD NOT RAISE THE BAR SO HIGH THAT WE HAVE TO SOMEHOW FIND A SOLUTION FOR THE NEXT MEETINGS, YOU KNOW. OTHERWISE, WE MAY END UP HAVING MEETINGS ONLY IN KUALA LUMPUR. (LAUGHTER.)

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: AFTER 2006.

SO THIS IS THE MESSAGE THAT WE HAVE FOR THE ICANN INTERESTED PARTIES. AND WE HOPE TO BE ABLE TO FINALLY OKAY THE MEETINGS IN 2005 IN THE BOARD MEETINGS EITHER IN AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER OVER THE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALLS. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VENI. SO I SEE WE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO SOME VERY INTERESTING AND, I THINK, VERY BENEFICIAL VENUES FOR FUTURE MEETINGS.

I'D LIKE TO NOW CALL ON THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, IVAN CAMPOS, TO MAKE HIS REPORT.

>>IVAN MOURA CAMPOS: THANK YOU, VINT.

MAY I HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE, MARK, PLEASE. THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE MYSELF, TRICIA DRAKES, HAGEN HULTZSCH, TOM NILES AND MIKE PALAGE. AFTER ROME, WE HAD THESE TELECONFERENCES AND NUMEROUS PHONE CALLS AND WHAT HAVE YOU, AND WE HAD ON THE 20TH OF JULY, THIS WEEK WE HAD A MEETING WITH THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP, AND YET ANOTHER FACE TO FACE MEETING ON THE 21ST OF JULY. SO THIS GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF THE ACTIVITY. THE ISSUES DISCUSSED, NOT SURPRISINGLY, ARE THE CURRENT BUDGET EXECUTION AND THE FOLLOW-UP OF ITS EXECUTION. AND ALSO DISCUSSIONS ON THE PROPOSED BUDGET, AND GETTING UPDATES AND FEEDBACK TO STAFF ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES. NEXT, PLEASE. AND WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS TO SHARE WITH YOU. OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD, THROUGH INITIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCES AS WELL AS IN PERSONAL MEETINGS, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE CAREFULLY EVALUATED ICANN'S TASKS AND THE RESULTING RESOURCE NEEDS, AS REFLECTED IN THE CORRESPONDING BUDGET NUMBERS. OUR CONSISTENT OBJECTIVE WAS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A BUDGET THAT PERMITS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ICANN'S GOALS AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE FUNDING LEVEL. WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED BUDGET SATISFIES THOSE OBJECTIVES. NEXT, PLEASE. ALSO, THE FINANCIAL COMMITTEE VOTED TO RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET, AND TO KEEP ASSISTING THE CEO AND STAFF IN THE CONTINUING DIALOGUE WITH STAKEHOLDERS IN ORDER TO REACH CLOSURE ON THE OUTSTANDING DETAILS OF THE REVENUE MODEL. NEXT, PLEASE. AND FINALLY, IN EVALUATING THE DRAFT BUDGET'S PROPOSED EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES, THE COMMITTEE RECOGNIZED THAT THE INCREASING DEMANDS PLACED ON ICANN BY ITS VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES, AS WELL AS THE WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE TASKS IN THE CURRENT AND FINAL MOU WITH THE USDOC NECESSITATED THE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES ENVISAGED. IN THIS WORK, THE COMMITTEE HAD -- ALSO HAD TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE DYSFUNCTIONAL ASPECTS OF ICANN'S CURRENT FUNDING STRUCTURE WHICH IT HOPES CAN BE OVERCOME, AND THE UNFORTUNATE NECESSITY ICANN FACES TO DEFEND INTEGRITY AND STABILITY OF VARIOUS ACTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW, IF I'M READING MY NOTES CORRECTLY I CAN CALL ON KURT PRITZ TO PRESENT THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2004-2005 WHICH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING.

>>KURT PRITZ: THIS UPCOMING YEAR'S PROPOSED BUDGET DOES A FEW THINGS. IT PROVIDES RESOURCES THAT ICANN NEEDS TO ACCOMPLISH THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. IT WAS ALSO BORNE OUT OF AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN ICANN STAFF, THE BOARD, AND THE VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES IN THE INTERNET COMMUNITY. AND FINALLY, IT SETS A LONGER TERM LOOK IN THE OUT YEARS BEYOND THIS YEAR TO MANAGE THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY WITH REGARD TO WHAT ICANN'S GOALS ARE AND WHAT THE FEES THE COMMUNITY MIGHT PAY ARE.

THERE ARE FIVE SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS TO THIS BUDGET. ONE IS THE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THAT OCCURRED INSIDE ICANN, HOW THAT BUDGET WAS BUILT UP. SECOND WAS THE FORMULATION OF ICANN'S GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE YEAR, AND THE SOURCES OF THOSE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. AFTER THAT, THERE WAS EXTENSIVE COLLABORATION WITH THE COMMUNITY, AND AS A RESULT, THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO THE BUDGET, BOTH ON THE REVENUE AND EXPENSE SIDE IN A WAY THAT I BELIEVE IS VERY POSITIVE. FOURTH, WE'RE DEVELOPING NEW REVENUE STRUCTURES. IN THE SHORT TERM, WE'RE LOOKING TO MATCH THE REGISTRARS RISK WITH ICANN'S RISK AS FAR AS FUTURE REVENUE GOES AND PROPOSE A FAIRER FEE COLLECTION METHOD FROM GTLD REGISTRARS. IN THE LONGER TERM, WE'RE LOOKING TO LIGHTEN THE LOAD OF THOSE GTLD REGISTRARS BY GROWING ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF FUNDING THAT WE THINK ARE REQUIRED FOR ICANN'S LONG-TERM HEALTH AND STABILITY. AND FINALLY, LIKE I SAID, WE LOOK A LITTLE BIT TO THE LONG TERM TO FORECAST FUTURE FEES AND GOALS. THE ICANN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THIS YEAR WAS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT. WE'VE CREATED SEVEN DEPARTMENTS WITHIN ICANN, AND ASKED EACH DEPARTMENTAL MANAGER TO BUILD UP A BUDGET FOR HIS DEPARTMENTAL GROUP, GIVEN THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES HE HAS FOR THE YEAR. SO FROM A MANAGER'S STANDPOINT THIS IS A REALLY GOOD THING FOR ME BECAUSE I NOT ONLY GET TO THE MANAGER TO BUILD HIS BUDGET UP BUT THEN I ALSO HAVE A TOOL BY WHICH TO MANAGE THAT DEPARTMENT HEAD. AND I HAVE FREQUENT CONVERSATIONS WITH PAUL TWOMEY ABOUT IMPLEMENTING ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS AND RESPONSIBILITY MECHANISMS, SO THIS BUDGET IS NOT JUST ABOUT A SPENDING PLAN BUT IT'S ALSO ABOUT BUILDING TOOLS UP FOR MEASURING STAFF PERFORMANCE. IN BUILDING UP THAT BUDGET WE MATCHED THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF EACH DEPARTMENT WITH THE RESOURCES NEEDED. SO THERE'S A ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE FOR EVERY DOLLAR PAID, IT'S A ZERO SUM BUDGET WHERE EVERY DOLLAR IS EARMARKED FOR SOME EFFORT. NONETHELESS, AFTER THAT DOLLAR-FOR-DOLLAR BUILDUP, WE LOOK AT A SERIES OF MANAGEMENT REVIEWS TO MAKE SURE ALL THE SPENDING WAS DONE WISELY. AS A RESULT OF THAT, THE INITIAL BUDGET WAS SHRUNK BY ABOUT 25 PERCENT. VERY EARLY IN THE GAME WE HAD SOME CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMUNITY, SOME COMMUNITY MEMBERS, THAT ALSO LED TO SOME REDUCTIONS AND A SHIFTING OF PRIORITIES. THAT RESULTED IN SOME COMMUNITY IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS. A COUPLE EXAMPLES ARE THIS. WE HAD IN THE ORIGINAL BUDGET FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND POPULATION OF REGIONAL OFFICES, UP TO FOUR REGIONAL OFFICES IN VARIOUS REGIONS OF THE WORLD. WE WERE ABLE TO SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE AND NEARLY ELIMINATE THE FUNDING FOR THOSE THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS WE'RE HAVING WITH GOVERNMENTS AND NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE AID-IN-KIND IN AREAS SUCH AS STAFFING, OFFICES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE. AND ANOTHER EXAMPLE, WE HAD MONEY IN THE BUDGET TO CONSTRUCT AN IDN TEST BED SO WE COULD DO SOME TESTING REGARD THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FULL IDNS. AT THE SUGGESTION THAT THAT WASN'T REALLY OUR JOB BY SOME OF THE COMMUNITY, WE DELETED THAT FROM THE BUDGET, BUT WE HAVE A KIND OFFER OF ASSISTANCE FROM A REGISTRY TO ACT AS THE TEST BED FOR IDN IMPLEMENTATION. SO WE'RE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THOSE EFFORTS BY REDUCING THE BUDGET. SO PART OF THIS EFFORT RESULTED IN UNINTENDED BENEFITS TO US. WE DID DEVELOP MANY OBJECTIVES THAT PROVIDE BENEFIT. LET ME GO BACK. OKAY. ICANN'S GOALS AND OBJECTIVES WERE DEVELOPED FROM THREE PLACES. ONE IS THE SERVICE EXPECTED BY THE CONSTITUENCY GROUPS. THIS IS MY THIRD MEETING, AND I HOLD -- THE BEST PART OF THE MEETING IS GETTING OUT AND TALKING TO PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I LIKE TO DO, AND EVERYONE HAS LEGITIMATE THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT ICANN'S ROLE IS AND WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING DAY-TO-DAY IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY. THOSE EXPECTATIONS ARE PERFECTLY REASONABLE. WHEN I GO BACK TO THE SHOP AND LOOK AROUND FOR A WAY TO GET THAT DONE, THERE'S NO WAY TO GET THAT DONE. SO PART OF THE BUDGET IS A BUILDUP OF THOSE EXPECTATIONS WE HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT WE WISH TO -- THAT WE WISH TO ACCOMPLISH IN ORDER TO DELIGHT OUR CONSTITUENCY GROUPS. SECONDLY, AS PAUL TWOMEY ALLUDED TO, WE HAVE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE MOU TO ACCOMPLISH. THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY BRAND-NEW EFFORTS THAT WERE NEVER WITHIN ICANN'S SCOPE BEFORE. THIS THREE-YEAR MOU CONTAINS 24 SPECIFIC DELIVERABLES, 15 OF THEM HAVE SPECIFIC DATES BY WHICH THEY ARE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. SO THERE'S NOT AN OPPORTUNITY, REALLY, IF WE ARE GOING TO BE DECLARED INDEPENDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO PUSH THESE EFFORTS OUT. THEY NEED TO BE FUNDED NOW. FINALLY, THE DNS ENVIRONMENT IS GROWING AND REQUIRES MORE MANAGEMENT AND STAFF ATTENTION TO ADMINISTRATE IT. WE HAVE INCREASED NUMBER OF MARKET PARTICIPANTS, WE HAVE NEW INITIATIVES UNDER WAY FOR THE DESIGNATION OF NEW STLDS IN THE SHORT TERM AND NEW GTLDS IN THE SLIGHTLY LONGER TERM. WE WANT TO SUPPORT INNOVATIVE NEW SERVICES AND SUPPORT THE FORMATION OF THE NEW CCNSO. I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT WE WERE VERY CAREFUL THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS TO MEASURE OURSELVES AGAINST THE FOUR OBJECTIVES THAT PAUL PUT UP EARLIER ON THE SCREEN IN HIS TALK AND ALL OF THESE EFFORTS LIE CLEARLY WITHIN ICANN'S ORIGINAL CHARTER AS DESCRIBED BY THE WHITE PAPER. SOME OF THESE EFFORTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET ARE THESE. NOTABLY, WE HAVE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN EFFECTIVE CONTRACTUAL COMPLIANCE PROGRAM. MANY CONSTITUENCY GROUPS BELIEVE ICANN SHOULD BE DOING A MUCH BETTER JOB AT THIS. WE DO IT PASSIVELY RIGHT NOW BUT WE NEED TO DO IT ACTIVELY AND WE'RE MAKING A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT THIS YEAR IN ORDER TO DO THAT. WE WANT TO FACILITATE THE INTRODUCTION OF INNOVATION, AND THAT REQUIRES SUPPORT OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP. SO WE WANT TO SUPPORT IN A MUCH BETTER FASHION THE GNSO. AND WE'VE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS DURING THIS MEETING SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO FILLING THE JOB OPENINGS THAT ARE POSTED AND DEFINING WHAT THOSE TASKS ARE SO THAT WE CAN EFFECTIVELY SUPPORT THE GNSO AND FACILITATE THAT POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TO MAKE IT -- TO MAKE IT A PREDICTABLE, TRANSPARENT METHOD FOR DEVELOPING NEW PROCESSES AND FOSTERING INNOVATION. TRANSLATION IS A BIG PART OF WHAT WE'RE HOPING TO DO. I HOPE YOU NOTICED THE ICANN NEWSLETTER AND ALSO I THINK WE'RE UP TO NINE OR TEN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES IN THE -- IN SOME OF THE LITERATURE WE ARE DESCRIBING. OUR GOALS IN THE FUTURE ARE BROADER THAN THAT AND INVOLVE TRANSLATION OF THE WEB SITE AND BETTER COMMUNICATIONS WORLDWIDE. PAUL ALLUDED TO SOME OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS WE'RE MAKING. WE'RE AUTOMATING AND STREAMLINING THE IANA PROCESS. AND THE TOOLS THAT ARE DEVELOPED TO STREAMLINE THE IANA PROCESSES WILL SPILL OVER AND BE ABLE TO BE USED IN OTHER AREAS. WE TALKED ABOUT CONTINGENCY PLANNING EARLIER, INTRODUCTION OF IPV6. I DON'T NEED TO LIST THE REST OF THESE. BUT THE EFFORT TO SUPPORT THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW TLDS IS NEW. WE'RE ON THE ROAD TO CONDUCTING STUDIES TO IMPROVING WHOIS ACCURACY. BUT THEN WE'RE GOING TO NEED THE RESOURCES TO ACTUALLY IMPROVE IT ONCE WE HAVE THE PLAN IN PLACE. WE HAVE LITIGATION. THERE'S ANOTHER UNINTENDED BENEFIT TO COMMUNICATIONS I'VE HAD IN COLLABORATION ABOUT THE BUDGET IS THE POTENTIAL TO OUTSOURCE SOME OF OUR OPERATIONS IN THE WAY OF ANSWERING PHONES OR ANSWERING E-MAILS IN THAT TO A CHEAPER LOCATION. I TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT CONDUCTING OUTREACH AND ESTABLISHING REGIONAL OFFICES IN A VERY ECONOMIC WAY AND SUPPORTING IDN INITIATIVES AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS. THIS YEAR, WE'RE IMPLEMENTING THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. WE'VE ALSO IMPLEMENTED AN INDEPENDENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANELS. BOTH OF THOSE REQUIRE EXPENSE TO SUPPORT. THEY'RE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS. AND THEY ARE JUST LINE ITEMS THAT REALLY ARE REQUIRED. FINALLY, WE WANT TO INVOLVE STAFF TO PURSUE AGREEMENTS WITH THE RIRS AND THE CCTLDS TO ESTABLISH STABLE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM, WITH THE WITH ME AS THE FINANCE COMBINING REVENUES IS VERY EXCITING FOR ME. THE COLLABORATION THAT TOOK PLACE DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS HAS BEEN FAIRLY CONTINUAL FOR THE PAST FOUR MONTHS AT LEAST. WE DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED REVENUE MODEL AND THE PROPOSED EXPENSE MODEL. CHANGES WERE MADE TO BOTH. ABOUT ANOTHER -- I DESCRIBED A 25% REDUCTION IN THE BUDGET EARLIER. ABOUT ANOTHER 25 WAS KNOCKED OFF BASED ON THIS COLLABORATION. WE WORKED WITH THE -- THESE GROUPS HERE. THE COLLABORATION WITH THE GTLD REGISTRARS WAS ESPECIALLY SIGNIFICANT, AND PROBABLY HUNDREDS OF HOURS, ALL TOLD, SPENT ON THAT. THE REVENUE STRUCTURE FOR THIS YEAR IS REMARKABLY SIMILAR TO THAT IN PREVIOUS YEARS. WE RELY HEAVILY ON THE GTLD REGISTRARS FOR A SOURCE OF FUNDING. THE CHANGE THIS YEAR IS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING AND DECIDING UPON A TRANSACTION-BASED MODEL WHERE ICANN REVENUES ARE TIED TO THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE, THE IMPROVEMENT OR DROP IN MARKET SHARE OF THE REGISTRAR BUSINESSES, SO THAT IT GIVES THEM SOME PREDICTABILITY, BETTER PREDICTABILITY AS TO WHAT ICANN FEES MIGHT BE. WE ALSO RECEIVE SET FEES FROM THE GTLD REGISTRIES, THE CCTLDS, AND THE RIRS. VERY IMPORTANT INITIATIVES, THOUGH, IS FOR ICANN TO DEVELOP NEW SOURCES OF FUNDING. JUST FROM THE STANDPOINT OF A BUSINESS MODEL, IT DOESN'T MAKE SOUND BUSINESS SENSE TO RELY SO HEAVILY IN ONE AREA. AND SO WE'VE INITIATED SEVERAL EFFORTS THAT WE EXPECT TO BEAR FRUIT IN THE NEXT EIGHT MONTHS TO 12 MONTHS.

AND NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET WILL REFLECT A BROADER SPREAD OF THE FEE STRUCTURE.

SOME OF THESE OPPORTUNITIES ARE NEW TLDS, AS I DESCRIBED EARLIER, AND EXPIRING TLD REGISTRIES WHERE THE CONTRACT WILL BE RENEGOTIATED. WE'VE HAD MEETINGS WITH MEMBERS OF THE CCNSO THIS WEEK TO ARRIVE AT A METHODOLOGY FOR THEM -- WELL, THEY'RE ARRIVING AT A METHODOLOGY TO WORK TOGETHER TO ESTABLISH A FEE STRUCTURE FOR ICANN. AND SO THEY ARE WORKING THAT ISSUE WITHIN THE CCNSO. NEW REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR SERVICES ARE A SOURCE FOR ICANN TO REALIZE SOME REVENUE. AND, FINALLY, WE THINK THERE'S A VALUED SOURCE OF BUSINESS BENEFICIARIES THAT RELY ON THE STABILITY AND SECURITY OF THE INTERNET TO FACILITATE THEIR STREAMS OF MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. AND WE THINK THEY WOULD BE SELF-INTERESTED IN PROMOTING AND SUPPORTING ICANN. THIS BUDGET IS REALLY ONE STEP IN A MULTIYEAR PLAN. WE HAVE A THREE-YEAR MOU AND WE ALSO HAVE SOME GOALS THAT WILL TAKE MORE THAN A YEAR TO ACCOMPLISH. SO IT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE TO MAKE A SNAPSHOT ONE-YEAR BUDGET. THIS BUDGET IS PART OF THAT LONGER TERM. AND IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT ICANN MEETS ITS LONG-TERM GOALS AND ALSO PROVIDES NOTICE TO THE WHOLE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE IS GOING TO BRING. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THIS BUDGET, WE'VE ESTABLISHED RESOURCES THAT CAN BE USED IN THE OUT YEARS TO ENSURE THAT WE FULFILL THE OBLIGATIONS OF THIS MOU THAT WE -- WHERE WE NEED TO MEET THESE OBJECTIVES, AND WE'LL BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE LONG TERM. AND WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING THAT THE GTLD REGISTRAR FEES REMAIN -- THE MODEL REMAINS CONSTANT OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS. AND THIS BUDGET AFFIRMATIVELY SAYS THAT, AND THAT ANY OTHER GROWTH WILL COME FROM SPREADING OUT THE REVENUES, SPREADING OUT ICANN'S BUDGET ACROSS OTHER REVENUE STREAMS. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE. AND I'LL STAY UP HERE AND ANSWER QUESTIONS, ALONG WITH THE STAFF.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.

THANK YOU. IN FACT, WE NOW COME TO THE POINT IN THE AGENDA WHERE WE CAN HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND Q AND A. THE RANGE OF SUBJECTS FOR THIS PERIOD ARE THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT, THE BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND THE BUDGET. OTHER COMMENTS ON OTHER MATTERS WE WILL POSTPONE UNTIL LATER IN THE DAY. AMADEU, I THINK YOU'RE FIRST.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY.

THANKS. AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL. I HAD SOME COMMENTS ON THE BUDGET. BUT FIRST I WOULD LIKE ASKING KURT WHETHER HE COULD EXPLAIN MORE THE BUDGET REGARDING I THINK THE REGISTRIES HAVE NOT CHANGED, BUT THE CHARGES WERE ON THE REGISTRAR SIDE. IF HE WOULD EXPLAIN SOMETHING MORE, AT WHAT POINT WE ARE, BECAUSE WE HAVE SEVERAL ITERATIONS OF THE BUDGET. IT WAS NOT CLEAR FOR ME WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

>>KURT PRITZ: WELL, AS YOU KNOW, I THINK, AMADEU, THE REGISTRY FEES ARE SET BY -- OKAY. WRONG QUESTION?

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: THE ONES -- THE REGISTRARS.

>>KURT PRITZ: WHAT?

>> THE REGISTRARS.

>>VINT CERF: AMADEU, I THINK THE QUESTION ISN'T CLEAR.

DOUGH WANT TO TRY ONE MORE TIME.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: SORRY.

LET'S MAKE, THEN, THE COMMENT, WHETHER IT FITS THE CURRENT SITUATION OR NOT. I JUST WANTED TO DRAW THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD TO THE FACT THAT THIS YEAR WAS A CERTAIN CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE FEES. SOME OF THEM ARE VERY WELCOME, LIKE WITH KURT AND THE STAFF AND ALL OF THAT TO TRY TO STABILIZE A MODEL FOR THREE YEARS AND NOT HAVE EACH YEAR DIFFERENT SURPRISES ON THAT. MY CONCERN CAME HERE THROUGH A CERTAIN CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURE IN WHICH THERE WAS AN INCREASE OF THE FIXED CONTRIBUTIONS, THAT IS, THAT THOSE ARE EQUAL PER REGISTRAR, EVEN IF THEN THERE WERE SOME ADJUSTMENTS. QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK THAT THE BEST SYSTEM FROM ALL POINTS OF VIEW IS ONE THAT'S BASED IN A DOMAIN NAME FEE, BOTH FROM A BUDGETARY POSITION FOR ICANN AND BUDGETARY PROVISION AND ACCOUNTING PROVISION FOR THE REGISTRARS, BUT ALSO FROM A VERY IMPORTANT POINT OF VIEW, COMPETITION, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE MAIN FOUNDATIONS OF ICANN GOALS. AND I THINK THAT FROM ANY SIDE YOU SEE THAT FROM A COMPETITION POINT OF VIEW EQUAL FEE FOR DOMAIN NAME MANAGED BY A REGISTRAR IS MUCH BETTER THAN A FIXED FEE THAT CLEARLY AFFECTS IN A VERY DIFFERENT WAY THE SMALL REGISTRARS THAN THE BIGGER REGISTRARS. AND IN A WAY, THEY FAVOR THE BIGGER PLAYERS IN THIS GAME, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPETITION GOALS. I UNDERSTAND ALL THE, YOU KNOW, CONSTRAINTS WE ARE HAVING THAT TWO-THIRDS OF THE VOTES OF THE REGISTRARS REPRESENTING TWO-THIRDS OF THE REGISTRATIONS BEING MADE. BUT I STILL WOULD LIKE THE BOARD CONSIDERING WHAT ARE THE OTHER PRIORITIES AND WHETHER, YOU KNOW, A TRULY COMPETITIVE MODEL THAT DOESN'T FAVOR ANY SORT OF REGISTRARS OR REGISTRIES OVER OTHERS, ESPECIALLY THE BIG ONES OVER THE SMALL IS NOT ONE OF THE TOP PRIORITIES. THE SECOND COMMENT WAS THAT IN ORDER TO TRY TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF A FIXED COST FOR REGISTRIES, THERE WAS A SORT OF DOUBLE STANDARD. THE BIG ONES PAYING SOMETHING, AND IF YOU PROVE THAT YOU HAVE LESS THAN X REGISTRATIONS AND THAT YOU ARE A REAL REGISTRAR, LET'S SAY, ONE THAT IS HERE TO REGISTER DOMAIN NAMES ON BEHALF OF END USERS AND NOT WHAT WE ARE SEEING THIS EMERGING TREND OF THREAD RESELLERS, WHO RESELL THOSE TO THOSE OPERATING IN THE AFTER MARKET, BUT, IN FACT, THEY ARE PERFORMING VERY LITTLE REGISTRATIONS AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THERE WAS SOME SORT THAT ARE YOU NOT IN THIS CATEGORY, YOU PAY LESS. WELL, THE PROBLEM IS THAT HERE WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE A PROBLEM, WHICH IS THE EXISTENCE OF THESE OTHER SORT OF REGISTRARS THAT ONLY COME HERE TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE REGISTRY FOR OTHER PURPOSES THAN REGISTERING DOMAIN NAMES FOR END USERS THROUGH THE BUDGET. AND I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT TOOL TO USE. THIS IS A DIFFERENT PROBLEM THAT SHOULD BE SOLVED AT A DIFFERENT LEVEL AND NOT THROUGH THE BUDGET. THE THIRD COMMENT IN THIS AREA IS THAT SOME OF THE FIGURES I SAW WERE SOMETIMES ABSOLUTE FIGURES, LET'S SAY LESS THAN 230,000, LESS THAN "X" COMMANDS PER DOMAIN NAME. AND THIS MAY NOT SCALE VERY WELL IF YOU HAVE A SYSTEM FOR THREE YEARS, THESE FIXED FIGURES MAY NOT SCALE VERY WELL OVER THIS PERIOD OF TIME. SO THIS WAS MY COMMENTS IN THIS AREA. REGARDING -- BUT I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE ARE STILL HERE, WE CHANGED THE PROPOSITIONS. THE LAST COMMENT REGARDING THIS, REGARDING ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF FUNDING. AND HERE I WOULD SAY, AS I ALSO COMMENTED TO KURT AND MANY OTHERS, THAT PERHAPS IT'S TIME WE ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE COURAGEOUS AND IN THE SAME TIME THAT WE GOT OFFERS FOR FUNDING FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS LIKE OPENING AN OFFICE HERE AND THERE, PERHAPS WE SHOULD SEPARATE SOME PARTS WHICH ARE NOT JUST RUNNING THE SHOW, WHICH RUNNING THE SHOW SHOULD BE JUST PAID BY THE GNSO LEG OF ICANN, AND TAKE ALL THESE SPECIAL SECURITY PROJECTS, DNSSEC, IPV6, ALL THESE MORE FUNDAMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE THINGS, HAVE THAT AS A SEPARATE PROJECT AND ASK GOVERNMENTS AND CCTLDS TO CONTRIBUTE THERE INSTEAD OF SOME OF THEM CONTRIBUTING TO THE BUDGET. THE GOVERNMENTS SHOULD NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE GENERAL BUDGET, BUT THEY MAY CONTRIBUTE TO SOME OF THESE SPECIAL PROJECTS. THE CCTLDS SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE BUDGET, BUT THEY ARE NOT TODAY. SO PERHAPS AS A FAIR STEP, THEY COULD CONTRIBUTE TO SOME OF THESE PROJECTS TO BE OF SPECIAL INTEREST FOR THEM. AND THIS WOULD ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE PRESSURE ON, YOU KNOW, THOSE CURRENTLY PAYING.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, AMADEU.

I'M ALWAYS IMPRESSED BY YOUR ABILITY TO BRING TO A FAIRLY CRISP STATEMENT A VARIETY OF ISSUES. MIKE PALAGE.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: I THINK, IF I CAN, AMADEU, TRYING TO SUCCINCTLY POINT OUT A CUSTOM OF HIS ISSUES, I BELIEVE AMADEU WAS RAISING CONCERNS REGARDING THE VARIABLE REGISTRAR FEE.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME ICANN HAS IMPOSED IT IN THE CURRENT BUDGETARY STRUCTURE. THE ONE POINT THAT I DID WANT TO SHARE WITH REGARD TO AMADEU IS THAT WITH REGARD TO THE WAIVER IN THAT VARIABLE FEE, I THINK ICANN NEEDS TO PROCEED VERY CAUTIOUSLY SO AS NOT TO BE, IF YOU WILL, ENDORSING CERTAIN BUSINESS MODELS IN THE REGISTRAR MARKETPLACE. SO I JUST WANTED TO ELABORATE ON THAT POINT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MIKE.

KURT, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT?

>>KURT PRITZ: YEAH, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND, ALTHOUGH AMADEU AND I TALK OFTEN, SO WE COULD TALK OFFLINE.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THE FIXED FEE AND THE POTENTIAL UNFAIRNESS OF IT. AS WITH ANYTHING, AND AS YOU RECOGNIZED IN YOUR STATEMENT, THE CREATION OF A BUDGET IS A BALANCING. AND THE PER-DOMAIN NAME FEES HAVE GONE UP EVERY YEAR FOR SEVERAL YEARS FROM 12 CENTS TO 18 CENTS TO POTENTIALLY 25 CENTS NOW. SO WHAT -- THE RESULT IS A FAIRLY MODERATE FIXED FEE IS BEING IMPLEMENTED. BUT CERTAINLY PART OF THE BACK -- YEAH, THAT'S A VARIABLE FEE. THE PER-REGISTRAR FEE WAS WIDELY DISCUSSED, AND, IN FACT, A LOT OF THE REDUCTION IN IT IS A RESULT OF THAT DISCUSSION WITH SMALLER REGISTRARS. REGARDING YOUR COMMENTS ON THE BATCH POOL AND THAT SITUATION SHOULD BE SOLVED OTHERWISE AND NOT THROUGH THE BUDGET, I AGREE 100%. WITH REGARD TO YOUR COMMENT ON FORGIVENESS AND THE SCALING OF IT, OUR MEETING WITH THE BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE EARLIER IN THE WEEK RECOGNIZED THAT FACT, TOO, AND ACTUALLY BUILT INTO THE BUDGET AN AUTOMATIC REVIEW OF THAT FORMULA. SO IT MAY BE CHANGED OVER TIME, REALIZING WHAT THE GOALS OF THE FORMULA ARE. SO THAT'LL BE CHANGED. AND I ALSO AGREE, FINALLY, ON YOUR COMMENTS WITH -- REGARDING FUNDING CERTAIN EFFORTS SEPARATELY. I THINK IT'S A QUESTION OF WHERE YOU DRAW THE LINE ON THOSE THINGS, WHERE THERE'S TOTAL COMMUNITY BENEFIT FOR SOMETHING VERSUS SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY A SPECIFIED PROJECT. SO I THINK -- WELL, AT LEAST YOU AND I AGREE ON THAT. AND WHAT WE SHOULD DISCUSS IS WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN WHAT SHOULD BE FUNDED SEPARATELY AND WHAT SHOULD NOT.

>>VINT CERF: SO -- THIS IS VINT -- I'D LIKE TO ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THAT.

FIRST OF ALL, WITH REGARD TO THE SPECIAL PROJECTS, OF COURSE, I'M ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF FINDING SUPPORT WHEREVER WE CAN TO FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE ORGANIZATION AND TO IMPROVE THE STABILITY AND SECURITY OF THE INTERNET. I DO WORRY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOMETHING SO FUNDAMENTAL AS IPV6 AND ITS DESIRABLE INTRODUCTION INTO THE NET BEING CONTINGENT SOMEHOW ON FINDING A GRANT FROM SOMEONE AS OPPOSED TO BUILDING IT INTO THE FUNDED WORK OF ICANN.

I'M ONLY PICKING ON THAT JUST BECAUSE AMADEU HAPPENED TO MENTION IT. THERE MIGHT INDEED BE SOME ASPECTS OF THE WORK THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED LESS RISKY OR MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCERTAIN FUNDING. BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE ARE CAREFUL NOT TO ACCIDENTALLY PLACE CRITICAL WORK IN AN UNFUNDED POSITION WHICH WE ULTIMATELY HAVE TO SERVICE. AMADEU WANTS TO RESPOND.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: NOT RESPOND TO THAT.

JUST, AGAIN, FOR THE FINANCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE BOARD, JUST MAKE THE CALCULATION OF WHAT'S THE MINIMUM FIXED COST TO BECOME A REGISTRAR, THEN TAKE A MAP AND LOCATE THE CURRENT REGISTRARS ON THAT MAP, AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND LOTS OF THINGS. SO IF WE ARE GOING THAT DIRECTION OF RAISING THE FIXED COSTS, WHICH ARE CLEAR BARRIERS FOR SMALL REGISTRARS IN MANY COUNTRIES IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD, THEY WILL BE SMALL REGISTRARS FOR A LONG TIME BEFORE THEY GROW THAT FAST. JUST THINK ABOUT TOTAL (INAUDIBLE) SOLUTIONS FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF REGISTRARS, WHERE I THINK THAT THE PRICE OF BEING PART OF THAT CLUB IS BECOMING TOO HIGH BEFORE YOU START SELLING THE FIRST DOMAIN NAME.

>>VINT CERF: THE COUNTER-OBSERVATION, OF COURSE, IS THAT IF THERE ARE CERTAIN COSTS THAT ICANN BEARS FOR EACH REGISTRAR INDEPENDENT OF ITS SIZE, YOU'D WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT GETS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BUDGET SOMEHOW.

IVAN, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.

>>IVAN MOURA CAMPOS: IT'S JUST TO MENTION TO AMADEU THAT WE HAVE LOCATED THE REGISTRARS ON A MAP, AND, INDEED, WE HAVE LEARNED A LOT OF THINGS.

SO WE KNOW OF THESE DATA AND WE HAVE CAREFULLY ANALYZED THIS GRAPH AND HOW THEY ARE SPREAD ALONG THE SPECTRUM IN SIZE AND DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATIONS AND REVENUES.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.

WE ARE STILL IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. SO ARE THERE OTHERS? WOLFGANG.

>>WOLFGANG KLEIUWACHTE: MY QUESTION GOES TO PAUL TWOMEY.

WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE MILESTONES IN THE MOU, YOU DID NOT EXPLICITLY REFER TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN. COULD YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE STATUS? THANK YOU.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANKS, WOLFGANG.

THE STRATEGIC PLAN, LIKE A LOT OF THE THINGS IN THE MOU, IS A PRODUCT OF COLLABORATIVE DISCUSSION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE THAT TOOK PLACE LAST YEAR WITH A NEW MANAGEMENT TEAM AND UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE BOARD. THE -- I THINK PART OF THIS MOVING TO A MATURE PHASE FOR THE ORGANIZATION AND FOR THE COMMUNITY INVOLVES ALSO, YOU KNOW, SORT OF SEVERAL INSTRUMENTS FOR PLANNING THAT ARE NECESSARY. SO WE STARTED THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A STRATEGIC PLAN AND HAD A STRATEGIC PLAN IN PLACE BY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE FIRST VERSION WAS IN PLACE BY THE END OF AUGUST, BEGINNING OF SEPTEMBER LAST YEAR. STRATEGIC PLANS WHEN YOU PUT THEM IN PLACE YOU DO THE WHOLE PROCESS OF CONSULTATION INTERNALLY AND PUSH AND CHANGE AND THINK FOR THE FIRST TIME, TO USE A PHRASE, YOU KNOW WHEN YOU HAVE PRIME TIME. YOU DON'T HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT REALLY IS, I THINK, REALLY BRINGING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONSULTATION INSIDE, A LOT OF CONSULTATION WITH THE BOARD. AND, WOLFGANG, I THINK THE PROBLEM WE ENDED UP WITH IS THAT WE DIDN'T LIVE IN A PERFECT WORLD. IN AN IDEAL WORLD, YOU KNOW, I AM REMINDED OF CANDID, IN AN IDEAL WORLD, WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO (INAUDIBLE) THE STRATEGIC PLAN, GIVEN THE COMMUNITY MONTHS OF POSSIBLE RESPONSES ON A STRATEGIC PLAN, THEN MOVED TO A BUDGET. THE BUDGET WOULD HAVE HAD MONTHS, AS IT HAD. THE BUDGET PROCESS STARTED IN DECEMBER, OKAY. SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, EIGHT MONTHS AGO. WE WOULD HAVE HAD THE TIME TO DO THE BUDGET CONSULTATION, ET CETERA. THE DIFFICULTY THAT EMERGED, BASICALLY, WAS RUNNING THE PARALLEL PROCESS WAS JUST GOING TO BE TOO MUCH BANDWIDTH FOR THE CAPACITY OF THE ADMINISTRATION WE HAD. SO WE MADE A JUDGMENT, WHICH WAS, LET'S PUT AS MUCH AS WE CAN -- ACTUALLY, LET'S PUT ALL THE SORT OF IDEAS THAT WERE SITTING IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THIS FIRST YEAR CLEARLY IN THE BUDGET AND GO AND CONSULT AND TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT IT IN A ONE-YEAR TIME FRAME. AND ALSO BE FAIRLY OPEN TO THE SORT OF THINGS THAT WERE EMERGING OUT FOR LONGER TERM. AMADEU MENTIONED A FEW OF THEM. BUT LET'S JUST FOCUS ON THE BUDGET ROUND. AND WE'VE DONE A LOT OF CONSULTATION AROUND THE BUDGET ROUND. KURT'S GONE THROUGH THAT. WE HAVE LEARNED A LOT MORE ABOUT WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS LOOKING FOR, WHAT'S FEASIBLE, YOU KNOW, WHAT SORT OF MODELS, WHAT SORT OF FINANCES, WHAT SORT OF MODEL IS ACCEPTABLE. WHICH, AGAIN, REQUIRES TO DO VERSION 7 OR 8 OR WHATEVER OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN, INTERNALLY, REVISION. IT IS OUR HOPE -- NOW I AM TALKING ON THE CEO, I HAVE TO TAKE THIS BACK TO THE BOARD -- BUT IT IS OUR HOPE THAT BETWEEN HERE AND CAPE TOWN, AND I HOPE CLOSER TO HERE THAN CAPE TOWN MEETING, THAT WE WILL BE IN POSITION TO ACTUALLY PUT THE STRATEGIC PLAN OUT FOR CONSULTATION IN THAT SENSE, THERE WILL BE NOTHING IN INN THAT PLAN THAT WILL BE A SURPRISE FOR 12 MONTHS BECAUSE ALL THE ISSUES ARE IN THE BUDGET PLANNING PROCESS. BUT THE ISSUES FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS IN TERMS OF OPERATIONAL ISSUES WE WILL HAVE TO PUT OUT IN A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR CONSULTATION AND GET PEOPLE'S FEEDBACK. AND IN SOME RESPECTS, THAT'LL BE THE BEGINNING OF THE CONSULTATION FOR THE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET BY HAVING SUCH A PLAN OUT FOR CONSULTATION. WE THINK THAT CONSULTATION IS IMPORTANT. I JUST MAKE THE ONE FURTHER OBSERVATION, THE NATURE OF PLANNING, AND PARTICULARLY THE NATURE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING THAT ONE DOES IN A STRATEGIC PLAN IS A QUANTUM DEGREE LESS SPECIFIC THAN YOU DO IN A BUDGET. SO THE SORT OF FINANCIAL NUMBERS THAT WE WOULD PUT FORWARD FOR THE TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS FURTHER OUT WILL NOT BE WITH THE SORT OF DETAIL THAT YOU NEED TO PUT IN FOR A BUDGET AND MANAGE FOR A BUDGET. BUT WE DO HOPE TO SHARE WITH YOU A STRATEGIC PLAN WHICH WE THINK WILL REFLECT A LOT OF YOUR OWN INPUTS, AS I SAID, CLOSER TO THIS MEETING THAN TO CAPE TOWN, BUT BETWEEN HERE AND CAPE TOWN.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PAUL.

I SENSE THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER COMMENTS. MARILYN CADE.

>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS MARILYN CADE. I AM SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNCIL. I'D LIKE TO COMMENT, FIRST OF ALL, ON THE CEO'S REPORT AND TO THANK PAUL FOR THE APPROACH YOU TOOK IN REMINDING US OF WHERE WE HAVE COME FROM AS WELL AS WHERE WE ARE GOING. I THINK THAT AS WE ALL ARE INCREASINGLY AWARE, THAT AS THE INTERNET BECOMES MORE AND MORE IMPORTANT, GOVERNMENTS AND MANY OTHERS WHO ARE NOT TODAY INVOLVED IN ICANN HAVE MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ICANN AND ITS ROLE. AND I THINK THAT AS WE ALL WORK TOGETHER TO HELP TO INFORM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE DEBATE AND THE OVERALL WSIS PROCESS AND THE VISIBILITY OF ICANN MORE BROADLY AS IT BECOMES MORE INTERNATIONALIZED, THAT TELLING THE STORY THAT YOU TOLD TODAY, PAUL, IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THAT. I'D LIKE TO ALSO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE STEPS TO INCREASE AND CONTINUE TO INCREASE THE WAY THAT COMMUNICATION INFORMATION IS BEING MADE AVAILABLE BROADLY TO THE COMMUNITY. I THINK THAT WILL BE VERY WELCOMED. AND I SEE STEPS TAKEN SINCE EVEN THE LAST MEETING THAT WE WERE HERE. I'D LIKE TO ALSO SAY, AS SOMEONE WHO VERY EARLY ON, THROUGH THE BC AND OTHERWISE, CHAMPIONED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLE OF THE CC'S, THE RIRS, AND THE ROOT SERVERS, AS WELL AS THE GTLD REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS AND COMMUNITY, THAT WE ARE IN A VERY, I THINK, SIGNIFICANT POINT, IS THAT AT THIS MEETING, THE CCNSO WAS LAUNCHED. AND I THINK ALL OF US SHOULD PRIVATELY AND PUBLICLY THANK THE INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THAT ORGANIZATION, THAT COMMUNITY, WHO WORKED SO HARD TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. I KNOW THAT MANY ON THE BOARD AND THE STAFF CONTRIBUTED AS WELL. BUT THE REAL WORK WAS DONE WITHIN THAT COMMUNITY TO CREATE THE BOTTOM-UP CONSENSUS APPROACH AND TO BRIDGE THE DIVIDES THAT SOMETIMES EXISTED. AND, FINALLY, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THE BUDGET. I DID DO AN EIGHT-PAGE ANALYSIS OF THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT THAT WAS AVAILABLE AND SHARED IT WITH MY FELLOW ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY. I AM DISAPPOINTED ABOUT THE LACK OF ACCESS TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND TO COMMENTING ON AND HELPING TO PROVIDE INPUT ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND WOULD ASK THAT, ON A FORMAL BASIS, THE CONSULTATION WITH ALL THREE OF THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS BE SOUGHT AND INCORPORATED INTO THAT PROCESS. AND I KNOW THAT CAN BE DONE GOING FORWARD. BUT PERHAPS IT'S POSSIBLE TO ALSO TAKE SOME COMMENT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE THROUGH THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS. WE ARE FACING THE NEED, AS WE GROW ICANN, TO ALSO FIND WAYS TO PARTNER WITH OTHERS TO EXPAND ICANN'S WORK. AND I SAW SOME EFFORTS ON THAT PART, AND I THINK THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY SOME THAT CAN BE FURTHER EXPLORED. AS YOU LOOK AT THE BUDGET, I WOULD SAY THAT I HOPE THAT WE ALL -- AND I COUNT ON US ALL SHARING THE OBJECTIVES OF HAVING AN ACCOUNTABLE BUDGET, AN ATTAINABLE BUDGET, AND A SUSTAINABLE BUDGET. AND I FOCUS ON "SUSTAINABLE" AS A POINT, BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S VERY RISKY FOR US TO HAVE REVENUE THAT IS NOT SELF-RENEWING YEAR AFTER YEAR IF WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE STABILITY WE ARE SEEKING FOR ICANN.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MARILYN.

ONE OBSERVATION I WOULD MAKE IS THAT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF HAVING A PUBLISHED STRATEGIC PLAN, THAT IF YOU HAVE CONSIDERATIONS AND IDEAS ABOUT WHAT OUGHT TO BE IN IT, YOU SHOULD CERTAINLY CONVEY THOSE TO THE BOARD AND PAUL AND TO OTHERS. PETER.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: PETER DENGATE THRUSH SPEAKING AS CHAIRMAN OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN ASSOCIATION.

FIRST, WE HAD A MEETING HERE ON SATURDAY, AND IT WAS ATTENDED BY REPRESENTATIVES ALSO FROM THE LATIN AMERICAN TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN ASSOCIATION, THE AFRICAN TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN ASSOCIATION, AND THE EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION, CENTR, WHO TOOK PART. BUT I AM NOT SPEAKING ON THEIR BEHALF. I WANT TO CONVEY THE MESSAGE WE CONVEYED TO THE STAFF AT THE TIME THAT THE CCTLDS CONTINUE TO OFFER MONEY TO ICANN. THESE ARE THE VAST MAJORITY OF CCTLDS WHO HAVE NO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, BUT AS OUR BEHAVIOR HAS DEMONSTRATED OVER THE YEARS, WE COME BECAUSE WE WANT ICANN TO SUCCEED. AGAIN, I SAY, WE ARE OFFERING ICANN MONEY. AND WE REMAIN DISAPPOINTED AND SURPRISED THAT THE ONLY CONDITION THAT WE'VE PUT ON THAT, THAT THERE BE A CLEAR SET OF ACCOUNTS PUBLISHED -- EXCUSE ME -- WHICH WOULD CHARACTERIZE IN MORE DETAIL THE COSTS OF RUNNING THE IANA PROCESS, STILL REMAINS UNDONE. SO WHAT SEEMS TO US A STRANGE POSITION TO BE CALLING FOR MONEY, TO HAVE PEOPLE OFFERING YOU MONEY, WE ARE ASKING FOR A SET OF ACCOUNTS NO DIFFERENT FROM MY OWN SMALL LAW FIRM USED TO OPERATE OR ANY SME WOULD PROVIDE. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR TIME SHEETS OR DETAILED ANALYSES. WE ARE ASKING FOR A ROUGH BREAKDOWN OF THIS ANALYSIS. AND YOU UNDERSTAND THE BASIS FOR THAT IS THAT THE CCTLDS HAVE CONTINUALLY, I THINK FROM THE VERY FIRST MEETING IN '99, SAID THAT WE ARE QUITE PREPARED TO PAY FOR OUR SHARE OF THE IANA SERVICES, AND WE ARE ALSO PREPARED TO PAY A CONTRIBUTION TO THE GENERAL OVERHEAD OF ICANN, THE BOARD EXPENSES, THE RUNNING OF THE WEB SITE, ET CETERA. SO I JUST MAKE THAT POINT ONE MORE TIME. WE HAVE SOME MONEY. WE WANT TO GIVE IT TO YOU. WE THINK THE CONDITION THAT'S HOLDING UP THE GIVING OF THAT MONEY IS A VERY SIMPLE ONE. AND WE ASK THE BOARD TO INSTRUCT THE STAFF TO PREPARE A CHART OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WILL UNLEASH THAT MONEY, BECAUSE WE WANT TO GIVE IT TO YOU. IF I CAN NOW TAKE THAT HAT OFF AND JUST PUT MY OWN INTERNET NEW ZEALAND HAT BACK ON. I WONDER IF I CAN GIVE SOME CONSTRUCTIVE ADVICE TO THE STAFF, I THINK, IN THE PREPARATION OF THE BUDGET AND REMIND THE NEW STAFF, PERHAPS, OF THE CULTURAL, POLITICAL, AND LEGAL SENSITIVITIES OF THE CCTLD, BECAUSE THE WAY SOME OF THE DESCRIPTIONS IN THE OUTLINES AND THE PROCESSES ARE GOING SEEM TO REVEAL A DIFFICULTY WITH THAT. THE CCTLDS ARE RESPONSIVE TO THEIR LOCAL INTERNET COMMUNITIES AND THE GOVERNMENTS. THEY ARE EACH INDEPENDENT. AND WE HAVE USED THE WORD SOVEREIGN IN LOOSE JARGON FOR THEIR RIGHT TO NATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION. THERE'S FREQUENT REFERENCES TO THE CCNSO, TO CCTLD REPRESENTATIVES, AND SO FORTH, WHICH IS SIMPLY UNTRUE. THERE WERE NO CCTLD REPRESENTATIVES CONSULTED IN THE FORMATION OF THE BUDGET. THERE WERE NO CCTLD REPRESENTATIVES. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL CCTLD MANAGERS WHO VOLUNTEERED THEIR OWN TIME AND THEIR OWN PERSONAL POSITIONS. THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CCTLDS. NO ONE CCTLD CAN MAKE REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CCTLD COMMUNITY. SIMILARLY, THERE'S REFERENCE TO COLLABORATION WITH THE CCNSO. THERE HAS BEEN NO DISCUSSION IN THE CCNSO ABOUT THE BUDGET. THE CCNSO IS A BOTTOM-UP, MEMBERS-BASED ORGANIZATION THAT HAS TRANSPARENT AND OPEN PROCESSES WHICH IT IS DEVELOPING. SO TO SAY COLLABORATION WITH THE CCNSO MEANS IT'S GUN TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CCNSO AND BEEN THROUGH THE CCNSO PROCESS. THERE WILL HAVE BEEN CONSULTATION, I'M SURE, WITH INDIVIDUAL CCTLD MANAGERS. THAT IS NOT CONSULTATION WITH THE CCNSO. AND THE SUGGESTION ON SLIDE THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A DECISION MADE BY THE CCNSO ON INDIVIDUAL CCTLD CONTRIBUTIONS AGAIN IS A SUGGESTION THAT HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE CCNSO. SO IF I COULD URGE THE STAFF TO BE PARTICULARLY AWARE OF THE SENSITIVITIES OF THE CCTLDS IN RELATION TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, AS WE CALL IT, AND DECISION-MAKING. NO DECISION OF THE CCNSO IS GOING TO EVER BIND AN INDIVIDUAL CCTLD AS TO ITS LEVEL OF CONTRIBUTION. SO IF THAT CRITICISM CAN BE TAKEN IN THE SPIRIT WHICH IT IS INTENDED, WHICH IS TO IMPROVE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN US, THAT WOULD BE EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PETER. IT DOES OCCUR TO ME THAT THE INDEPENDENT CCTLDS COULD CHOOSE TOGETHER, OR SOME SUBSET OF THEM COULD CHOOSE TO COOPERATE WITH REGARD TO BUDGETARY MATTERS. IS THAT NOT TRUE?

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: YES, OF COURSE. AND THEY DO. AND I THINK THE CCNSO HAS AGREED TO NOMINATE SOME MEMBERS TO THE BUDGETARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

THE DIFFICULTY IS IN REACHING ANY CONCLUSION OF THAT AS BINDING ON OR A DECISION OF THE CCTLD COMMUNITY. I'M JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR.

>>VINT CERF: FAIR ENOUGH. THANK YOU. RAUL.

>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: THANK YOU, VINT. MY NAME IS RAUL ECHEBERIA AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF NRO. WE HAVE SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON 15TH OF JULY.

SINCE THE COMMENTS ARE PUBLIC ON THE ICANN WEB SITE, BUT ALSO IN THE NRO WEB SITE, I WILL ONLY SUMMARIZE OUR POSITION.

FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO REMARK THAT ALL OF THE COMMENTS SUBMITTED PUBLICLY NOW ARE CONSISTENT AND ARE IN THE SAME LINE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE BUDGETARY GROUP LAST MAY. SUMMARIZING, THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTION EXPECTED BY ICANN AS COULD BE AFFORDABLE BY THE NRO. IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A PROBLEM AT THIS STAGE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS -- IT MEANS AN IMPORTANT INCREASEMENT IN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE (INAUDIBLE) COMMITMENTS FROM THE RIR SECTOR. BUT AFTER THE FORMAL APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET IN THIS BY THE ICANN BOARD, THE NRO WILL DEAL WITH THIS CONTRIBUTION RESPECTIVELY. WE DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM IN THIS ISSUE. PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT WE ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE BOTTOM-UP PROCESS CONDUCTED WITH -- IN RELATION WITH THIS BUDGET. AS WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE BUDGETARY GROUP SHOULD WORK IN A BETTER WAY, WITH MORE DISCUSSIONS AND WITH MORE INFORMATION, AND WITHOUT THE TIME CONSTRAINTS THAT WE HAD THIS YEAR. ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT TO REMARK IS THAT WE HAVE ASKED ICANN FOR MANY YEARS TO SHOW THE INFORMATION IN A DIFFERENT WAY. THE BUDGET, SEPARATED BY DEPARTMENTS, AS WE SHARE WITH THE CCTLD COMMUNITY. THEY NEED TO KNOW, IDENTIFY THE COST OF OPERATION OF IANA -- OF IANA. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE ARE ONLY WILLING TO PAY'S FOR THE IANA COSTS. WE HAVE RATIFIED MANY, MANY TIMES THAT -- OUR WILLINGNESS TO PAY -- TO HELP IN ALL THE COSTS OF ICANN FUNCTIONING. WE -- BESIDE THE FACT THAT THIS YEAR IS THE PROCESS OF DISCUSSION OF THE (INAUDIBLE), WE'D LIKE TO REMARK THAT THOSE CONCERNS EXPRESSED THIS YEAR WILL REMAIN ON THE TABLE FOR THE NEXT YEAR. WE HOPE AND WE ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THOSE CONCERNS FOR THE PROCESS TO DISCUSS THE BUDGET IN THE NEXT YEAR. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, RAUL.

CONSIDERING THAT IT'S JULY, I SUPPOSE IT WOULDN'T BE TOO LATE TO START WORKING ON NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, TOO. I REMIND EVERYONE THAT I'VE ALLOWED THIS MEETING TO CONTINUE BEYOND OUR INTENDED BREAK. WE WILL TAKE A BREAK. CAN I FIND OUT HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE QUEUED UP WAITING TO SPEAK. TWO. SO LET'S SAY THOSE TWO ARE THE ONLY ONES BEFORE THE BREAK.

>>KEITH TEARE: KEITH TEARE IN MY CAPACITY AS BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SNAPNAMES.

TWO COMMENTS. FIRST PERTAINING TO THE BUDGET AS A WHOLE. IT FEELS TO ME AS IF THE DISCUSSION OF THE BUDGET IS VERY TACTICAL. WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS IT'S ABOUT HOW TO GET FUNDS FROM THE EXISTING MEANS OF GETTING FUNDS. THAT IS TO SAY, PRIMARILY THE REGISTRARS, AND IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT OVER THE NEXT 12 MONTHS THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF BENEFITS TO ICANN AND THE COMMUNITY FROM A DISCUSSION THAT BECAME MORE STRATEGIC; THAT IS TO SAY, IS THAT THE BEST WAY FOR ICANN TO BE FUNDED. AND I KNOW THAT THIS ISN'T THE APPROPRIATE DISCUSSION FOR THAT, BUT JUST FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I PERSONALLY FEEL AS IF THERE ARE BETTER WAYS FOR ICANN TO BE FUNDED THAN THE CURRENT ONES. MY SECOND POINT, AND THIS IS REALLY VERY MUCH WITH MY SNAPNAMES HAT ON, THE BOARD AND THE STAFF ARE PROBABLY AWARE OF A LOSS OF CORRIDOR DISCUSSIONS PERTAINING TO THE ACCREDITATION OF REGISTRARS. AND GIVEN THAT THE BUDGET IS HIGHLY DEPENDENT ON THE REGISTRARS, THIS BECOMES SOMEWHAT OF A SENSITIVE ISSUE. AND THERE ARE -- IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, AT LEAST, SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 100 AND 130 NEW ACCREDITATIONS OF REGISTRARS BEING BEEN APPROVED OR WILL BE APPROVED VERY RECENTLY. AND THOSE REGISTRARS ARE NOT REAL IN THE SENSE THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF SELLING DOMAIN NAMES, BUT THE PURPOSE OF THEIR EXISTENCE IS PRIMARILY TO COMPETE IN THE SECONDARY NAME MARKET FOR THE THREADS THAT THE REGISTRY MAKES AVAILABLE FOR NAME DROPS EVERY DAY. AND FURTHER, THAT THOSE REGISTRARS, ALTHOUGH VERY MUCH WITHIN ICANN'S RULES, ARE ACTUALLY SUBSIDIARIES IN SOME WAY OF EXISTING REGISTRARS WHO PLAY IN THAT GAME. NOW, MY COMPANY IS NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THAT, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, AND WE FEEL THAT AS GOOD MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WHO HAVE AVOIDED LITIGATION OR SHOUTING MATCHES, WE ARE VERY ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THAT. AND NOT ONLY THAT, THERE ARE IMPLICATIONS WHICH WE DO NOT HOLD, THAT THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE ACCREDITATIONS AND THE BUDGET PROCESS. SO I'D LIKE TO GIVE THE BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THAT AND TO CLARIFY.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, KEITH. PAUL, I THINK YOU HAD A RESPONSE TO BEGIN WITH.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: KEITH, THANKS FOR THE QUESTIONS AND THANK YOU PARTICULARLY FOR THE TURN IN THE SPIRIT IN WHICH YOU PUT THE SECOND ONE, BECAUSE I APPRECIATE THE CALMNESS OF YOUR APPROACH ON THIS TOPIC.

I AM AWARE OF THE VARIETIES OF CORRIDOR TALK AS YOU PUT IT SO I WILL MAKE SOME CLEAR, SIMPLE FACTS. I WILL LEAVE IT TO THE CHAIR AND BOARD TO MAKE OTHER OBSERVATIONS BUT I WANT TO PUT SOME CLEAR, SIMPLE FACTS ON THE TABLE.

WE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FROM A PARTICULAR APPLICANT EARLY THIS YEAR IN THE NUMBERS OF IN THE TWENTIES, WHICH WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE HAD RECEIVED -- IF I GO BACK ONE STEP, ICANN HAS NEVER, AT A STAFF LEVEL, IN MY KNOWLEDGE, CERTAINLY UNDER MY ROLE AS THE PRESIDENT, RECEIVED AND PROCESSED AN ACCREDITED REGISTRAR IN A MANNER IN WHICH EITHER WE WENT AND SOUGHT FOR THOSE ACCREDITATIONS OR WE TRIED IN ANY WAY TO MANIPULATE THE FLOW OF THOSE ACCREDITATIONS. THEY WERE REVIEWED BY THE INTERNAL LEGAL TEAM AND THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION TEAM AND PROCESSED. AS YOU POINTED OUT EARLIER THIS YEAR WE RECEIVED A GROUP OF APPLICATIONS FROM ONE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITIES ASSOCIATED WITH ONE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL. THIS WAS A SURPRISE TO US. WE HAD NOT RECEIVED THIS PATTERN BEFORE. AND WE ACTUALLY UNDERTOOK A LEGAL EVALUATION OF WHAT WAS THE STATUS WE WERE FACED IN ESTABLISHING SUCH ACCREDITATIONS AND WE WENT TO THE BOARD AND ASKED THE BOARD'S ADVICE. THE BOARD RESOLVED TWO THINGS. ONE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL GROUNDS FOR US TO DO ANYTHING ELSE BUT TO PROCESS THESE ACCREDITATIONS UNDER OUR PROCESSES AND TO ASSURE THAT THEY WERE MEETING ALL THE TESTS OF THAT, AND SECONDLY ASKED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EXPERT PANEL TO HELP PULL TOGETHER EXPERT INFORMATION ON THE NATURE OF THIS MARKETPLACE. SOME INITIAL REQUESTS HAVE ALREADY STARTED AROUND THE POTENTIAL FORMATION OF THAT EXPERT PANEL. ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY HERE TO WISH TO SPEAK TO ME ABOUT WAYS IN WHICH WE SHOULD PUT TOGETHER SUCH AN EXPERT PANEL TO FURTHER ILLUMINATE FOR THE BOARD THE FACTS AROUND THIS PHENOMENON, I'D BE HAPPY TO RECEIVE. WE HAVE SINCE RECEIVED, AS YOU POINTED OUT, A FURTHER RANGE OF ACCREDITATION APPLICATIONS. I WANT TO MAKE TWO OBSERVATIONS VERY, VERY CLEAR. WE HAVE NOT SOUGHT THESE. NO MEMBER OF THE STAFF OF ICANN HAS SOUGHT THESE. THEY ARE, IF ANYTHING, AN EMBARRASSMENT TO THE ICANN STAFF IN THE SENSE OF -- AND I USE THAT WORD BUT NOT PEJORATIVELY. I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE MAKING THE APPLICATIONS, BUT THEY HAVE ARRIVED WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE. THERE IS NO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RECEIPT OF THOSE AND THE BUDGET DISCUSSION.

IN FACT, IT HAS MADE THE BUDGET DISCUSSION MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE STAFF. BUT WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW OUR PROCEDURES AND DO WHAT WE UNDERSTAND IS OUR LEGAL POSITION AT THE MOMENT. AND THE BOARD HAS, AS I SAID, BEEN ASKED FOR ITS ADVICE. THE ONE FURTHER COMMENT I WOULD MAKE, ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO, OF COURSE, IS TO ENSURE FULL COMPLIANCE. ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO NEED IN THE BUDGET IS MORE FUNDING FOR COMPLIANCE BECAUSE THIS INDICATES -- OUR WORKLOAD ON COMPLIANCE HAS MASSIVELY INCREASED IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND WE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES FOR T THAT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE. AND IF ANYONE WANTS TO PUT IN A COMPLAINT ABOUT OUR LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGISTRAR AGREEMENTS, WE WILL INVESTIGATE THOSE AND IF THERE IS ANY LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE AGREEMENTS WE WILL ACT UPON THOSE AS WE'RE REQUIRED TO.

>>VINT CERF: LET ME ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THAT. WHEN THE ORIGINAL, UNEXPECTEDLY LARGE REQUEST FOR REGISTRATIONS ARRIVED, THE STAFF IN FACT ASKED THE BOARD TO CONSIDER WHETHER AN ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN, WHETHER, IN FACT, THEY SUSPENDED THE ACCREDITATIONS AND THEN TALKED WITH THE BOARD. THE BOARD ASKED WHETHER WE HAD GROUNDS FOR REJECTING THOSE ACCREDITATION REQUESTS. AND WE FRANKLY DID NOT HAVE ESTABLISHED RULES OR ESTABLISHED CRITERIA THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO REJECT THEM.

IF THERE ARE, IN FACT, NONCOMPLIANT REGISTRARS, AS PAUL SAYS, THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN ACT ON. I AM VERY COGNIZANT OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR; AT LEAST IT IS A DEVIATION OF SUBSTANTIAL QUANTITY FROM THE ORIGINAL EXPECTATION OF THE WAY A REGISTRAR WOULD FUNCTION. IF WE NEED BETTER CRITERIA, THERE ARE TWO THINGS TO BE DONE. ONE, WE WELCOME SUGGESTIONS FROM ALL OF THE INTERESTED CONSTITUENCIES ABOUT WHAT THOSE CRITERIA COULD BE. AND SECOND, IF WE'RE GOING TO CREATE NEW CRITERIA FOR ACCREDITATION, I SUSPECT THIS WILL REQUIRE A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. SO THOSE TWO THINGS, I BELIEVE, ARE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS IN DEALING WITH THIS ANOMALOUS SITUATION. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? KEITH.

>>KEITH TEARE: JUST AS A PRACTICAL POINT, THE SOLE MOTIVATION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THESE REGISTRARS GOES AWAY WERE THE WAIT LIST SERVICE WERE TO BE OPERATIVE. SO THE DELAY IN SERVICE IMPACTS THAT.

>>VINT CERF: IF ANYONE HERE IS FAMILIAR WITH CHESS YOU'LL KNOW WHAT A PINNED PIECE IS AND WE HAVE A VERY PECULIAR, COMPLEX STALEMATE RIGHT NOW WITH REGARD TO THESE VARIOUS COMMENTS. ALEX.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A VERY GENERAL COMMENT ON THE BUDGET.

WHEN I HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE BUDGET AND DISCUSS SOME OF THE PLANNING THAT HAS BEEN BEHIND IT AND SO FORTH, I CAN SEE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT COMMUNITY DEMANDS ARE BEING RESPONDED TO. AT SOME POINT, IT SEEMED, WHEN WE GO LINE ITEM BY LINE ITEM, WE SAY VERY GOOD, THIS IS VERY NICE, REASONABLE. I WAS ACTUALLY VERY HAPPY TO SEE SOME THINGS BEING RESPONDED TO WITH A FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT OR HALF-TIME PERSON OR ONE AND A HALF AND SO FORTH. AT SOME POINT THERE WERE SO MANY THINGS I SAID TO MYSELF LET'S SEE HOW MUCH THIS IS COSTING. I BEGAN LOOKING AT THE PRICES OF THE ITEMS AND EACH OF THEM SEEMED PRETTY REASONABLE, IN THE CONTEXT, OF COURSE, OF U.S. SALARIES AND U.S. CONDITIONS AND U.S. COSTS, WHICH ARE THE ONES THAT ICANN FACES MOSTLY, EXCEPT IT MAY BE EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE IF WE HAVE OPERATIONS IN EUROPE, FOR EXAMPLE. AGAIN, WHEN THIS SEEMED TO PILE UP INTO A LOT OF MONEY, I WENT BACK AND CHECKED THE COST OF THE LINE ITEMS THAT I WAS ABLE TO LOOK AT, AND ASSESS PERSONALLY. AND THERE WAS REALLY NOT MUCH THAT ONE COULD DO TO REDUCE THEM. I THINK THAT WE ALL APPROACH BUDGETS FROM THE HOME TO ANY LARGE ORGANIZATION IN THIS TWOFOLD APPROACH WHERE WE FIRST TRY TO REDUCE THE PRICE OF FIXED LINE ITEM AND THE OVERALL. THERE WAS NOT MUCH CHANCE FOR REDUCING THE COST OF MANY OF THE ITEMS. AND AT SOME POINT, AFTER THAT, I ASKED MYSELF, OKAY, WHAT CAN GO? THE MOST PRIORITY IN THINGS. AND HONESTLY I THINK THE BUDGET PRESENTS A VERY BALANCED VIEW OF THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEEDS FOR ICANN TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND BOTH TO PAST AND TO THE UPCOMING CHALLENGES, BOTH TO OPERATIONS AND TO THE ABILITY TO OPERATE STRATEGICALLY, TO BE A NIMBLE ORGANIZATION. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY BY BEING TOO SMALL. IT'S NOT THAT IT'S TOO SMALL, BUT IT'S NOT FAST. IT DOESN'T HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO RESPOND S! IMULTANEOUSLYTO CHALLENGES AND IT BECOMES SLOW. AND I WOULD CALL ON MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE THIS EXTREMELY GOOD WORK IN GREAT DETAIL TO ASK THEMSELVES WHETHER IF THEY WERE IN SOME OTHER CONSTITUENCY, WOULD THEY SEE THE ITEMS THAT FOR THEM ARE PRIORITY. FOR EXAMPLE, AS SOMEONE OPERATING GTLDS, IF THEY WERE OPERATING CCTLDS OR ADDRESS REGISTRIES, WOULD THEY SEE SOME OF THE PRIORITY ITEMS AS SOMETHING LESS THAN A PRIORITY? AND SECOND, IN THAT FINAL CONSIDERATION HERE, A WELL ARCHITECTED ITEM IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THING TO HAVE. IT'S NOT ONLY THE SUM OF ITS PIECES. IT'S NOT ONLY THE SUM OF ITS SERVICES. AND THE BUDGET CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS A SUM OF THE INDIVIDUAL COSTS OF PROVIDING THE SPECIFIC SERVICES TO THE SPECIFIC CLIENTS, IF WE CAN CALL THEM THAT WAY, WHO ACTUALLY GET AN IMMEDIATE SERVICE LIKE IANA FUNCTIONS AND SO FORTH. THE GREATER SERVICE THAT ICANN IS PERFORMING AS A MODEL OF ORGANIZATION IN THE INTERNET COMMUNITY IS A COMPLETELY UNIQUE AND ORIGINAL PRODUCT OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY, IS FAR MORE VALUABLE AND IT HAS TO BE REFLECTED IN THIS BUDGET, WHICH IS NOT LARGER BUT ONLY MORE COMPLETE.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALEX. I THINK WE HAVE --

>>IVAN MOURA CAMPOS: VINT, MAY I SAY A COUPLE WORDS?

>>VINT CERF: CERTAINLY.

>>IVAN MOURA CAMPOS: JUST A SHORT COMMENT AND I WOULD LIKE TO REASSURE KEITH WHO SPOKE ABOUT ALTERNATE SOURCES OF FUNDING THAT NOT ONLY THE STAFF BUT THE FULL BOARD IS VERY KEEN ON THAT. REST ASSURED, WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON THAT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, IVAN.

WE HAVE KEN FOCKLER, AND THEN ONE OTHER, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A BREAK.

>>KEN FOCKLER: THANK YOU. I WANTED TO GET -- PARDON? WHO AM I? I'M KEN FOCKLER, IVAN. YOU KNOW THAT.

I WANTED TO SEEK SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE ITEM INVOLVING THE HOPED-FOR REVENUE FROM NEW SPONSORED TLDS. AND AS I READ THE BUDGET, IT CALLS FOR -- AND I REALIZE THIS IS A LOT OF ESTIMATING. CALLS FOR 600,000, PERHAPS AVERAGED OVER SIX NEW STLDS. AND IN OUR CONVERSATIONS IN CONSTITUENCY MEETINGS AND OTHERS, I THINK WE DID POINT OUT AND GOT SOME ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT YOU CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO PUT ANY IMPEDIMENTS ON NEW PEOPLE STARTING UP, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ONES WHO ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDING LOTS OF FUTURE REVENUE FOR YOU. AN AVERAGE OF SIX WITH 100,000 SUGGESTS SOME MIGHT BE MORE, WHICH SEEMS TO SUGGEST SOMEBODY THINKS THEY COULD -- SOME OF THESE NEW CCTLDS MIGHT BE INSTANTLY ABLE TO BE IN THE REALM OF COM AND NET THAT ARE PAYING 132,000. I HAVE A LITTLE TROUBLE VISUALIZING THAT. I HOPE SOME OF THEM CAN. I'M NOT SURE IF THEY ALL CAN. SO I GUESS I'M ASKING THREE QUESTIONS. WE ARE TALKING AN AVERAGE. WHAT SORT OF DETERMINATIONS, CONVERSATIONS SHOULD BE WE HAVING TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT MIGHT BE. AND IF IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS -- THIRD PART, LAST PART -- IF IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ADD UP TO 600,000, CAN YOU LIVE WITH THAT? CAN YOU -- ARE YOU ADAPTABLE? OR WILL YOU FORCE FIT WHATEVER GROUP OF SELECTED TLDS YOU COME UP WITH TO THE 600,000 FIGURE?

>>VINT CERF: PAUL?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: OKAY. THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. SORRY, TOO MANY K'S.

TO COME TO KEITH'S QUESTION, TO GO BACK TO THE K'S AGAIN, I TALKED WITH THE CONSULTATION THAT TOOK PLACE AROUND THIS ONE YEAR BUDGET, AND IN PART OF THAT, ONE OF THE THINGS WE GOT A VERY CONSISTENT MESSAGE FROM MANY PLAYERS, INCLUDING SOME OF THE REGISTRIES, WAS THAT THE REGISTRIES' CONTRIBUTIONS AND INCOME THAT'S CONTRIBUTED BY THE REGISTRIES IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT IN THE LONGER TERM. AND CLEARLY ONE OF THE MECHANISMS THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR THAT IS AS AGREEMENTS COME UP, EITHER NEW ONES OR REBIDS OF EXISTING ONES, THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER HOW YOU ACTUALLY MAKE THAT CHANGE. IN THE SPIRIT OF REFLECTING THOSE CONVERSATIONS, AN ITEM WAS FELT THAT IT WAS NECESSARY, THE ONLY ONES WE COULD LOOK AT POTENTIALLY THIS YEAR WERE THE NEW STLDS IN THE BEGINNING OF THE BUDGET PROCESS. THE $600,000 NUMBER IS JUST -- IT'S LITTLE MORE THAN A NUMBER. IT'S A RECOGNITION THAT POTENTIALLY THERE WAS SOME INCOME THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE ACHIEVED THAT WAY. BUT IT DOES NOT -- IS NOT BASED ON ANY EVALUATION OF STLD APPLICATIONS. IT WAS A REFLECTION THAT THE BOARD HAD IN THAT STLD APPLICATION PROCESS RECOGNIZED AND MANDATED AN EVALUATION AND COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL NEGOTIATIONS AS PART OF THAT. WE WON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS UNTIL THE WHOLE PROCESS IS FINISHED AND THE YEAR IS FINISHED. AND WE HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR IN CONSULTATION, AND WE'VE MADE THAT CLEAR IN THE PRESENTATION WE PUT TO THE BOARD. AT THE SAME TIME, WE DID THINK IT WAS RESPONSIBLE TO TRY TO FLAG A NUMBER IN THE BUDGET ALONG, JUST SO PEOPLE KNEW THIS WAS A SERIOUS -- A SERIOUS EXPECTATION AROUND REGISTRY CONTRIBUTIONS. BUT WE ARE ALL COGNIZANT THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SITUATION IS UNTIL MUCH LATER IN THE YEAR.

>>VINT CERF: MIKE PALAGE.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU, PAUL, FOR PROVIDING THAT CLARIFICATION TO THE COMMUNITY. AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE NEGOTIATIONS.

I DO -- THE ONE POINT I DID WANT TO RAISE, THAT THERE IS A VALID, IF YOU WILL, CONCERN ON BEHALF OF KEN, WHEN ONE LOOKS AT THE CURRENT CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE CURRENT THREE STLDS, WHICH I BELIEVE THIS YEAR ONLY CONTRIBUTED $6,000. SO I THINK THAT WAS PART OF KEN'S CONCERN IN THE BIGGER PICTURE, AND THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. LET'S TAKE ONE MORE COMMENT FROM THE FLOOR.

>>SID'AHMED FADEL: MY NAME IS SID'AHMED FADEL,

AND I AM FROM MAURITANIA, AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. PAUL. IN YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU STATE THE EFFORT MADE BY ICANN FOR THE AFRINIC CREATION. SO MY QUESTION IS WHERE ARE WE NOW IN THAT PROCESS? IS THERE ANY FORMAL MOU WITH AFRINIC OR SUCH THINGS? THANK YOU.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, AND IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

I PUT IT ON NOTICE BECAUSE TODAY WE HAVE A FURTHER PRESENTATION FROM THE AFRINIC TEAM AND SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS WILL EMERGE I THINK DURING THAT PRESENTATION. SO IF YOU DON'T MIND, CAN WE ANSWER THAT QUESTION LATER TODAY? THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PAUL. THAT APPEARS TO CONCLUDE COMMENTS FOR THIS PERIOD. WE WILL TAKE A BREAK NOW. I REALIZE THAT IT'S LATER THAN INTENDED, BUT LET'S RECONVENE AT 11:30, PLEASE. 11:30.

(BREAK).

>>VINT CERF: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'D LIKE TO RECONVENE THE MEETING NOW, PLEASE.

WE'RE STILL MISSING A FEW BOARD MEMBERS, BUT WE ARE ALSO RUNNING OUT OF TIME. I'M GOING TO CHANGE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE OUR ESTEEMED GAC CHAIRMAN IS GOING TO HAVE TO DEPART EARLIER -- WELL, IN NOT VERY LONG FROM NOW, AND SO DO I. SO WE WANT TO GET HIS REPORT AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR QUESTIONS TO BE OFFERED BEFORE HE HAS TO DEPART. SO WITH APOLOGIES TO CALVIN BROWNE, WHOM WE WILL INVITE UP MOMENTARILY, I'D LIKE TO CALL ON SHARIL TO GIVE THE GAC REPORT. AND WE WILL ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS ON THAT REPORT EXPLICITLY AS SOON AS HE'S COMPLETED IT.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VINT.

(SPEAKING MALAYSIAN) AS THEY SAY HERE IN MALAYSIA, SALAMAT DATANG, WHICH MEANS WELCOME. AND A VERY GOOD MORNING TO ALL. FIRST LET ME CLARIFY A FEW THINGS. I AM STANDING HERE IN MY CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE -- MY NAME IS SHARIL TARMIZI. I AM STANDING HERE IN MY CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF ICANN. AND I SO HAPPEN TO BE MALAYSIAN AS WELL. AS A MALAYSIAN, I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO MALAYSIA, IF I HAVE NOT DONE SO FORMALLY. IF YOU WILL PERMIT ME, I WILL READ THE COMMUNIQUE OF THE GAC FOR YOUR CONSUMPTION. THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, KNOWN AS GAC, OF THE -- OF ICANN MET IN KUALA LUMPUR 18TH TO 20TH JULY, 2004. THE PARTICIPATING GAC MEMBERS COMPRISED REPRESENTATIVES FROM 48 MEMBERS AND SEVEN OBSERVERS. THE GAC WELCOMED NEW MEMBERS WHO HAVE APPLIED FOR MEMBERSHIP SINCE THE ROME MEETING, NAMELY CAMEROUN, CROATIA, INDONESIA, LITHUANIA, UKRAINE, AND SLOVAKIA. GAC AFFIRMED THE ELECTION OF TWO ADDITIONAL VICE CHAIRS, PROFESSOR GABRIEL OLALERE AJAYI FROM NIGERIA AND LUIS PABLO HINOJOSA FROM MEXICO. GAC ALSO DECIDED TO PROCEED TO THE ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIRS DURING THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF 2004. THE GAC PLENARY MET 18TH THROUGH 20TH OF JULY AND ADDRESSED THE FOLLOWING MATTERS. IN THE CONSULTATION WITH THE ICANN BOARD, THE GAC WELCOMED THE BRIEFINGS PROVIDED BY THE ICANN BOARD WHICH ADDRESSED CURRENT ICANN PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES. IN PARTICULAR, THE GAC WELCOMED ICANN'S RECOGNITION OF THE VALUE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF PUBLIC POLICY INPUT BY THE GAC INTO THE ICANN COMMUNITY. OF PARTICULAR NOTE WAS ICANN'S REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF ITS CONTINGENCY PLAN. THE GAC WELCOMES THE PARTICIPATION BY GAC REPRESENTATIVES FROM ALL REGIONS, TOGETHER WITH MEMBERS OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY, ON AN ADVISORY BODY THAT WOULD BE CALLED UPON FOR ADVICE AND GUIDANCE. GAC CONTINUES TO ATTACH IMPORTANCE TO ICANN'S TIMELY REQUESTS FOR GAC ADVICE ON MATTERS WITH PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS. ON THE CONSULTATION WITH THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR SSAC, GAC RECEIVED A REPORT FROM THE SSAC ON THE REDIRECTION IN THE DOT-COM AND DOT NET DOMAINS AND THE ADOPTION OF DNSSEC IN THE REGISTRIES. GAC WELCOMES THE OFFER OF THE SSAC CHAIR TO PROVIDE UPDATES ON THESE TWO ISSUES AND ON PARTICULAR ON POLICY ASPECTS INVOLVED. THE GAC ALSO CONTINUED ITS CONSIDERATION OF THE UPDATING OF THE GAC CCTLD PRINCIPLES. FURTHER WORK WILL BE UNDERTAKEN DURING THE PERIOD UP TO THE CAPE TOWN MEETING, WHEN THE PAPER WILL BE FINALIZED. ON THE COUNTRY CODE NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION OR CCNSO, THE GAC HELD A USEFUL DIALOGUE WITH THE CCNSO, LOOKS FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE CCNSO, AND IN PARTICULAR LOOKS FORWARD TO THE ABILITY TO ESTABLISH A LIAISON GROUP. THE GAC WELCOMED THE INTENTION OF THE CCNSO TO OPERATE IN AN OPEN AND INCLUSIVE MANNER, WHICH FACILITATES DIALOGUE WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CCTLD COMMUNITY. THE GAC ENCOURAGES THE ONGOING EXTENSION OF THE CCNSO'S MEMBERSHIP. ON THE GNSO, THE GAC HAS EXTENDED ITS OUTREACH AND LIAISON WITH THE GNSO AND WILL ENGAGE IN REGULAR EXCHANGES WITH THE GNSO COUNCIL. IN THE NEAR TERM, THE GAC WILL FOCUS ON THE PUBLIC POLICY ASPECTS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW WHOIS POLICY AND THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. ON THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, THE GAC ENCOURAGES THE CONCLUSION OF THE MOU FORMING THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION. THE GAC REMAINS STRONGLY COMMITTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF TRANSPARENT AND REPRESENTATIVE BOTTOM-UP PROCESSES WITHIN THE ICANN FRAMEWORK OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION. IN ORDER FOR THE -- TO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNET IN THE AFRICAN REGION, THE GAC SUPPORTS THE RECOGNITION OF AFRINIC BY ICANN AS AN RIR. THE GAC CALLS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF EFFECTIVE LIAISONS BETWEEN THE ASO AND THE GAC AS WELL AS OTHER RELEVANT SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES. THE GAC RECOMMENDS THAT THE ASO LOOKS TO BROADEN ITS MEMBERSHIP TO INCLUDE A WIDER SPECTRUM OF INTERESTS. ON THE WIPO II RECOMMENDATIONS, THE GAC RECALLS THE STATEMENTS IT MADE IN THE GAC COMMUNIQUES IN THE RIO DE JANEIRO AND MONTREAL MEETINGS REGARDING WIPO II RECOMMENDATIONS. THE GAC THANKS THE JOINT WORKING GROUP FOR WIPO II PROCESS ISSUES, FOR ITS WORK, AND WELCOMES ITS FORTHCOMING FINAL REPORT. THE GAC ALSO CONDUCTED A REGIONAL FORUM ON SATURDAY 17TH JULY, 2004, WHICH HAD WORKSHOPS ON IDN AND IPV6. THE GAC RECOGNIZES THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AND INTRODUCTION OF IDN REQUIRES THE COLLABORATIVE AND COORDINATED EFFORTS BY VARIOUS PARTIES. THE GAC APPRECIATES THE INITIATIVE BY ICANN TO ORGANIZE THE IDN WORKSHOP ON 21ST JULY TO BRING TOGETHER THE VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS NECESSARY SUCH AS LINGUISTIC EXPERTS, TECHNICAL EXPERTS, AND OTHER RELEVANT PARTIES TO FIND ACCEPTABLE SOLUTIONS FOR IDN DEPLOYMENT, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ITS ADVICE IN MONTEVIDEO, WHETHER LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL FACTORS CONSIDERED. GAC ENCOURAGES ICANN TO ENSURE THAT IDN STANDARDS AND LANGUAGE TABLES TAKE FULL ACCOUNT OF THE INPUT FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING THE LOCAL LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES CONCERNED. ON IPV6, THE GAC TAKES NOTE OF THE EFFORTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TOWARDS THE MIGRATION TO IPV6. THE CURRENT IPV6 STATUS AND VARIOUS SYSTEMS OF THE INTERNET, AND FUTURE WORK TO BE DONE. THE GAC WELCOMES THE ICANN BOARD'S DECISION AND THE SUBSEQUENT REVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE BY IANA, WHICH ALLOWS THE IPV6 ADDRESSES OF TLD NAME SERVERS TO BE ADDED TO THE ROOT ZONE. THE GAC SUPPORTS THE EFFECT OF ICANN TOWARDS THE DEPLOYMENT OF IPV6. AND TO END HERE, THE PROCEEDINGS AND PRESENTATIONS OF THE REGIONAL FORUM WILL BE PUBLISHED ON THE GAC WEB SITE SEPARATELY. I HAVE COME TO THE END OF MY COMMUNIQUE. BUT A FEW -- WELL, NOT QUITE. SORRY. I HAVE COME TO THE END OF THIS MORNING. NOW, GIVEN OUR COMMITMENT TO BOTH THE WORLD SUMMIT ON INFORMATION SOCIETY, WSIS, AND ICANN PROCESSES, THE GAC WELCOMED THE ICANN WORKSHOP ON WSIS, WHICH PERMITTED THE ICANN PUBLIC-PRIVATE, MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIP TO PRESENT ITS VIEWS REGARDING THE SPECIFIC ROLE OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY IN THE FORTHCOMING UNITED NATIONS WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE AND WSIS DELIBERATIONS.

NOW, MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE IS ONE MORE PARAGRAPH THAT I NEED TO READ. BUT I MUST SAY I AM READING IT AS THE CHAIR OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. AND IT SAYS THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE EXPRESSES WARM THANKS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA AND THE ORGANIZERS FOR HOSTING THE MEETING IN KUALA LUMPUR AND EXPRESSES ITS APPRECIATION FOR THE SPEAKERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE IDN AND IPV6 WORKSHOPS IN THE REGIONAL FORUM. THE GAC ALSO WARMLY THANKS ALL THOSE AMONGST THE ICANN COMMUNITY WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED WITH THE GAC IN KUALA LUMPUR. THE NEXT GAC MEETINGS WILL BE IN CAPE TOWN ON THE 29TH OF NOVEMBER TO 2ND DECEMBER, INCLUDING THE REGIONAL FORUM. AND THERE ENDS MY PRESENTATION, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND MAY I SAY A PERSONAL THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU. (APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN.

LET ME ASK WHETHER THERE ARE QUESTIONS FOR THE GAC CHAIR AT THIS POINT. I SEE RAUL APPROACHING THE MICROPHONE.

>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPORT. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR POSITION IN RELATION WITH THE ASO MOU. SO WHAT DO YOU MEAN EXACTLY WITH THE BROADER MEMBERSHIP OF ASO?

>>VINT CERF: PLEASE, FEEL FREE TO RESPOND.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, RAUL. I THINK WHEN WE SAY BROADEN THE MEMBERSHIP, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS TO ACTUALLY SEE AN ALL-INCLUSIVE TOGETHER ASO WHICH IS COLLABORATING WITH THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY, AND NOT JUST A SMALL GROUPING OF A FEW PEOPLE WORKING ON A FEW SPECIFIC THINGS. BECAUSE WE HAVE TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY. WE LOOK, ACTUALLY, FORWARD TO HAVING MULTIPLE DIALOGUES WITH THE GROUP SO THAT WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS AND HOW WE MAY BE ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE WORK.

>>VINT CERF: RAUL, IF I COULD SUGGEST AN INTERPRETATION OF THIS.

I THINK THAT WHAT IS BEING SAID IS THAT LIAISONS TO OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ICANN STRUCTURE WITHIN THE ASO ORGANIZATION WOULD BE WELCOMED. AND I THINK THAT'S PRIMARILY WHAT SHARIL IS GETTING AT.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU, VINT, FOR SPEAKING ENGLISH CLEARLY.

BECAUSE I AM SPEAKING IN GAC-ESE.

>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: THANK YOU.

ONLY A FEW COMMENTS. THE ASO IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE MOU THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED IS OPEN TO ANY DIALOGUE ON AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS OR BODY OF ICANN STRUCTURE. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, RAUL.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. IN THAT CASE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT REPORT.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU, VINT.

>>VINT CERF: WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO NOW IS TO CALL UPON CALVIN BROWNE, IF HE IS HERE, AND INVITE HIM TO REPORT TO US ON THE UPCOMING PLANS FOR THE CAPE TOWN MEETING IN DECEMBER.

CALVIN.

>>CALVIN BROWNE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

JUST TO GIVE YOU ALL A BRIEF RUNDOWN ON HOW THINGS ARE GOING AND A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO BE AWARE OF FOR THE CAPE TOWN MEETING, I JUST WISH TO POINT OUT THAT IT IS SUMMER HOLIDAYS. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF PEOPLE RETURNING FROM OVERSEAS, AND FLIGHTS INTO CAPE TOWN MIGHT BE CONSTRAINED. SO YOU WANT TO GET YOUR BOOKINGS DONE FOR CAPE TOWN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ALSO REMEMBER THAT YOU -- THAT JOHANNESBURG IS A SHORT DOMESTIC HOP FROM CAPE TOWN, A TWO-HOUR FLIGHT. SO ROUTING THROUGH JOHANNESBURG ALSO IS AN OPTION FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO FIND FLIGHTS UNAVAILABLE. WE HAVE ALSO ORGANIZED WITH OUR NATIONAL AIR CARRIER FOR ICANN DELEGATES. FURTHER DETAILS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT OUR WEB SITE. THAT'S ICANN CAPE TOWN.CO.ZA. THEN ANOTHER POINT, THE HOTELS, THE CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL HAS ONLY 400 ROOMS. 40 OF THEM HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAKEN AS WE SPEAK, FOR ICANN DELEGATES. SO I SUGGEST IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN STAYING AT THE MAIN CONVENTION HOTEL, TO BOOK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AGAIN, FURTHER DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE WEB SITE. AS FAR AS OTHER HOTELS GO, THE FIRST TWO WEEKS IN CAPE TOWN ARE NOT OVERLY FULL, SO THERE IS EXCESS CAPACITY AVAILABLE. WE ARE STILL NEGOTIATING WITH THE HOTELS ACROSS THE ROAD FROM THE CONVENTION CENTER TO GET BETTER PRICES FOR ICANN DELEGATES. AT THE MOMENT, THE FIGURES THAT WE CAME UP WITH ARE, IN MY OPINION, A BIT TOO HIGH. SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY TOO MUCH IF YOU'RE GOING FOR SECONDARY HOTELS JUST YET. BUT PLEASE DO CHECK OUR WEB SITE FOR MORE DETAILS AND KEEP AN EYE ON IT TO ENSURE THAT YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CALVIN? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT REPORT. I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON NOW TO THE RSSAC COMMITTEE REPORT AND CALL UPON SUZANNE WOOLF TO MAKE HER REPORT.

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, VINT. GOOD MORNING, OR ALMOST AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO GIVE YOU ALL A BRIEF UPDATE ON ISSUES BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, RSSAC IS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL ICANN ADVISORY COMMITTEES. WE ADVISE THE BOARD ON ISSUES PERTAINING TO OPERATION OF THE ROOT NAME SERVER. CONTENT OF THE ROOT ZONE IS OUT OF SCOPE FOR US EXCEPT FOR OPERATIONAL IMPACT SUCH AS CHANGES TO SOFTWARE THAT MIGHT BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT CHANGES IN THE DATA. THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE ROOT NAME SERVER OPERATORS AND OTHER LIAISONS AND OBSERVERS. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE THE 1ST OF AUGUST IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SAN DIEGO IETF MEETING. FIRST A COUPLE OF BRIEF TECHNICAL UPDATES. ANY CAST DEPLOYMENT. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PROGRESS ON THAT. SEVERAL SERVERS HAVE ANNOUNCED NEW SITES SINCE ICANN ROME. THAT EFFORT WAS UNDERTAKEN ON THE ORDER OF A YEAR AND A HALF AGO TO INCREASE OVERALL SYSTEM RESILIENCE AGAINST ATTACK. AND SO FAR IT HAS BEEN A GREAT SUCCESS FOR US. INTEREST IN IDN IS GOOD NEWS FOR THE INTERNET. WE HAVE HEARD A GREAT DEAL ABOUT IT AT THIS MEETING. AND IT'S BEEN CLEARLY VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO THE INTERNET COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. PART OF THE GOOD NEWS, THOUGH, IS THIS REQUIRES NO ACTION BY ROOT SERVER OPERATORS. WE HAVE OCCASIONALLY BEEN ASKED ABOUT THAT. SO IT SEEMED WISE TO CLARIFY. CERTAINLY ONE OF THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN THE INCLUSION OF IPV6 QUAD A ADDRESSES IN THE ROOT ZONE N ACCORDANCE WITH THE RSSAC RECOMMENDATION AS REVIEWED BY SSAC AND THE ICANN BOARD, IANA HAS BEGUN ADDING QUAD A TO THE ROOT ZONE. I BELIEVE PAUL TWOMEY SPOKE OF THAT IN HIS REPORT. IT'S IMPORTANT NEWS FOR THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET. CONGRATULATIONS TO THE TLDS WHO HAVE SET UP IPV6 NAME SERVERS. WE WERE TOLD SEVERAL HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE ROOT ZONE AND THERE ARE SEVERAL MORE PENDING. THE NEXT WORK FOR RSSAC WITH REGARDS TO IPV6 IS ADVICE TO IANA ON ADDING QUAD AS FOR THE ROOT NAME SERVERS THEMSELVES. THIS WILL COMPRISE A SEPARATE RECOMMENDATION AND IS CURRENTLY UNDER ANALYSIS. THERE ARE SOME TECHNICAL SUBTLETIES ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE THE ROOT SERVERS THEMSELVES ARE KIND OF A SPECIAL CASE, AND WE ARE LOOKING VERY, VERY CLOSELY JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE NO UNEXPECTED SIDE EFFECTS FROM ADDING QUAD AS FOR THE ROOT SERVERS THEMSELVES. ANOTHER LARGE ISSUE FOR US HAS BEEN DNS SECURITY. DNSSEC IS -- HAS ADDED EXTENSIONS TO THE DNS STANDARDS TO ALLOW FOR SIGNED DATA, WHICH PROVIDES ADDITIONAL ASSURANCE THAT YOU CAN'T GET TODAY THAT CRITICAL DNS DATA HAS NOT BEEN TAMPERED WITH. THE DNSSEC STANDARD IS ADVANCING WITHIN THE IETF. THERE'S BEEN A LONG DEVELOPMENT CYCLE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, SEVERAL YEARS. RECENT ACCEPTANCE OF THE CURRENT SPEC BY THE WORKING GROUP IS A BIG MILESTONE. A NUMBER OF RSSAC MEMBERS HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND ARE CURRENTLY ACTIVE IN IMPLEMENTATION AND TESTING AND DEPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES. THE RSSAC EXPECTS TO WORK WITH IANA AND ADVISE AS NEEDED ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES AROUND DNSSEC FOR THE ROOT ZONE. AND THAT'S BEEN OUR MAJOR ACTIVITIES. GENERALLY, YOU CAN FIND US. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE ALWAYS SOME NUMBER OF US AT ICANN MEETINGS. WE ARE OFTEN INVITED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE GAC AND OTHER ICANN-RELATED GROUPS TO DISCUSS OUR ACTIVITIES AND WHAT WE'RE UP TO AND WHAT ISSUES ARE IN FRONT OF US. WWW.ROOT-SERVERS.ORG IS NOT AN OFFICIAL RSSAC SITE BUT THAT'S WHERE MANY OF THE ROOT SERVER OPERATORS POST THEIR ACTIVITIES. AND ICANN MAINTAINS A SECTION ON THEIR WEB SITE FOR THE COMMITTEE AND A COMMENTS ADDRESS. SO PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DROP E-MAIL REGARDING ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SUZANNE.

MOVING RIGHT ALONG, WE'LL COME TO QUESTIONS IN A BIT, I ACTUALLY ASK WHETHER I COULD PERMUTE THE ORDER A LITTLE BIT. MR. CROCKER, WOULD YOU PERMIT THE POSSIBILITY OF POSTPONING YOUR REPORT UNTIL AFTER LUNCH? WOULD THIS BE POSSIBLE? I'M ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT PACE. I'D LIKE TO ASK, THEN, IF VITTORIO BERTOLA COULD BE AVAILABLE NOW RATHER THAN AFTER MR. CROCKER. SO, VITTORIO, I CALL ON YOU TO MAKE THE ALAC REPORT.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: OKAY.

THANK YOU, AND THIS IS THE REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SO THIS IS JUST A BRIEF EXPLANATION ABOUT WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS AND DOES. WE ARE HERE TO ADVISE THE CORPORATION ABOUT THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL INTERNET USERS. AND OUR MAIN ACTIVITIES ARE BASICALLY DIVIDED IN TWO PARTS. ONE IS MAKING OUTREACH AND CONTACTING ORGANIZATIONS ALL AROUND THE WORLD AND ENCOURAGING THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN ICANN THROUGH OUR MECHANISM. AND THE OTHER PART IS INSIDE THE CORPORATION, ADVOCATE OPINIONS IN THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL INTERNET USERS IN THE POLICY-MAKING PROCESSES. SO THIS IS A VERY SHORT LIST OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING SINCE THE LAST ICANN MEETING IN ROME, WHICH A GOOD PART OF IT IS THE ORGANIZING PART, SO OUTREACH AND MANAGING APPLICATIONS AND ACCREDITING ORGANIZATIONS THAT WANT TO BECOME PART OF THE MECHANISM. AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON A BUDGET REQUEST TO FINANCE OUR ACTIVITIES FOR THE NEXT YEAR. AND THEN WE'VE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PARTICULARLY IN THE GNSO ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS THE WHOIS TASK FORCE, THE DOT NET OR THE NEW TLDS. AND WE ALSO HAVE BEEN IN THE ORGANIZING GROUP FOR THE IDN WORKSHOP, FOR THE WSIS WORKSHOP IN KUALA LUMPUR. SO ABOUT AT-LARGE ORGANIZING AND ACCREDITATION OF STRUCTURES, WHAT'S HAPPENING IS WE ARE GOING ON TO ACCREDIT AND APPROVE ORGANIZATIONS. SO IN THE LAST FOUR MONTHS, WE HAVE ACCREDITED SIX MORE ORGANIZATIONS, SO WE NOW HAVE A LIST OF 16 ORGANIZATIONS OF INTERNET USERS ALL AROUND THE WORLD THAT ARE ACCREDITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES. AND WE HAVE FIVE MORE APPLICATIONS UNDERWAY. SO THE LIST IS CONTINUING TO GROW. AND THIS IS THE CURRENT LIST OF CERTIFIED AT-LARGE STRUCTURES. AND IT DOESN'T FIT ANYMORE IN ONE SLIDE. SO THE NEXT MEETING, I WILL HAVE TO USE TWO. AND WE ALSO HAVE A LIST OF -- HERE IS THE LIST OF THE FIVE MORE APPLICATIONS THAT WE HAVE BEEN RECEIVING, AND WE ARE VERY HAPPY TO SEE THAT ONE IS FROM MALAYSIA. AND IN TERMS OF REGIONAL ORGANIZING, WE ARE EXPECTED TO START UP THE REGIONAL -- THE REGIONAL AT-LARGE ORGANIZATIONS, WHICH ARE GOING TO OPERATE AS COORDINATING POINTS FOR THE FIVE ICANN REGIONS. AND ESPECIALLY HERE, WE HAD QUITE SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC MEETING WITH PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION. AND THERE ARE ALREADY ADVANCED TALKS TO CREATE AN INITIAL SECRETARIAT FOR AN ASIA-PACIFIC AT-LARGE ORGANIZATION. IN AFRICA, THERE'S ACTIVITY ONGOING TO CREATE A FIRST SECRETARIAT. AND ALSO THE OTHER REGIONS ARE GOING ON, SO EUROPEAN, LATIN AMERICA, IT WOULD FOLLOW EVEN IN NORTH AMERICA, WHICH, UP TO NOW, HAS BEEN THE MOST DIFFICULT REGION FOR US, WE HAVE STARTED TO RECEIVE THE FIRST COUPLE OF APPLICATIONS.

SO THINGS ARE STARTING TO MOVE IN NORTH AMERICA AS WELL. SO THIS IS ABOUT BUDGET. I MEAN, AND THE BOARD WILL HAVE -- MAYBE NOTICE OUR INCREASED REQUEST FOR FUNDS. SO I WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHY DO WE NEED FUNDS. AND, ACTUALLY -- WELL, OUR MAIN SPENDING ITEMS, I WILL SAY TWO. SOMEONE TO HIRE A PART-TIME PERSON IN EACH REGION. WE THINK WE NEED TO HAVE ONE PART-TIME PERSON IN EACH OF THE ICANN REGIONS INSIDE THE ICANN STAFF TO HELP US COMMUNICATE WITH THE STRUCTURES, BECAUSE THE COMMITTEES ARE DONE ONLY BY VOLUNTEERS, AND SO WE ARE NOT SO EFFECTIVE; WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DO ALL THE JOB. SO THAT'S WHY WE REALLY THINK THAT ICANN SHOULD HAVE ONE PERSON TO -- IN EACH OF THE ICANN REGIONS TO KEEP COMMUNICATIONS OPEN WITH THE AT-LARGE STRUCTURES AND WITH AT-LARGE USERS IN GENERAL. AND THE OTHER ONE IS TRAVEL FUNDING, NOT JUST COMING TO ICANN MEETINGS, BUT HAVING THE POSSIBILITY TO GO AND ATTEND EVENTS IN THE REGION, TO DO OUTREACH AND PRESENT WORK AND MAKE ICANN MORE WELL KNOWN, WHICH I THINK IS ALSO IMPORTANT IN THIS MOMENT. AND, OF COURSE, WE ARE NOT RELYING COMPLETELY ON ICANN FUNDS. WE TRY TO PURSUE GRANTS AND FIND OTHER SOURCES OF MONEY, ESPECIALLY TO BRING PEOPLE FROM THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO ICANN MEETINGS, AS WE DID IN PAST ICANN MEETINGS. UNFORTUNATELY, WE COULDN'T GET ANY MONEY TO BRING PEOPLE FROM ASIA-PACIFIC HERE, BUT WE TRY TO DO SO FOR THE NEXT MEETING IN AFRICA. SO WE HOPE TO GET SUPPORT FOR OUR BUDGETING REQUEST. AND, WELL, BEFORE I MOVE TO POLICY ACTIVITIES, ANOTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THAT WE HAVE STARTED TO -- I MEAN -- SET UP A COLLABORATION WITH THE NEWLY FORMED CCNSO. SO WE ARE PLANNING TO EXCHANGE LIAISONS WITH THEM.

AND WE ARE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE CLOSER WORK WITH THE CCTLDS. SO IN TERMS OF POLICY ACTIVITIES, WELL, OF COURSE, THE MAIN ITEM ON OUR AGENDA HAS BEEN PARTICIPATING IN THE THREE WHOIS TASK FORCES. SO WE HAVE BEEN, I THINK, QUITE ACTIVE IN THE TASK FORCES. WELL, I THINK YOU CAN IMAGINE WHAT WE WANT TO GET FROM THEM. SO I WILL NOT GO THROUGH THE LIST. BUT, BASICALLY, WHAT WE WANT TO DEFEND IS THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE AVERAGE USER WHO WOULD LIKE TO GET MUCH MORE PRIVACY THAN HE HAS NOW IN HIS -- FOR HIS WHOIS DATA.

AND ALSO IN TERMS OF IDNS, WE THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE GO ON WITH THE IDNS AND WE IMPLEMENT THEM AND NOT JUST MAYBE IN CHINESE, JAPANESE, AND KOREAN, OR IN THE WESTERN EUROPEAN LANGUAGES, BUT ALSO IN ALL THE OTHER SCRIPTS AROUND THE WORLD. BUT WE ALSO THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT ICANN STARTS TO MAKE POLICY TO ENSURE SOME DEGREE OF UNIFORMITY AND PREDICTABILITY IN THIS FIELD, OTHERWISE, IT WILL -- WE WILL CREATE MORE CONFUSION. SO WE DO NOT WISH TO ENTER INTO A -- A -- AND CREATE A LOT OF PROBLEMS. SO, FINALLY, ABOUT WSIS, WE HAVE BEEN THE FIRST CONSTITUENCY TO GET INTERESTED IN WSIS. WE HAVE ORGANIZED THE WORKSHOP IN TUNIS, ROME, AND HERE. WE THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR YOU ALL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON. AND WE ARE HAPPY TO SEE THAT ALMOST EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE INTERESTED IN WSIS NOW. WE THINK THAT THIS SERIES OF WORKSHOPS HAS BEEN QUITE PRODUCTIVE FOR THE WHOLE ICANN COMMUNITY. BUT WE SUPPORT THE CURRENT MODEL OF ICANN AND WE HOPE THAT THE U.N. WORKING GROUP WILL BE AS OPEN AND INCLUSIVE AS ICANN IS TODAY. SO THANK YOU. THIS IS MY REPORT. AND IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL BE GLAD TO TAKE THEM.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VITTORIO.

LET ME THANK YOU AND ALL OF THE ALAC MEMBERS FOR THE ENDLESS WORK THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING TO HELP ORGANIZE THIS PORTION OF AN ICANN COMMUNITY SO WE CAN HAVE THEIR INPUTS. WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE TO DO, WITH STEVE CROCKER'S PERMISSION, IS TO POSTPONE HIS REPORT UNTIL AFTER LUNCH. IS THAT ALL RIGHT, STEVE?

>>STEVE CROCKER: SURE.

>>VINT CERF: AND I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE MICROPHONE NOW FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION.

SHARIL AND I HAVE TO DEPART FOR ANOTHER MEETING. SO I AM GOING TO TURN THE MEETING OVER TO ALEJANDRO PISANTY TO MANAGE UNTIL THE LUNCH BREAK. AND THEN WE WILL RECONVENE AT 2:00. SO, ALEX, IT'S ALL YOURS.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: SPEAKER, PLEASE.

>>MILTON MUELLER: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR VITTORIO ABOUT -- I APPRECIATE THE REALLY IMPORTANT ROLE THAT THE AT-LARGE HAS PLAYED IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

ONE THING WE NOTICED IN THE GNSO IS THAT THE -- MANY TIMES WE'RE DEBATING THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANTS AND THEY ARE BASICALLY NOT REPRESENTED BY ANY OF THE CONSTITUENCIES THAT ARE FORMALLY PART OF THE GNSO. AND THE ISSUE I WANTED TO RAISE WITH YOU WAS TO DISCUSS THE VOTING RIGHTS OR THE FORMAL PARTICIPATION OF THE AT LARGE IN THE TASK FORCES OF THE GNSO. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS A LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT THIS.

AND I THOUGHT THE ISSUE SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD REGARDING, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE ALAC PARTICIPATES IN THESE TASK FORCES, IS IT OF EQUAL STATUS WITH THESE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES, WHICH I THINK IT SHOULD BE. BUT THERE IS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THAT. SO IF YOU COULD DISCUSS THAT.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: I THINK I SHOULD START BY SUMMARIZING THE ISSUE.

BECAUSE WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING WITH THE WSIS TASK FORCES -- IN THE THREE TASK FORCES, SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WERE APPOINTED AS LIAISON OF THE COMMITTEE INSIDE THE TASK FORCES. AND WHEN IT CAME TO HAVE VOTES INSIDE THEM, INSIDE THE TASK FORCES, IN ONE TASK FORCE, THE CHAIR BASICALLY ASKED FOR THE FACT THAT THE COMMITTEE LIAISON SHOULD NOT HAVE A VOTING RIGHT. SO THAT, ACTUALLY, WE COULD NOT PARTICIPATE TO VOTE. AND IT SEEMS THAT ACCORDING TO THE (INAUDIBLE) BYLAWS, THE LIAISON COMMITTEES INSIDE THE TASK FORCES DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE. BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY WERE APPOINTED AS EXPERTS AND NOT AS LIAISONS, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE. SO IT'S QUITE CONFUSING. IT MOSTLY DEPENDS ON THE FORM YOU GIVE TO IT. AND SO SINCE ALSO THE APPLICATION OF THIS WAS DIVERSIFIED IN THREE TASK FORCES, IN TWO OF THE TASK FORCES, A REPRESENTATIVE COULD VOTE AND IN THE THIRD, HE COULD NOT VOTE, PERHAPS THERE SHOULD BE SOME CLARIFICATION.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: HI, MY NAME IS BRUCE TONKIN, AND I'M CHAIR OF THE GNSO. I'D JUST LIKE TO PERHAPS GIVE AN ANSWER OF KIND OF WHAT THIS CURRENT STATUS IS VERSUS WHAT YOU MIGHT LIKE TO HAVE HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. BUT THE CURRENT STATUS IS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT UNDER THE BYLAWS, THE ALAC IS STRUCTURED AS AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE BOARD, AND, THEREFORE, IT DOESN'T DIRECTLY HAVE A VOTE IN A TASK FORCE UNLESS A MEMBER IS APPOINTED AS AN EXPERT BY THE COUNCIL. AND THEY MAY BE MEMBERS OF ALAC BUT THEY WOULD BE ACTING IN THEIR CAPACITY AS AN EXPERT.

BUT THE GNSO DOES HAVE A FULL PARTICIPATION APPROACH FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE ALAC. WE DO SEEK STATEMENTS FROM THE ALAC IN EACH OF OUR POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES, AND THOSE STATEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN EACH OF OUR REPORTS, BUT THAT'S REALLY JUST THE STRUCTURAL QUESTION. AND I THINK WHAT MILTON IS PROBABLY IMPLYING IS THAT PERHAPS THE ALAC NEEDS TO BECOME A CONSTITUENCY OF THE GNSO, IN WHICH CASE IT WOULD HAVE THE SAME STATUS AS EVERY OTHER CONSTITUENCY. SO IT'S REALLY JUST A CLARIFYING ANSWER RATHER THAN DEBATING WHICH IS THE RIGHT ANSWER.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: EVEN MORE THAN A MATTER OF VOTING RIGHTS, IT'S A MATTER OF COMMON SENSE. SO IF EVERYONE AROUND THE TABLE WANTS TO FIND A COMPROMISE, A SOLUTION THAT TAKES INTO THE NEEDS AND OPINIONS OF EVERYONE ELSE, THEN EVERYTHING IS FINE AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO COUNT VOTES. SO THE PROBLEM ONLY ARISES WHEN YOU CANNOT MANAGE TO REALLY TALK TO EACH OTHER AND GET TO A COMMON-SENSE AGREEMENT.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE REPORTS?

>>IZUMI AIZU: THANK YOU, ALEX. MY NAME IS IZUMI AIZU, MEMBER OF AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM THIS REGION. AND I'D LIKE TO GO WITH SOME OF THE OTHER REMARKS TO THANK THE HOST OF THIS MEAN IN KUALA LUMPUR, ALTHOUGH SHARIL IS NOT HERE. BUT I HOPE IT WILL BE ON THE RECORD.

AND THIS IS MY SECOND HOME TOWN. I USED TO LIVE AND WORK HERE, SO I'D LIKE TO FURTHER AMPLIFY THE LOCAL INTERNET COMMUNITY'S EFFORT TO SUPPORT THIS EVENT. WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO ALSO PROVIDE SOME GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS IN TERMS OF THE AT-LARGE ORGANIZING ACTIVITIES TO SUPPLEMENT WHAT VITTORIO SAID. THE GOOD NEWS IS WE'RE REALLY STARTING MORE SERIOUSLY TO TALK AND ACT ABOUT THE ORGANIZING THE RALO, THE REGIONAL AT-LARGE BODY. THE COMMITMENT WE FOUND FROM THE ALS IS ALREADY CERTIFIED. SO IT IS NOT JUST FROM US, APPOINTED BY THE COMMITTEE FOR THE NOMCOM, BUT THOSE ARE TALKING WITH US TO PRAGMATICALLY IMPLEMENT HOW TO EMBODY THE RALO FROM ASIA-PACIFIC. SO WE ARE AIMING TO HAVE A ROUND OF MEETINGS FROM NOW TILL THE KYOTO NEXT FEBRUARY. ALREADY THERE IS PLANNED ONE IN SEOUL, OCTOBER. PERHAPS ONE IN TAIPEI AND ANOTHER IN BEIJING BEFORE KYOTO SO WE CAN SHARE AND PRAGMATIC HOW TO FORMULATE, WHILE INVITING OTHERS FROM MALAYSIA OR SINGAPORE OR THAILAND TO BECOME PART OF THE SERIOUS EFFORT. THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS AND WE HAVE VERY GOOD COLLABORATION. THE BAD NEWS IS THAT ALTHOUGH WE ARE DOING OUR BEST, WE HAVEN'T REALLY GOTTEN THE OTHER REGIONS WE EXPECTED, TO THE EXPECTATION THAT WE HAVE BEFORE. AND WE FIND IT NOT REALLY THAT EASY, SO THAT WE PLEAD FOR MORE INCREASE OF BUDGET MEETING, BECAUSE OUR USERS, THEIR DAILY JOB IS NOT REALLY TO COME TO ICANN MEETINGS NOR TO THE BUSINESS RELATED TO ICANN MATTERS, UNLIKE MOST OF YOUR CONSTITUENCIES. SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO JUSTIFY THE TIME AND ENERGY, TO SET ASIDE OUR DAILY JOBS TO GATHER ALL THESE ENERGIES. THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO HAVE SOME EXTRA EFFORT OR SORT OF THE HELP, FINANCIALLY AND OTHERWISE, FROM THE CONSTITUENCIES. BUT MORE THAN THAT IS -- AND ANOTHER GOOD NEWS IS WE HAVE A VERY GOOD JOINT COLLABORATION. WE HAD A DIALOGUE WITH NCUC THIS TIME AGAIN OR SOME OF THE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES, WE HAVE JOINT ORGANIZING EVENTS. SO IT'S NOT -- WE ARE NOT REALLY ALONE IN THIS EFFORT; THAT WE SEE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES STARTING TO HAVE MORE INTEREST TO WORK TOGETHER, BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE ARE PROVIDING SOME VALUE TO THE ICANN PROCESS OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT; ESPECIALLY THAT OF THE PUBLIC POLICY. BUT AGAIN, IT'S AN UPHILL BATTLE, STILL GOING ON, AND SOME OUR MEMBERS FEEL LIKE WE MAY BE CLOSE TO BURNING OUT UNLESS WE SEE THE RESULT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. SO WITH THAT, I APPRECIATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND THE FURTHER SUPPORT. THANKS.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: VITTORIO, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT FOR THAT?

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: WELL, NO. I THINK I COMPLETELY AGREE, OF COURSE, WITH WHAT HE SAID.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE ALAC OR THE OTHER ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED?

THEN WE CAN ADJOURN THIS PART OF THE MEETING. THANKS TO EVERYBODY FOR ATTENDING AND SPEAKING AND SEE YOU AT 2:00 SHARP. (LUNCH BREAK)

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I GUESS EVERYBODY AGREES TO BEGIN THIS MEETING.

SO I'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER, AND I WILL ASK FIRST, STEVE, IF YOU CAN ALLOW VENI TO SAY A FEW WORDS THAT WERE LEFT OUT OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE, AND THEN CARRY ON.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: THANK YOU, ALEJANDRO. I'M SORRY, STEVE, BUT IT'S, I THINK, IMPORTANT, AND WE SHOULD HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN TO THANK DIANE SCHROEDER AND EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE STAFF, SOME OF THE STAFF THAT HELPED US IN THE PREPARATION OF THE MEETINGS, REVIEW OF THE RFP -- OF THE PROPOSALS, THE PREPARATION OF THE RFPS, AND ALL THE PAPERWORK, WHICH WAS QUITE A LOT OF WORK. AND THAT'S WHY I WANT TO THANK THEM NOW IN PUBLIC AND IN THE RECORDS.

THANK YOU (APPLAUSE.)

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: SO, STEVE, CAN YOU GET STARTED? THE NEXT POINT IN THE AGENDA IS THE REPORT FROM THE SSAC. STEVE CROCKER HAS THE FLOOR.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: THANK YOU AND YOU ECHO VENI'S CONGRATULATIONS AND THANKS. I HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING WITH HER FROM THE BEGINNING OF MY TENURE AND IT'S AMAZING HOW MUCH SHE TAKES CARE OF BEHIND THE SCENES. I CHAIR THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. IN THE PAST I'VE TRIED TO GIVE SORT OF A BROAD PICTURE OF WHAT WE DO.

TODAY I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON SPECIFIC TOPICS, AND THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE THAT GOES ON, BUT THIS HAS BEEN A PERIOD THAT HAS BEEN PUNCTUATED BY A FEW BIG ISSUES. HERE'S A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CURRENTLY ON THE COMMITTEE. THIS LIST IS ALSO ON THE WEB SITE. A VERY DISTINGUISHED GROUP, ACTUALLY, WITH BROAD BASE AND GREAT DEPTH. THE COMMITTEE WAS FORMED IN SPRING OF 2002. THE PROCESS WAS INITIATED FOLLOWING THE EVENTS OF 9/11 IN 2001. INITIAL MEMBERS WERE SELECTED BY THE ICANN STAFF, AND THE COMMITTEE HAS BASICALLY BEEN VERY STABLE. TWO ADDITIONS AND TWO DEPARTURES OVER THE ENTIRE PERIOD. ONE OF THOSE WAS DOUG BARTON ROTATING OFF THE COMMITTEE HE HE THE BECAME IANA GENERAL MANAGER. WE ARE NOW ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR NEW MEMBERS. WE ARE LOOKING FOR ANYBODY THAT YOU THINK MIGHT BE INTERESTED OR IS INTERESTED OR THINK MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE. WE HAVE SORT OF A ROUGH-AND-READY INTERNAL THAT IS INTENDED TO BE INVITING AND INCLUSIVE BUT AT THE SAME TIME NOT OVERBEARING OR HEAVY WEIGHT. ANOTHER KIND OF STAFF CHANGE, JIM GALVIN HAS BEEN OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ON A PART-TIME BASIS. IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT WE WILL BE CONSIDERABLY MORE EFFECTIVE IF WE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF A FULL-TIME RESEARCHER AND WRITER. WE POSTED ANNOUNCEMENT. WE CHARACTERIZED THIS AS THE SSAC FELLOW. EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATIONS WE HAVE RECEIVED IS CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS. THE STANDARDS WE HAVE IN MIND ARE QUITE HIGH SO IT'S NOT A GIVEN THAT WE'LL SELECT ANYBODY FROM THE CURRENT CROP. WE'VE BEEN DOING QUITE WELL AS IT IS. SO I'M LOOKING FOR SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT RATHER THAN JUST AN ARBITRARY CHANGE. AND IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR SUGGESTED CANDIDATES, DON'T HESITATE TO CONTACT ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO TALK PRINCIPALLY ABOUT TWO THINGS TODAY. WILDCARD REPORT AND THE INTRODUCTION OF SECURITY INTO THE DNS SYSTEM THROUGH THE DNSSEC PROTOCOL. SO THE NEXT SEVERAL SLIDES TALK ABOUT THE REPORT THAT WE'VE RECENTLY ISSUED ON REDIRECTION IN THE COM AND NET DOMAINS. THE REPORT IS AVAILABLE ON THE NET. THE URL IS GIVEN AT THE BOTTOM. THE REPORT IS A DAUNTING 85 PAGES, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THAT ARE APPENDICES AND SUPPORTING MATERIAL. THE MEAT OF THE REPORT IS ROUGHLY 25 PAGES, AND THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IS A VERY DIGESTIBLE TWO PAGES. SO YOU CAN HAVE THIS IN SMALL, MEDIUM, OR LARGE SIZE, IF YOU WISH. MIDDLE OF SEPTEMBER LAST YEAR, VERISIGN CHANGED THE WAY THE COM AND NET REGISTRIES WORKED. AND THE CHANGE THAT THEY INTRODUCED IS THAT WHEN A -- WHEN RECEIVED A NAME THAT WAS NOT INSTANTIATED, THAT'S A TECHNICAL TERM, NOT REGISTERED OR NOT OTHERWISE VISIBLE IN THE DATABASE, AND THESE USUALLY AROSE FROM TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKES, THEN INSTEAD OF RECEIVING A STANDARD ERROR CODE, WHICH HAD BEEN DEFINED IN THE PROTOCOL AND HAD BEEN THE WAY THE SYSTEMS HAD WORKED FOR YEARS AND YEARS, THEY INSTEAD RETURNED AN IP ADDRESS OF ONE OF THEIR OWN SERVERS AS IF THAT NAME EXISTED. AND THEN WHEN SOMEONE ATTEMPTED TO CONNECT TO THAT SERVER, IF IT WAS A WEB CONNECTION, HTTP PROTOCOL, THEY GOT WHAT WAS CALLED THE SITE FINDER SERVICE. BUT IF IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE, THEY EITHER GOT A REFUSAL TO CONNECT OR IN THE SPECIAL CASE OF E-MAIL, WERE CONNECTED TO A SPECIAL E-MAIL SERVER THAT ACCEPTED THE CONNECTION AND THEN REFUSED EACH OF THE ATTEMPTS FOR EACH USER. SORT OF A "NO SUCH USER" RESPONSE. THERE WAS A RATHER SUBSTANTIAL, A VERY LARGE RESPONSE FROM THE COMMUNITY. IT WAS SWIFT, IT WAS QUITE VOCAL, AND IT WAS QUITE NEGATIVE. OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS, ANGRY MEMOS WENT BACK AND FORTH. ICANN ASKED VERISIGN TO PULL THE SERVICE DOWN. VERISIGN SAID NO. OUR COMMITTEE ISSUED AN ADVISORY. THE INTERNET ARCHITECTURE BOARD ISSUED A MEMORANDUM, ALL BASICALLY ALONG THE SAME LINE, SAYING LET'S NOT DO THIS, AND AT THE VERY LEAST, LET'S ROLL THIS BACK AND START OVER AND HAVE SOME TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT. THEN ICANN INCREASED THE -- SORT OF RAISED IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL AND SAID AS A MATTER OF CONTRACTUAL AUTHORITY, WE INSIST YOU TAKE DOWN. VERISIGN OBJECTED, BUT TOOK IT DOWN IN ANY CASE IN EARLY PART OF OCTOBER. OUR COMMITTEE HELD A PAIR OF MEETINGS IN OCTOBER ON THE 7TH AND 15TH. THESE MEETINGS WERE PUBLIC MEETINGS IN WASHINGTON. NUMEROUS PRESENTATIONS, AND TRANSCRIPTS KEPT AND COPIES OF THE SLIDES. ALL OF THAT MATERIAL REMAINS ON THE WEB AND IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION BY ANYBODY. WE THEN SET ABOUT TO WRITE A REPORT, AND WITH GREAT EMBARRASSMENT I HAVE TO SAY THAT I FELL INTO A BLACK HOLE AND THERE WAS AN ENORMOUS DELAY. BUT THE REPORT IS NOW DONE. IT WAS FORMALLY TRANSMITTED TO THE BOARD, AND MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND IS AVAILABLE ON THE WEB AT THE URL THAT I PUT UP AT THE BEGINNING. IT CONSISTS OF EIGHT FINDINGS AND FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AT SORT OF TOP LEVEL, SO I'LL WALK SORT OF BRIEFLY THROUGH THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. THE WORDS HERE ARE MY QUICK SUMMARY OF THE -- OF THESE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RATHER THAN THE PRECISE WORDING, WHICH REFLECTED SOME CARE AND CONSIDERABLE DEBATE TO GET IT TUNED JUST RIGHT. SO MY INTENT HERE IS TO GET THE SENSE OF THESE THINGS ACROSS RATHER THAN THE PRECISE WORDS. DO SEE THE REPORT IF YOU WANT TO DIG INTO IT OR IF THERE ARE ISSUES THAT ARE SOMEWHAT MORE SUBTLE THAN MY PRESENTATION HERE IS INTENDING TO COVER. SO THE FIRST FIND SOMETHING THAT VERISIGN DID, IN FACT, CHANGE THE REGISTRY AND ALSO THAT THAT CHANGE CAUSED HARM TO A WIDE VARIETY OF PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT PARTY TO THE CHANGE. THAT CHANGE VIOLATED ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES BY BLURRING THE ARCHITECTURAL LAYERS, AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, IT HAD THE UNFORTUNATE EFFECT OF PUTTING VERISIGN FUNDAMENTALLY INTO THE DESIGN LOOP FOR ANY CURRENT AND FUTURE PROTOCOL CHANGES. WHY IS THAT? WELL, THE PROTOCOL FOR DOMAIN NAME SYSTEMS SAYS IF THERE'S NO ENTRY, YOU GET BACK A NEGATIVE ANSWER, AND MANY APPLICATIONS ACTUALLY MAKE USE OF THAT NEGATIVE RESPONSE IN A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY. THE CHANGE THAT VERISIGN I UNDERSTAND CONSTITUTED EFFECTIVELY REMOVED THAT NEGATIVE RESPONSE ALTOGETHER, SUBSTITUTING AN APPARENTLY POSITIVE RESPONSE, AND THEN TRIED TO FIX IT UP AT THE NEXT LAYER UP WHEN SUBSEQUENT QUERIES TO THAT -- OR CONNECTIONS TO THAT SERVER TOOK PLACE. BUT THEY WOULD TAKE PLACE IN ARBITRARY PROTOCOLS, AND SO IT BECAME A PROTOCOL-SPECIFIC RESPONSE REQUIRED, AND THINGS GET VERY MESSY AT THAT. THOSE THREE FINDINGS ARE INDEPENDENT OF TIMING, INDEPENDENT OF PROCESS. THEY JUST SPEAK TO THE FACTS. THE FOURTH FINDING IS THAT THE CHANGE WAS ABRUPT. THERE WAS VERY LITTLE, ESSENTIALLY NO NOTICE, A LITTLE BIT OF ADVANCE NOTICE IN PUBLIC PRESS. NO COORDINATION WITH THE COMMUNITY. ALTHOUGH IT WAS QUITE EVIDENT THERE WAS A VERY LONG DEVELOPMENT PERIOD, SO IT WASN'T JUST THAT THEY THOUGHT IT UP ONE NIGHT AND INTRODUCED IT THE NEXT DAY. SO THAT CHANGE WAS ABRUPT, AND THAT HAS ITS OWN CONSEQUENCES. THERE WERE -- ANOTHER FINDING IS THAT, AS A CONSEQUENCE, THERE WAS VIGOROUS ACTION ACROSS A NUMBER OF FRONTS TO COUNTERACT THAT CHANGE. THE ONE THAT RECEIVED THE WIDEST NOTICE WAS A CHANGE INTRODUCED BY INTERNET SYSTEMS CONSORTIUM IN ITS BIND PROGRAM AS AN OPTION TO BE CHOSEN BY ITS CUSTOMERS THAT WOULD TAKE THE ADDRESS RETURNED AND TAKE NOTE OF THAT AND SAY THAT'S THE ADDRESS OF THIS REDIRECTION; LET'S TURN IT BACK INTO AN ERROR CODE. THAT'S A -- AND THERE WERE COMPARABLE CHANGES MADE BY ISPS AND PUT INTO SOME ROUTERS. SO NOT SOLELY THERE -- NOT SOLELY THE ISC BIND CHANGE. THE PROSPECT OF WARRING CHANGES THAT MAKE A CHANGE AND THEN ANOTHER PART THAT UNDOES IT IS THE KIND OF THING THAT STRIKES FEAR AND TERROR IN THE HEARTS OF ENGINEERS THAT TRY TO BUILD STABLE SYSTEMS. THINGS BECOME RICKETY AND ONE LOSES SLEEP IN THOSE KIND OF SITUATIONS. 5 AND 6 HAVE TO DO WITH PRIVACY ISSUES. BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY CHOSE TO HANDLE E-MAIL, AND MAYBE IT'S WORTH BACKING UP A LITTLE BIT. THE GENERAL STRATEGY FOR THE NON-WEB PROTOCOLS WAS SIMPLY TO REFUSE THE CONNECTION. IN THE SPECIAL CASE OF E-MAIL, WHEN ONE E-MAIL SERVER IS TRYING TO SEND MAIL TO ANOTHER E-MAIL SERVER AND IT HAS ITS ADDRESS AND KNOWS THAT IT EXISTS, THE STRATEGIES THAT ARE BUILT INTO THOSE PROTOCOLS ARE TO OVERCOME TEMPORARY TRANSMISSION FAILURES BY RETRYING. SO A REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE CONNECTION IS SEEN AS A TEMPORARY HURDLE AND IT QUEUES UP THE MAIL AND ATTEMPTS TO SEND IT IN THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT TAKES TO RUN THROUGH ITS COURSE AND GIVE IT VARIES BUT A TYPICAL TIME IS THREE DAYS. SO A MISTYPED NAME IN AN E-MAIL ADDRESS, INSTEAD OF GIVING A VERY QUICK RESPONSE THAT THAT IS AN IMPROPER OR NONEXISTENT DOMAIN NAME LEADS TO A VERY LONG DELAY THAT LOOKS AS IF THE MAIL IS GOING TO GO THROUGH AND THEN THREE DAYS LATER AN ERROR MESSAGE THAT THE SERVER SEEMS TO BE DOWN, CONFUSING AND QUITE DELAYED. SO VERISIGN INSTEAD OF USING THAT STRATEGY BUILT A SERVER THAT ACCEPTED THE CONNECTION AND THEN IN THE PROCESSING OF EACH OF THE USERS, THE TWO ADDRESSES, IF YOU WILL, WHO IT'S FOR, SAID WE DON'T HAVE THAT USER, DON'T HAVE THAT USER, AND THAT GENERATED A MUCH PROMPTER "NO SUCH USER" RESPONSE. PEOPLE CONCERNED WITH PRIVACY ISSUES OBSERVED THAT THAT STRATEGY MEANS THAT THE ADDRESSES OF WHO YOU WERE SENDING THE MAIL TO AND WHO WAS SENDING IT ENTERED VERISIGN SERVERS RAISING THE APPEARANCE OF POSSIBLE PRIVACY ISSUES. VERISIGN WAS ADAMANT THAT THEY DIDN'T RETAIN OR USE THAT INFORMATION. I THINK THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY AND NO REASON TO -- NOT TO BELIEVE THAT. BUT THE ARRANGEMENT OF HAVING THAT INFORMATION GO INTO SERVERS THAT ARE UNINTENDED OPENS THE DOOR FOR OTHERS TO DO THE SAME OR FOR OPERATIONAL ISSUES TO CHANGE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND LED TO A CERTAIN DEGREE OF NERVOUSNESS. A SEPARATE PRIVACY ISSUE IS RELATED TO THE PAGE THAT WAS DELIVERED UP WHEN -- IF YOU WERE MAKING A WEB CONNECTION, INCLUDED SOME SOFTWARE THAT TRACKED USER BEHAVIOR AND REPORTED IT BACK. TO A CERTAIN EXTENT THAT'S STANDARD INDUSTRY BEHAVIOR, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND IN THE CONTEXT OF TRYING TO MAKE A DOMAIN NAME REFERENCE AND NOT HAVING OPTED IN OR EVEN CHOSEN TO GO THERE LEFT ANOTHER SET OF PEOPLE NERVOUS ABOUT THE PRIVACY ISSUES. AND THE LAST FINDING IS THAT COLLECTIVELY, THE SET OF EVENTS FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE AND FROM A MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE REDUCED TRUST OVERALL, WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE NETWORK, WHAT IS THE NEXT THING THAT GOING TO HAPPEN. THOSE KIND OF QUESTIONS BECAME MUCH MORE EVIDENT ON PEOPLE'S MINDS. WE FORMULATED FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. THE FIRST IS DON'T DO THIS REDIRECTION. THE PRIMARY MECHANISM FOR THE REDIRECTION IS USING A MECHANISM CALLED WILDCARDS WHICH IS A TERM THAT SAYS THIS ENTRY COVERS EVERYTHING NOT COVERED ABOVE, BUT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO REDIRECTION. ONE COULD HAVE A PROGRAM THAT SYNTHESIZES A RESPONSE INSTEAD OF A FIXED DATABASE, AND THAT'S THE LANGUAGE WE USED IN THE REPORT. BUT RECOMMENDATION 1 SAYS LET'S NOT DO THIS GOING FORWARD IN ANY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAINS THAT EXIST. THERE ARE ALSO A HANDFUL OF RELATIVELY SMALL DOMAINS THAT HAVE BEEN USING THIS STRATEGY, AND THAT RAISES, QUITE OBVIOUSLY, THE QUESTION OF, WELL, WHAT ABOUT THEM? DO THEY GET TO CONTINUE? IS THAT OKAY? IF THEY CONTINUE, WHY IS THAT NOT A BAD THING? IN FACING UP TO THOSE ISSUES AND DOING A REASONABLY STRAIGHTFORWARD ANALYSIS, OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THOSE USES SHOULD BE PHASED OUT. WE DON'T INTEND THAT THAT SHOULD HAPPEN ABRUPTLY. WE BELIEVE THAT FOR MOST OF THE UNDERLYING REASONS THAT THAT STRATEGY IS BEING EMPLOYED THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER WAYS TO ACCOMPLISH A COMPARABLE GOAL. BUT THAT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION. AND I HASTEN TO ADD THAT OUR JOB IS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. WE DON'T HAVE ENFORCEMENT OR REGULATORY AUTHORITY. BUT WE DO THE BEST ANALYSIS WE CAN AND WE OFFER THAT ADVICE TO THE BOARD, TO THE COMMUNITY, AND TO, IN SOME SENSE, ANYBODY ELSE WHO WILL LISTEN. THE THIRD RECOMMENDATION WAS IN OBSERVATION THAT THE USE OF WILDCARDS IS DOCUMENTED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, THE RFCS THAT DEFINE THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM. BUT THE LANGUAGE IS NOT CLEAR ABOUT THE PROPER USE, AND OVER TIME THERE HAS BEEN DIFFERENT WRITINGS THAT SUGGEST THAT THIS IS SOMEWHAT DANGEROUS OR SHOULD BE USED ONLY IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES. SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO TRY TO BRING GREATER CLARITY IN THAT AREA. WHETHER OR NOT THE IETF WOULD TAKE THAT UP IS A MATTER UNDER THEIR CONTROL, OBVIOUSLY, AND NOT OURS. THE FOURTH RECOMMENDATION SPEAKS TO THE PROCESS OF INTRODUCING CHANGE INTO PUBLIC REGISTRIES, AND OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A DISCIPLINE PROCESS THAT INCLUDES OPEN NOTICE, AND NOT ONLY OPEN NOTICE BUT A CONSENSUS PROCESS THAT INCLUDES THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AFFECTED AND NOT SOLELY THE REGISTER OPERATORS. SO THAT'S THE BASE PICTURE OF WHAT OUR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE. AND HOW DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE THIS, ALEJANDRO? I WILL BE HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS OR NO QUESTIONS IF YOU THINK THAT THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE, OR I CAN MOVE ON TO THE OTHER TOPIC, BUT THIS WILL BE A NATURAL POINT FOR QUESTIONS ON THIS TOPIC.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: WE ARE ALREADY RUNNING OVER TIME BUT I THINK WE COULD ALLOW FOR FIVE MINUTES OF QUESTIONS HERE.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: SO I'VE GIVEN THIS TALK MAYBE FIVE TIMES THAT I CAN REMEMBER DURING THIS WEEK TO DIFFERENT GROUPS. THERE MAY BE NOBODY LEFT THAT HAS A NEW QUESTION, AND THAT'S FINE.

OKAY. DNSSEC DEPLOYMENT. DNSSEC IS AN ADDITION TO THE DNS PROTOCOL THAT ADDS SIGNATURES, CRYPTOGRAPHICALLY STRONG SIGNATURES TO THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSURING THE INTEGRITY OF THE RESULTS AND THE AUTHENTICITY OF THEIR SOURCE. IT PROTECTS AGAINST TAMPERING IN CACHES AND TRANSMISSION PATHS. AND THE BASIC SCHEME IS THAT WHEN THE END SYSTEM GETS THE ANSWER TO ITS QUERY, IT IS ABLE TO CHECK A SEQUENCE OF SIGNATURES UP THROUGH TO THE ROOT, THEREBY ASSURING THAT THE ANSWER IT GOT WAS AUTHENTIC.

THIS IS ONE OF A HANDFUL OF STEPS FOR STRENGTHENING THE CORE PARTS OF THE INTERNET, THE INFRASTRUCTURE. OTHER AREAS ARE IN THE ROOTING AND SUPPRESSION OF DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS. SO FROM THE BROAD PERSPECTIVE OF HOW DO WE TIGHT UP THE INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE AND PREVENT IT FROM A VARIETY OF ATTACKS IN THE FUTURE. THIS IS ONE OF THE MAJOR PLANKS. THE THREATS THAT ARE BEING ENCOUNTERED BY THIS PROTOCOL WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE EARLY 1990S AND WITH GREAT URGENCY WORK WAS STARTED QUITE RAPIDLY AND VIGOROUSLY. AND NOW HERE WE ARE, MORE THAN TEN YEARS LATER. WHAT HAPPENED ALONG THE WAY WAS THAT THERE WERE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS DISCOVERED AS THE SPECS WERE PUT TOGETHER, AND THIS HAS LED NOW TO THREE MAJOR ITERATIONS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS. THE THIRD MAJOR ITERATION IS EMERGING NOW FROM THE IETF, AND WE WILL -- WE HAVE BEGUN TO FACE THE DEPLOYMENT PROCESS. THE DEPLOYMENT PROCESS HAS QUITE A FEW PARTS TO IT: IMPLEMENTATION, TESTING, PRODUCTIZATION. A LOT OF ADOPTION, TRAINING ISSUES. A LOT OF WORK REMAINING TO BE DONE. AND WE ARE JUST IN THE EARLY PHASES HERE. I SEE THAT I HAVE A LITTLE STYLE PROBLEM. THE "TO BE STARTED" LITTLE DOT GOT TRANSLATED INTO THESE BIG SQUARE BLUE BULLETS, BUT MOST OF THEM ARE IN THE STATE OF "TO BE STARTED." SO THERE'S LOTS OF WORK TO BE DONE. ONE OF THE WAYS TO SORT OF KEEP TRACK OF THE PROCESS OVER THE NEXT MANY YEARS IS TO ASK HOW MANY ZONES ARE SIGNED. TODAY WE'RE IN A STATE WHERE NONE OF THEM ARE SIGNED AND WE COULD GIVE THAT BROAD GLOBAL PICTURE THE STATUS OF EMPTY. IN SHORT ORDER WE HOPE THERE WILL BE SOME NUMBER OF ZONES THAT ARE SIGNED BUT THEY WON'T NECESSARILY BE CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER AND A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL SO THAT CREATES A PICTURE OF SORT OF A FEW DOTS FILLED IN AGAINST THE BROAD TREE. SO THAT PICTURE IS CAPTIONED ISOLATED. MUCH LATER, MANY MORE ZONES ARE SIGNED BUT STILL IT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL FRACTION OF THE TOTAL SO IT'S STILL SPARSE. AND THAT LEADS EVENTUALLY, ONE HOPES, INTO A FAIRLY DENSE STATE. AND AS A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, IF NOT REALITY, SOME DAY ONE CAN IMAGINE THAT ALL THE ZONES WILL BE SIGNED. THE HARD PARTS OF THAT SEQUENCE ARE NOT AT THE BEGINNING OR THE END BUT IN THE MIDDLE. WE UNDERSTAND QUITE WELL HOW THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM WORKS TODAY. WE UNDERSTAND, WE THINK, QUITE WELL HOW THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM WITH DNSSEC WOULD WORK WHEN ALL THE ZONES ARE SIGNED. BUT IN BETWEEN, THINGS ARE CONSIDERABLY HARDER. I WON'T TRY TO GET INTO THE DEPTH OF ALL OF THAT BUT IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL PROJECT WITH LOTS OF COORDINATION, AND WE'RE TRYING TO GATHER DIFFERENT PARTIES TOGETHER. THIS LEADS TO THE CREATION OF A PROJECT WHICH IS BROADER THAN ICANN AND BROADER THAN JUST OUR COMMITTEE, BUT FOR WHICH BOTH ICANN AND OUR COMMITTEE CONTINUE TO HAVE IMPORTANT ROLES. IN THE ICANN CONTEXT, IANA HAS A VERY PIVOTAL ROLE FOR THE ROOT. SIGNING THE ROOT REQUIRES IANA ACTION AND COORDINATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND THE ROOT SERVERS, COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PROCEDURES AND SO FORTH. FROM OUR COMMITTEE'S POINT OF VIEW, WE HAVE PUT SOME EFFORT INTO CREATING A NEW PROJECT THAT INVOLVES QUITE A FEW PEOPLE, AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO REPORT ON THAT. SOMEBODY MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT IT MIGHT EVEN BE HELPFUL TO HAVE A DNSSEC WORKSHOP AT THE NEXT ICANN MEETING IN CAPE TOWN. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S TIME AND BANDWIDTH TO PUT THAT TOGETHER, BUT IT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA. IF PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED, LET ME KNOW. IT WILL HELP MAKE THE DECISION. THE ROADMAP FOR THE COMPLETION OF THIS WILL -- INVOLVES LOTS OF MOVING PARTS. HERE'S A LIST OF THE MAJOR SOFTWARE COMPONENTS. THERE HAVE TO BE CHANGES IN THE END SYSTEMS TO KNOW THAT SIGNATURES ARE POSSIBLE, TO REQUEST THEM AND TO VALIDATE THEM. DNS RESOLVERS AT EVERY LEVEL, UP THROUGH THE AUTHORITATIVE ZONE SERVERS REGISTRIES AND ROOTS. AND EVEN THE REGISTRARS ARE AFFECTED BECAUSE THE REGISTRANT HAS TO SAY THAT HIS ZONE IS SIGNED AND HE WANTS THE SIGNATURE FOR THAT ZONE CAPTURED OR MADE AVAILABLE IN THE PARENT ZONE. LIFE IS NOT COMPLETELY SMOOTH. THERE ARE SOME NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN WORKED OUT COMPLETELY. THERE ARE A SET OF ISSUES REVOLVING AROUND THE ROOT KEY, HOW TO DISTRIBUTE IT, WHO CONTROLS IT, HOW DO YOU MAKE CHANGES TO IT. THE ROOT KEY HAS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE -- IN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE PUBLIC KEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROOT, HAS TO BE AVAILABLE TO ALL OF THE END SYSTEMS, AND THERE IS NO STRAIGHTFORWARD OR NATURAL WAY TO DISTRIBUTE THAT. THAT'S JUST THE PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT EVERYONE HAS TO HAVE SO WE CAN PUBLISH IT ON BILLBOARDS OR BUILD IT INTO SOFTWARE. IT LEADS TO A LOT OF ISSUES: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S THE RIGHT ONE AND HASN'T BEEN SPOOFED? AT THE OTHER END OF THE CHAIN, WHAT DO END SYSTEMS DO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY REQUEST A SIGNED RESPONSE BUT THEY GET BACK AN UNSIGNED RESPONSE? WELL, TODAY, THAT'S ALL YOU'RE GOING TO GET, NO MATTER WHAT YOU ASK FOR. SO IF YOU TRY TO THROW THAT AWAY AND SAY, "I ASKED FOR A SIGN RESPONSE AND I'M NOT GOING TO TRUST ANYTHING ELSE," THEN YOU BASICALLY HAVE SHUT DOWN. SOME TIME LATER, THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF SIGNED RESPONSES, AND SO THE LOCAL POLICIES WILL BE DIFFERENT. AND SO THE PICTURE HERE IS THAT END SYSTEM POLICIES HAVE TO EVOLVE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. IN THE MIDDLE PERIOD WHERE WE HAVE LOTS OF ZONES THAT ARE SIGNED BUT NOT A TOTAL -- NOT EVERYTHING IS DENSE AND CONNECTED, IT WILL BE USEFUL TO HAVE MULTIPLE ENTRY POINTS INTO -- WHERE AN END SYSTEM KNOWS WHAT THE TOPS OF SMALL CHAINS ARE. THIS GOES BY THE TERM SECURE ENTRY POINT OR SOMETIMES TRUST ANCHORS. AND YOU CAN THINK OF IT AS A GENERALIZATION OF THE ROOT KEY AND SO ALL OF THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROOT KEYS ARE MULTIPLIED WITH THESE MULTIPLE TRUST ANCHORS. FINALLY, A SOMEWHAT IRRITATING PROBLEM HAS EMERGED, THAT IN ALL OF THE YEARS OF DEVELOPING THE SPECIFICATIONS, IT WAS ALWAYS ASSUMED THAT DNS IS A -- THAT THERE WERE NO PRIVACY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DNS; THAT THE ZONES ARE OPEN AND PUBLIC, AND THAT THERE'S NO NEED TO PROTECT THAT INFORMATION. OVER THE LAST MANY YEARS, IN SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD, PARTICULARLY IN EUROPE, THERE HAS BEEN GREATER SENSITIVITY ABOUT DISCLOSING THE TOTALITY OF THE ZONE. AND THIS IS INTERACTING IN AN UNFORTUNATE WAY WITH THE DESIGN OF DNSSEC BECAUSE ONE OF THE PORTIONS OF DNSSEC IS THAT IT GIVES A SIGNED RESPONSE TO NEGATIVE ANSWERS. SO IF YOU HAVE A ZONE THAT HAS ALPHA, BETA AND GAMMA IN IT AND YOU GET BACK AN ANSWER THAT SAYS APPLE, IT SAYS THERE IS NOTHING BETWEEN ALPHA AND BETA AND APPLE IS CONTAINED IN IT. THIS MAKES IT SEEM EASY TO BUILD A SYSTEM THAT GOES FROM ONE POSITIVE ENTRY TO THE NEXT POSITIVE ENTRY TO THE NEXT POSITIVE ENTRY AND ACCUMULATE THE ENTIRE ZONE IN A MUCH MORE EFFICIENT WAY THAN IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT DNSSEC. SO THERE'S POSSIBLY MORE ITERATION TO TAKE PLACE TO FIND A WAY TO GIVE BACK THE NEGATIVE ANSWERS THAT ARE DEFINITIVE BUT DON'T DISCLOSE THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT ELSE IS THERE. SO THAT'S A QUICK PICTURE THROUGH THAT. THERE'S PLENTY MORE TO SAY. THIS IS AN EMERGING PROJECT THAT WILL GET BIGGER AND BIGGER WITH MANY PLAYERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (APPLAUSE.)

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY:THANK YOU VERY MUCH, STEVE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, STEVE. THE NEXT POINT IN THE AGENDA IS THE WIPO II ADVISORY GROUP REPORT BY PHILIP SHEPPARD. AND I SEE HERE, PHILIP, THAT THERE IS TEN MINUTES ASSIGNED FOR THIS REPORT. SO MAKE SOME SORT OF NOTICEABLE GESTURES ABOUT A MINUTE BEFORE THOSE TEN ARE THROUGH; OKAY? .

>>KEITH TEARE: EXCUSE ME, WHEN WILL THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK ABOUT THE PREVIOUS REPORT?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: STEVE, QUESTION, SORRY.

ARE YOU GOING TO COME BACK TO THE MEETING ROOM?

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: YES.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: WE HAVE PLANNED -- THE QUESTIONS FOR THE ADVISORY COMMITTEES WERE PLANNED FOR BEFORE LUNCH. OF COURSE THIS REPORT CAME LATER THAN LUNCH. AND I HAD THOUGHT OF EATING A LITTLE BIT OUT OF THE BREAK, OF THE AFTERNOON BREAK, SHORTEN IT SO WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE AVAILABLE. OTHERWISE, I INTRODUCE YOU. HERE'S STEPHEN CROCKER. YOU MAY WANT TO TALK.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: ALEJANDRO, WHICHEVER PLAN YOU DECIDE IS FINE WITH ME. JUST SAY WHICH WAY YOU WANT TO DO IT.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I HAD PLANNED FOR A GENERAL QUESTION SESSION -- WE HAVE AN OPEN MICROPHONE AT 5:00. I WAS PLANNING TO TAKE PERHAPS 15 MINUTES OUT OF THE AFTERNOON BREAK, WHICH WILL BE AROUND 3:00 SOMETHING, 3:25, TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE INTERACTION TIME.

BUT AT THIS POINT, THAT'S TAKING MORE TIME, SO QUESTION, ANSWER.

>>KEITH TEARE: IT WAS JUST MY FEELING THAT THE SITE FINDER ISSUE WAS A HUGE EVENT IN OUR COLLECTIVE HISTORY, AND I FOR ONE HAVE SOME -- I'D LOVE TO HAVE A BIT OF DIALOGUE ABOUT THE REPORT. AND I JUST WONDERED IF THERE'S A MOMENT. SO THAT'S GREAT.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: APOLOGIES, KEITH. WE MADE UP SPACE FOR THAT, AND SINCE YOU WEREN'T HERE -- AFTER THE SITE FINDER REPORT, WE DID ASK FOR QUESTIONS.

>>KEITH TEARE: OH, YOU DID. SORRY I WASN'T HERE.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: IN THE MIDDLE OF STEVE'S REPORT.

SO WE'LL LEAVE THAT FOR 3:30.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: I'LL BE BACK.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: ALEJANDRO, THANK YOU. FIRST OFF, I THINK IT SHOULD BE SAID THAT I'M MAKING THIS REPORT BECAUSE I WAS ASKED TO ON BEHALF OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH IS JONATHAN COHEN WHO IS UNABLE TO BE HERE TODAY.

JUST A REMINDER TO EVERYBODY HERE WHAT THE TASK WAS. THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM WIPO, WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION, ALSO ENDORSED BY THE GAC FOR WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY -- AND I MUST SAY ALSO, THE WORDS IN THESE SLIDES WERE MINE, AND I'LL DO MY VERY BEST TO GIVE THE FLAVOR OF WHAT YOU WILL FIND IN THE FINAL REPORTS, WHICH SHOULD BE WITH YOU, I THINK N THE NEXT FEW DAYS. SO IT CAME AS A REQUEST FROM WIPO, ENDORSED BY THE GAC FOR A UDRP, UNIFORM DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY, TYPE PROCESS TO ADDRESS ESSENTIALLY WHAT WERE PERCEIVED AS PROBLEMS OF CYBERPIRACY IN CERTAIN COUNTRY NAMES AND THE NAMES OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. THE REQUEST IN TERMS OF HOW THEY SHOULD BE ADDRESSED WAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TREATMENT. THE DETAIL OF THAT IS ALSO IN THE REPORT. THE FLAVOR OF THAT IS A RELEVANT NOTE TO BOTH. AS I SAY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WAS CHAIRED BY JONATHAN COHEN, AND HAD A VERY BROAD GROUP OF INTERESTS AND PEOPLE IN IT SO CERTAINLY WE ALL FELT THE RIGHT PEOPLE WERE THERE TO DISCUSS. AND I THINK IT'S TRUE TO SAY THAT IN TERMS OF THE OUTCOME, IT WAS LIVELY AND DIVIDED THROUGHOUT OUR DISCUSSIONS, AND YOU'LL SEE IN PARTICULAR AT LENGTH DISCUSSIONS SUMMARIZED IN THE FIRST REPORT, THE INTERIM REPORT OF THAT COMMITTEE. SECOND RATHER IMPORTANT OUTCOME IS TO SAY THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO CONSENSUS, I'M AFRAID.

THE REPORT IS GOING TO BE BEFORE YOU. WHAT YOU'LL FIND THE REPORT DESCRIBES IS A NUMBER OF OPTIONS, AND FOR EACH OF THOSE OPTIONS IT TELLS YOU A WHOLE SET OF REASONS WHY THESE OPTIONS ARE VERY BAD OPTIONS AND A WHOLE SET OF REASONS OF WHY THESE OPTIONS MIGHT WORK. SO I'M AFRAID, GENTLEMEN AND LADIES OF THE BOARD YOUR JOB IS NOT GOING TO BE EASY BASED ON THIS REPORT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GIVING YOU ANY FIRM RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE WE WERE UNABLE TO ACHIEVE A CONSENSUS IN ORDER TO DO SO. HOWEVER, LET ME JUST GIVE YOU A FLAVOR IN TERMS OF WHERE WE COME OUT IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS. AND OPINIONS AGAINST WERE ESSENTIALLY OPINIONS AGAINST DOING ANYTHING AT ALL. SAYING WE HAD THIS REQUEST, WE REALLY THINK WE SHOULD DO NOTHING FURTHER. AND SOME OF THE REASONING THERE WAS A FEELING THAT THE EXISTING TRADEMARK UDRP ACTUALLY ADDRESSES SOME OF THOSE ISSUES FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES AND CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS, AND MAYBE THERE'S STILL A ROOT THERE THAT COULD HELP WITH MANY THINGS. THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS IN TERMS OF APPLICATION FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WHAT CONSTRAINTS THAT HAS IN TERMS OF COUNTRY NAMES. THERE WAS CONCERN ALSO THAT THE NATURE OF THE QUEST, THE NATURE OF COUNTRIES AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS MEANT THAT ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE TRADEMARK UDRP, WHICH IS THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF YOU WIN OR LOSE, YOU DON'T LIKE THE RESULT, IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU CAN STILL GO TO COURT. SO WITH THE TRADEMARK UDRP, ALL ICANN WAS DOING WAS FACILITATING A FAST TRACK METHOD THAT HAS PROVED TO BE EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL IN OUR WORLD. BUT WE WERE NEVER DOING ANYTHING THAT SAID COURT IS NOT YOUR FINAL OPTION. AND THERE WERE CERTAINLY IMPLICATIONS IN THE REQUEST TO SAY THAT THINGS MIGHT HAVE TO BE DIFFERENT. AND FINALLY IT'S POINTED OUT IN PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS THE GNSO ALSO HAD EXPRESSED CONCERNS IN TERMS OF SIMILAR MODIFICATIONS. SO WHAT WERE THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN FAVOR OF DOING SOMETHING? FIRST OFF, CLEARLY, THERE WAS A PROBLEM PERCEIVED BY CERTAIN COUNTRIES, ENDORSED BY IMPORTANT BODIES, SO THERE'S A PROBLEM OUT THERE THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. ALTHOUGH IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WERE INTERNATIONAL -- THERE WERE CONCERNS IN TERMS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, PERHAPS NOT ALL THOSE ARGUMENTATIONS WERE PERSUASIVE AND PERHAPS THERE ARE WAYS TO GO GET AROUND THAT. PERHAPS THERE ARE ARBITRATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE. IS THAT A CONCERN AS FAR AS THE WAY THE TRADEMARK UDRP OPERATES. ANYWAY, THE BOARD IS HAVING ADVICE FROM THE (INAUDIBLE) SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION THROUGH THE GNSO BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A BOARD DECISION WHETHER WE GO FORWARD WITH THIS. YOU'LL FIND IN THE FINAL REPORT THAT COMES TO YOU THERE WAS AN ANNEX IN THAT, AND THAT ANNEX IS A -- WAS DONE BY ONE MEMBER OF THE THREE GAC REPRESENTATIVES AS AN ATTEMPT TO SHOW WHAT A UDRP MIGHT LOOK LIKE IF MODIFIED IN THE WAY THAT IT WAS REQUESTED. IT IS THERE AS ILLUSTRATION. THAT WAS SUPPORTED BY ALL THREE OF THE GAC REPRESENTATIVES ON THAT GROUP, BUT BY NOBODY ELSE. SO WHAT IS THE WAY FORWARD? I'M AFRAID THE WAY FORWARD IS ESSENTIALLY UNCERTAIN. THE CHAIR OF OUR GROUP BELIEVES THAT A NEW UDRP MAY BE ACCEPTABLE TO PERHAPS THE WIDER COMMUNITY SO LONG AS WE CAN KEEP THE ESSENCE OF THE CURRENT PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE TRADEMARK UDRP. AND THAT MEANS THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE ORIGINAL REQUEST THAT WE RECEIVED, AND IT MAY BE THAT SUCH A UDRP CONFORMING TO THOSE PRINCIPLES THAT IS SEPARATE TO THE EXISTING TRADEMARK UDRP MAY HAVE ALSO A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS AND THAT MAY BE ACCEPTABLE TO PERHAPS THE WIDEST POSSIBLE COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE IF ACTION IS TAKEN ON THIS. AND AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE REQUEST TO MAKE IT A SEPARATE POLICY, THERE WAS A LETTER FROM INTA, THE INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION, A WHILE BACK THAT EXPLAINED THE DETAIL OF WHY THAT WAS QUITE AN INTERESTING IDEA. A LOT OF THAT SIMPLY SAYING LOOK, WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT WORKS AT THE MOMENT, WE HAVE SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S UNCERTAIN. SO IF WE WANT TO DO IT, BETTER TO DO IT IN PARALLEL RATHER THAN TOGETHER. AND ALSO DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE, WHO MIGHT DO SOMETHING IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THAT, DOES THIS NOW BECOME A PDP FOR THE GNSO? ALL THOSE ARE OPEN QUESTIONS. THE REPORT IS IN TWO PARTS. THE INTERIM REPORT IS A LISTED DISCUSSION AND THE FINAL REPORT IS THE CHAIR'S ATTEMPT TO SUMMARIZE IN GREATER DETAIL THAN I HAVE DONE JUST NOW WHAT THOSE DISCUSSIONS WERE AND WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE BEFORE YOU. AND THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANK YOU, PHILIP.

WE GO NEXT TO THE ASO REPORT. HARTMUT GLASER PRESENTS.

>>HARTMUT GLASER: I'D LIKE TO BRING THE REPORT OF OUR ASO, ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION.

I AM ONE OF THE COCHAIRS. THE ADDRESS COUNCIL DON'T REPRESENT THE RIRS DIRECTLY. THE THREE REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH REGION ARE ELECTED BY ALL THE MEMBERS, AND THESE REPRESENTATIVES DON'T NEED NECESSARILY TO BE MEMBERS OF ONE OF THE RIRS. AND IT'S AN OPEN PROCESS. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES MAY PARTICIPATE. THE ADDRESS COUNCIL THAT NOW IS IN PLACE IS COMPOSED OF THE FOUR RIRS. AND WE HAVE THREE NAMES IN EVERY REGION. YOU SEE THE NAMES ON THE SCREEN FOR APNIC, FOR RIPE, FOR LACNIC, AND FOR THE ARIN REGION. MOST OF OUR MEETINGS ARE BY TELECONFERENCE. WE HAVE AN AGENDA OF SIX MEETINGS DURING THE YEAR, EVERY TWO MONTHS, AND SOME FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS DURING OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE WHEN WE ATTEND OUR MEETINGS OR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. THE SECRETARIAT EVERY YEAR ROTATES IN ONE OF OUR RIRS. 2004 IS SUPPORTED BY RIPE NCC, ONLY TO SHOW SOME OF THE REPLACEMENTS THAT WE HAVE THIS YEAR, ON THE SCREEN, YOU SEE THE RESULT OF OUR ELECTIONS. IN THE APNIC REGION, ONE MEMBER WAS REPLACED. IN THE ARIN MEETING, ALSO WAS A REPLACEMENT. IN LACNIC, WAS A REELECTION. AND ALSO IN THE RIPE MEETING, THERE WAS A REELECTION. ONE OF THE MISSIONS OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IS TO ELECT BOARD MEMBERS FOR ICANN. AND MOUHAMET WAS ELECTED. AND HIS TERM IS UNTIL JUNE OF 2006. AND THE NEW ELECTED BOARD MEMBER FROM OUR CONSTITUENCY IS RAIMUNDO BECA. HIS TERM IS UNTIL MAY 2007. OUR ASSEMBLY IS, IN PRINCIPAL, ONCE A YEAR. THE LAST ONE WE HELD IN AMSTERDAM. ONE KEY POINT, ONE KEY DISCUSSION AT THIS AMSTERDAM ASSEMBLY WAS THE NEW MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. THE DAY AFTER THIS ASSEMBLY, WE HAVE A MEETING OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL, AND WE JUST ELECT OUR NEW BOARD MEMBER, AS MENTIONED BEFORE. AND ON THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE ALSO THE ELECTION FOR THE ADDRESS COUNCIL NOMCOM REPRESENTATIVE. THE ADDRESS COUNCIL OBSERVED THE PROGRESS IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AFRINIC AS THE NEW RIR. WE ARE SUPPORTING ALL THE TRANSITION PLAN AND ALL THE REPRESENTATIVES OF AFRINIC FULLY PARTICIPATE IN OUR ACTIVITIES. THEY OBSERVE US, THEY HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS TO BE IN OUR MEETINGS. AND ALSO IN THE ICANN REFORM PROCESS, AFRINIC TAKE A VERY STRONG PARTICIPATION. OTHER ACTIVITIES THE LAST YEAR. WE NEVER HAVE IN THE PAST A VERY STRONG-ESTABLISHED SELECTION PROCESS. SO WE PREPARED A STANDARD HOW WE PROCEED WHEN WE ELECT OUR DIRECTORS. THIS NOW IS FINISHED. WE DEVELOPED A ROADMAP FOR OUR BUSINESS PLAN FOR OUR WORK FOR THIS YEAR. AND THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE FOR SOME TIME REVIEWED THE RFC 2050. WAS NO PROGRESS, AND THIS WORK HAS BEEN WRAPPED UP. ONE OTHER STRONG BUSINESS THAT WE SPENT TIME IS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE REFORM PROCESS AND ALL THE DISCUSSION. AND MOST OF YOU KNOW THE PROCESS RELATED TO THE NRO AND PROBABLY THE NEW RELATIONSHIP WITH ALL THE RIRS. WE ARE AWAITING NEWS ON THIS AGREEMENT OR THIS MEMORANDUM. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE ADDRESS COUNCIL TO SEE AND TO HAVE THIS NEW AGREEMENT WITH ICANN. AND AS POINTED OUT ON THE SCREEN, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO MAKE PROGRESS UNTIL THIS IS NOT COMPLETED. THE ROLE OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL PROBABLY WILL BE CHANGING WITH THIS NEW MEMORANDUM, AND WE ARE AWAITING THE RESULT OF THIS VERY SOON. THIS IS, MR. CHAIRMAN, MY SHORT REPORT. AND IF YOU WISH IT LATER, I CAN GIVE ANY CONTRIBUTION.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: YES.

THANK YOU. WE HAVE PLANNED, AS I SAID, FOR QUESTIONS FOR THE WHOLE SET OF REPORTS LATER. AND I WILL MOVE LATER ON THAT WE ALSO USE TIME FROM THE BREAK TO INCREASE THE PARTICIPATION TIME. SO THE NEXT REPORT IS THE GNSO REPORT BY BRUCE TONKIN. WE HAVE ALLOTTED TEN MINUTES FOR THIS REPORT, BRUCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

JUST TO QUICKLY REVIEW FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE ACRONYM GNSO AND WHAT IT MEANS. THE GNSO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING AND RECOMMENDING TO THE ICANN BOARD SUBSTANTIVE POLICIES RELATING TO GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. AND THEY'RE BASICALLY CURRENTLY COM, NET, AND ORG, BIZ AND INFO, AERO, NAME, MUSEUM, COOP, PRO. ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED WITHIN THE GNSO COUNCIL THIS WEEK IS REALLY TAKING MORE OF A PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES OF IMPORTANCE TO THE GNSO COMMUNITY. IN TYPICAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT, YOU CAN DIVIDE A PROJECT INTO PHASES, BEING ANALYSIS, REQUIREMENTS, HIGH LEVEL DESIGN, DETAILED DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION, TESTING OF YOUR IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING TO SEE THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION IS COMPLYING TO ITS SPECIFICATIONS, AND AN APPROACH OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT. THESE ARE ALL MAPPED IN THE GNSO TO THINGS LIKE THE ISSUE REPORT, POLICIES DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSING THE -- WHETHER THE POLICY IS IMPLEMENTABLE, CONVERTING THAT POLICY INTO A LEGAL FORM SO THAT IT CAN BE COMPLIED WITH, MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES TO THE SYSTEMS, MEASURING THE CHANGE AGAINST THE POLICY OBJECTIVE, COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT, AND THEN CONTINUOUSLY REFINING. ONE OF THE THINGS WE FOUND IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO SINCE THE NEW ICANN BYLAWS CAME INTO PLAY WAS THAT THE BYLAWS SPECIFY A TIME LINE FOR PROJECTS. BUT WE FOUND THAT THE LENGTH OF DURATION OF A PROJECT VARIES SUBSTANTIALLY DEPENDING ON ITS COMPLEXITY AND THE DEGREE OF EARLY CONSENSUS THAT WE HAVE IN THE COMMUNITY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT. ONE APPROACH WE NEED TO TAKE IS TO TAKE SMALL, INCREMENTAL STEPS WITHIN TIME FRAMES OF MONTHS RATHER THAN YEARS. A CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT APPROACH RATHER THAN TRYING TO BE A PERFECTIONIST AND GET EVERYTHING RIGHT IN ONE GO, WHICH WE'LL NEVER ACHIEVE. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IT KEEPS VOLUNTEERS MOTIVATED. AS I'LL REPORT ON IN TERMS OF OUR PROGRESS ON PROJECTS, SOME PROJECTS HAVE HAD NO PROGRESS FOR WELL OVER A YEAR. THE VOLUNTEERS THAT DID THE EARLY WORK HAVE SEEN NO RESULTS FROM THEIR WORK. AND THAT'S VERY DEMOTIVATING. THIS ALSO, BY FOCUSING ON THESE AS PROJECTS AND MAKING SURE THAT WE GET OUTCOMES FROM THOSE PROJECTS, WILL ULTIMATELY IMPROVE ICANN'S REPUTATION EXTERNALLY. THE WHOIS PROJECT STATUS. TAKING A PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH, I HAVE DECIDED TO PUT IN VERSION CONTROL FOR WHOIS. WE'RE CURRENTLY OPERATING UNDER WHOIS VERSION 1.1. THE -- THERE WAS A MINOR POLICY UPGRADE IN MARCH OF 2003. ONE OF THOSE WAS THE WHOIS DATA REMINDER POLICY. THAT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED AND IS NOW IN TESTING. AND ICANN RECENTLY PUBLISHED A REPORT ON THE SUCCESS OF THE -- WE'LL BE PUBLISHING A REPORT ON THE SUCCESS OF THAT POLICY. UNFORTUNATELY, THOUGH, VERSIONS 1.2 TO 1.4 HAVEN'T ACTUALLY GOT PAST THE INITIAL POLICY, NOT ACTUALLY IN A LEGAL FORM, AND ESSENTIALLY DON'T YET EXIST. AND, UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE ALSO WORKING ON A MAJOR UPGRADE OF WHOIS. BUT WE STILL HAVEN'T IMPLEMENTED EARLY PARTS OF OUR REQUIREMENTS PHASE. THE TRANSFERS PROJECT. TRANSFERS RECEIVED A MAJOR POLICY UPGRADE IN APRIL OF LAST YEAR. AND WE'LL CALL THAT VERSION 2. THE LEGAL POLICY WAS NOW JUST PUBLISHED LAST WEEK. SO WE NOW ACTUALLY HAVE MOVED TO DETAILED DESIGN IN THE PHASE OF THE PROJECT. WE HAVE NOT YET BUILT. AND BUILD FOR THAT PROJECT IS DUE BY THE 12TH OF NOVEMBER. WE NEED TO DEFINE A TESTING APPROACH TO TEST WHETHER THAT PROJECT IS WORKING. AND, ULTIMATELY, MONITORING WILL BE CRITICAL. IN OTHER WORDS, WE NEED TO HAVE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT FOR THAT POLICY TO HAVE ANY EFFECT. BECAUSE THAT ULTIMATELY LED TO THE FAILURE OF VERSION 1 OF THE TRANSFERS POLICY. DELETES PROJECT. THE DELETES ALSO HAD A MINOR POLICY UPGRADE IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR. AND CALL THAT VERSION 1.1. AGAIN, IT HAS NOT YET PROGRESSED FROM THE INITIAL DECISION BY THE BOARD INTO A LEGAL FORM OR INTO WHAT I'D CALL DETAILED DESIGN BEFORE IT CAN BE IMPLEMENTED. THERE WAS A SERVICE APPROVED BY THE BOARD AT OUR LAST MEETING IN ROME, BUT THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVISED TO SUPPORT THAT SERVICE, SO THAT'S A SERVICE THAT, I GUESS, IS NOT YET IN LEGAL FORM. DELETES, HOWEVER, IS A VERY ACTIVE AREA IN THE MARKET. MANY OF THE NEW REGISTRARS ARE FOCUSED ON REREGISTERING DOMAINS IMMEDIATELY AFTER DELETE. THIS IS LEADING TO AN INEFFICIENT USE OF REGISTRY RESOURCES, BECAUSE, ESSENTIALLY, THE -- IT OPERATES LIKE AN ELECTRONIC LOTTERY. THE MORE CONNECTIONS YOU HAVE, THE MORE CHANCE YOU HAVE OF WINNING THE NAME THAT'S ABOUT TO BE DELETED. AND THOSE CONNECTIONS ARE PURCHASED, IN EFFECT, THROUGH THE ICANN ACCREDITATION PROCESS. SO THE REVENUE FROM THAT (INAUDIBLE) ESSENTIALLY FLOW TO THE ORGANIZATION. DELETES IS DEFINITELY AN AREA THAT'S LIKELY TO NEED SUBSTANTIAL UPGRADE IN THE NEXT YEAR. WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO PROVIDE SOME ADVICE ON THE DOT NET CRITERIA. WE FORMED A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL IN THE 1ST OF APRIL OF THIS YEAR. PERHAPS AN UNFORTUNATE CHOICE OF DATES. BUT WE ARE HOPING THAT WE CAN FINALIZE THOSE CRITERIA IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO, AND WE'RE CERTAINLY LOOKING FOR FINAL INPUT FROM ANY MEMBERS OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY ON THOSE CRITERIA. THE FINAL AREA OF -- FINAL PROJECT THAT WE HAVE IN OPERATION IS LOOKING AT AN IMPROVED APPROVAL PROCESS FOR CHANGES TO GTLD AGREEMENTS AND PROCESSES. THE ISSUES REPORT WAS COMPLETED IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR. WE ARE HOPING TO FINALIZE AN INITIAL REPORT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS. THE GENERAL STEPS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED SO FAR, THOUGH, IS -- FIRST, IS TO DETERMINE IF APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. THEN TAKE A QUICK LOOK TO SEE WHETHER THERE ARE ANY ISSUES RAISED BY THE PROPOSED CHANGE. IF THERE ARE ISSUES, THEN THERE'S A DETAILED REVIEW, WHICH IS A FULL PUBLIC REVIEW FOR MEMBERS OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY TO PROVIDE THEIR INPUT. AND, ULTIMATELY, IF THE PROCESS FAILS, THEN WE HAVE THE RECONSIDERATION PROCESS IN THE BYLAWS THAT WE CAN USE. THE TWO BROAD CRITERIA FOR GUIDING DECISIONS IN THIS AREA ARE THE CRITERIA OF ENSURING WE HAVE COMPETITION AND ENSURING THAT WE HAVE SECURITY AND STABILITY. THAT'S, I THINK, THE CONCLUSION OF MY REPORT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BRUCE.

LET ME PUBLICLY THANK YOU AND THE REST OF THE GNSO FOR THE HARD WORK THAT THIS REPORT CLEARLY SHOWS YOU HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKING. MIKE PALAGE, YOU HAVE A QUESTION.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: YES, BRUCE.

I WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR THE BROAD POLICY STATUS UPDATE AND REMINDING THIS ORGANIZATION OF SOME OF THE UNFINISHED WORK WE HAVE TO MAKE THE TRAINS RUN ON TIME. I HOPE THAT WITH THE PENDING ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET THAT THESE AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS CAN QUICKLY BE IMPLEMENTED AND LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR REPORT IN CAPE TOWN.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MIKE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: PLEASED TO HEAR THAT.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: OUR NEXT REPORT COMES FROM CHRIS DISSPAIN.

AND IT IS THE FIRST TIME, I THINK, THAT WE HAVE AN OFFICIAL REPORT FROM THE CCNSO TO THE -- THE SECOND ONE. THANK YOU, CHRIS. BRAIN CELLS NOT FUNCTIONING.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: PLEASE.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: THIS IS THE COMMUNIQUE OF THE CCNSO.

>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY, CHRIS, DO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT YOU HAVE INHERITED THE GAC DISEASE AND YOU NOW HAVE COMMUNIQUES?

IS THAT --

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: WELL, THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN CALLED COMMUNIQUES.

WE'RE HAPPY TO CHANGE IT TO SOMETHING ELSE IF YOU LIKE. WE CAN HAVE MAYBE A WORKING GROUP ABOUT IT. (LAUGHTER.)

>>VINT CERF: WHAT A GREAT IDEA.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: FIGURE OUT WHAT THE CORRECT TITLE SHOULD BE.

>>VINT CERF: YES.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: REPORT, THEN.

>>VINT CERF: DOESN'T MATTER.

SORRY. PLEASE PROCEED.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: THE CCNSO IS PLEASED TO PRESENT ITS SECOND REPORT COVERING THE SECOND MEMBERS MEETING AND ITS INAUGURAL COUNCIL MEETING IN KUALA LUMPUR.

REPRESENTED AT THE MEETING WERE 19 MEMBERS OF THE CCNSO, 19 NON-MEMBER CCTLD MANAGERS, AND SEVERAL DOZEN OBSERVERS. ALL THOSE PRESENT EXPRESSED THEIR APPRECIATION FOR THE WORK DONE IN FACILITATING THE MEETING BY THE MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL HOST ORGANIZING COMMITTEE. THE ELECTION OF THE CCNSO COUNCIL. THE CCNSO RECEIVED A REPORT ON THE ELECTION OF THE INAUGURAL COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL MEMBERS I AM GOING TO READ OUT THEIR NAMES IF THEY ARE IN THE ROOM AND THEY'D LIKE TO STAND UP, THEY ARE WELCOME. THE COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR AFRICA, VICTOR CIZA, PAULOS NYIRENDA, YANN KWOK. (LISTING NAMES). LATIN AMERICA: AND NORTH AMERICA: I HAVE BEEN ELECTED THE INTERIM CHAIR. THE CCNSO THANKS GLEN DE SAINT GERY, THE CCNSO MANAGER, AND OTHERS FOR THEIR WORK IN CONDUCTING SUCCESSFUL ELECTIONS. CCNSO OPERATIONS, THE CCNSO DISCUSSED HOW IT WILL FUNCTION AND ITS PROPOSED RULES OF OPERATION. AMONG OTHER THINGS, IT WAS AGREED HAD WILL OPERATE OPENLY AND WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION, WILL PRINCIPALLY MAKE DECISIONS ONLINE TO ALLOW MORE MAXIMUM PARTICIPATION AND WILL ALSO RUN A PUBLIC DISCUSSION LIST. THE CCNSO HAD A PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION WITH THE ICANN CHAIR AND STAFF ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TEMPLATE FOR AN ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK TO ALLOW AN INDIVIDUAL CCTLD AND ICANN TO DETAIL THEIR MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITIES AND WELCOMED THIS APPROACH IN PREFERENCE TO THE PAST POLICY OF INSISTING ON CONTRACTS. THE JOINT CCNSO AND GAC MEETING WAS WELL ATTENDED BY MEMBERS AND OTHERS. THE CCNSO AND THE GAC HAVE' GREED TO SET UP A JOINT WORKING GROUP TO DISCUSS FUTURE LIAISONS BETWEEN THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS. THE MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF THE GNSO WAS ALSO WELCOMED, AGAIN, WITH ENTHUSIASM TO COOPERATE AND APPOINT LIAISONS. ICANN BUDGET. THE CCNSO MEETING BELIEVES IT IS APPROPRIATE TO APPOINT REPRESENTATIVES TO ICANN'S BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BUT NOTED THAT PARTICIPATION IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CCNSO'S POSITION WITH RESPECT TO ACCEPTING ANY SUGGESTED FEES ARRIVING OUT OF THE BUDGET. THE CCNSO HAS FORMED NO VIEW AS TO WHETHER THE PROPOSED ICANN BUDGET IS AT AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL OR WHETHER THE PROPORTIONS SOUGHT FROM CCTLDS IS ACCEPTABLE. MANY REQUESTS WERE MADE TO ICANN FOR A MORE DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THE COSTS INVOLVED WITH CCTLDS, SUCH AS IANA AND ROOT SERVERS, NOTING THAT MANY CCTLDS WHICH ARE MEMBERS OF THE CCNSO ARE WILLING TO CONTRIBUTE MORE IF FURTHER DETAILS ARE PROVIDED. APART FROM THE APPOINTMENTS TO THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP, THE CCNSO WILL SET UP A WORKING GROUP ON CCTLD CONTRIBUTIONS TO ICANN AND LIAISE WITH ICANN STAFF IN THE VIEW TO DEVELOPING AN ACCEPTABLE AND SUSTAINABLE MODEL. IANA. A VERY PRODUCTIVE MEETING WITH IANA STAFF WAS HELD AND THE CCNSO WELCOMED THE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN SERVICE FROM IANA AND CONGRATULATED IANA MANAGER DOUG BARTON ON PERFORMANCE TO DATE. IPV6 GLUE HAS NOW BEEN PLACED INTO THE ROOT ZONE. THE CCNSO FURTHER DISCUSSED THE MAIN WSIS PRINCIPLES AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS. WE EXPRESSED THE WISH TO EFFECTIVELY CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A UNIFIED WSIS POSITION. SUPPORT WAS SHOWN FOR THE BOTTOM-UP DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMON CCNSO POSITION, WHICH WILL BE LED BY DEDICATED WORKING GROUP. ALL CCTLD MEMBERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO PROVIDE INPUT AND THE WSIS WORKING GROUP IS LOOKING FORWARD TO RECEIVING WIDE-RANGING RESPONSES. A PRODUCTIVE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS TOOK PLACE ON THE WAY ESTABLISHED INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICE COULD BE FOLLOWED AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES BOTH THE CHILD ZONES AND PARENT ZONE BEAR IN TERMS OF INTEROPERABILITY AND CHANGES. WE WELCOME THE DATA REPORTS ON THE RECENT IANA IMPROVEMENTS AND THE RECENT IMPROVEMENTS IT SHOWS. ALSO ENCOURAGED BY THE IMPROVEMENTS ICANN SHOWS TO DATE AND REINFORCE OUR SUPPORT FOR ICANN MEETING THE RELEVANT MILESTONES. USEFUL EXPERIENCES WERE SHARED WITH RESPECT TO OPERATIONAL AND PARTICULARLY BUSINESS CONTINUITY. IN THIS RESPECT, THE CCNSO SUPPORTS ICANN'S CONTINGENCY ARRANGEMENTS. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON MAINTAINING STABILITY BY ENFORCING THROUGH A CONTRACTUAL FRAMEWORK AND AN INFORMATIVE REPORT FROM THE SSAC ON WILDCARDS. THE CCNSO TAKES NOTICE OF THE SSAC'S RECOMMENDATIONS, NOTABLY THE RECOMMENDATION OF WILDCARD IMPLEMENTATIONS UNDER ANY CCTLD, INCLUDING -- ANY TLD, INCLUDING CCTLDS. IN ADDITION, THE CCNSO WELCOMED THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF DNSSEC.

WE DISCUSSED VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONAL, OPERATING, AND FUNDING MODELS FOR A CCNSO SECRETARIAT. ATTENTION WAS GIVEN TO THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF INDEPENDENCE FROM ICANN OF STAFF AND ACCOUNTS. THE MEETING GAVE CLEAR GUIDANCE TO THE CCNSO COUNCIL WHICH WILL SUBSEQUENTLY WORK OUT DETAILS. THERE WAS DISCUSSION TO LIMIT LEGAL LIABILITY. ICANN GAVE AN UPDATE ON THE SUCCESSFUL FOUR-DAY WORKSHOP IN WHICH TECHNICAL TRAINING WAS GIVEN TO VARIOUS CCTLD OPERATORS. AND I AM FINALLY COMING TO THE END. THE CCNSO COUNCIL HELD ITS FIRST MEETING ON THE 20TH OF JULY. THE MEETING WAS A PUBLIC, OPEN MEETING. FOLLOWING CONFIRMATION FROM MEMBERS, THE COUNCIL WILL UNDERTAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: SET UP WORKING GROUPS ON ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS, CCTLD FEES TO ICANN, WSIS, GAC/CCNSO LIAISON, THE CCNSO SECRETARIAT, FEES, AND THE BYLAWS. WE WILL NOMINATE AL HANSEN AS OUR APPOINTMENT TO THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE. WE WILL APPOINT CROSS LIAISONS WITH THE ALAC AND GNSO. REPRESENTATIVES TO THE ICANN BUDGET COMMITTEE. AND AS SOON AS THE MEMBERS HAVE FINALIZED THE CCNSO RULES AND PROCEDURES, THE COUNCIL WILL MOVE ON TO DEALING WITH VARIOUS MATTERS, INCLUDING THE APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS AND NOMINATIONS FOR ICANN BOARD SEATS, 11 AND 12. CCNSO EXTENDS ITS THANKS TO THE APTLD SECRETARIAT FOR SUPPORTING THE MEETING. MALAYSIA.T.V. WAS ALSO THANKED FOR PROVIDING WEBCASTING AND NEW LEVEL AND AFILIAS WERE THANKED FOR SPONSORSHIPS, THANKS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CCNSO ASSISTANCE GROUP AND THE LAUNCHING GROUP. THAT'S IT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHRIS.

IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE QUITE A MENU OF WORK. IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY TIME WE CREATE ANOTHER ORGANIZATION, ALONG WITH IT COMES A LARGE LOAD OF HARD WORK.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: YES.

>>VINT CERF: WE'LL COME BACK WITH QUESTIONS LATER.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. I'D LIKE TO CALL ON JEAN-JACQUES DAMLAMIAN TO GIVE US AN UPDATE NOW ON THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE FOR BOARD SEATS, ICANN BOARD SEATS.

>>JEAN-JACQUES DAMLAMIAN: WELL, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I ADDRESS THIS ASSEMBLY, SO IT'S A PLEASURE FOR ME TO BE HERE. THE ICANN NOMINATING COMMITTEE HAS STARTED ITS WORK. HERE YOU HAVE -- OKAY, YOU HAVE HERE OUR ROLE AND OBJECTIVES. THE NOMCOM IS PART OF THE NEW GOVERNANCE PROCESS OF ICANN. IT'S THE SECOND YEAR IT FUNCTIONS THE WAY IT WAS DECIDED TO FUNCTION. AND IT -- LAST YEAR, IT OPERATED UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF LINDA WILSON. AND WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE EXPERIENCE THAT SHE BROUGHT TO US, AND WE RELY ON SOME MEMBERS THAT ARE TODAY WITH US THAT HAVE BEEN PART OF LAST YEAR'S EXPERIENCE. SO ACCORDING TO OUR BYLAWS, WE OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY FROM ICANN BOARD, SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES. WE WILL SELECT PEOPLE OF THE HIGHEST INTEGRITY AND CAPABILITY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO BALANCE THOSE WHO CAN REPRESENT PARTICULAR AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE WITH WHO -- OTHERS THAT PLACE THE BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE GLOBAL INTERNET COMMUNITY AHEAD OF ANY OTHER PARTICULAR INTEREST. THUS, TOGETHER, WE HAVE TWO PATHWAYS FOR NOMINATING PEOPLE. ONE IS THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, AND THE OTHER IS THE NOMCOM. THUS, WE HAVE -- WE CAN ENSURE THAT ICANN BENEFITS FROM FUNCTIONAL, CULTURAL, GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY IN ITS POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND DECISION-MAKING AS THE INTERNET EVOLVES. THE POSITIONS TO BE FILLED ARE THE FOLLOWING. WE HAVE, FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THREE SEATS TO FILL FOR THREE-YEAR TERMS; FOR THE GNSO COUNCIL, WE HAVE ONE SEAT FOR A TWO-YEAR TERM; FOR THE INTERIM ALAC, WE HAVE TWO SEATS FOR A TWO-YEAR TERM; AND THE CCNSO COUNCIL, WHICH IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE TO NOMINATE PERSONS AT THE COUNCIL, WE HAVE THREE SEATS ON STAGGERED TERMS. SO THE NOMCOM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ELECTION OF ALL ICANN DIRECTORS EXCEPT THE PRESIDENT AND THOSE SELECTED BY ICANN'S SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS. SO WE HAVE A HEAVY DUTY TO FULFILL. AS FOR THE TIME LINE, ON APRIL THE 20TH, WE INVITED APPROPRIATE GROUPS TO SELECT DELEGATES TO THE NOMCOM FOR THIS YEAR. AS YOU HEARD, THE FINAL ONES HAVE BEEN JUST SELECTED, AND WE WILL WELCOME THEM VERY SOON. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE START WORKING WITHOUT HAVING THE FULL NOMCOM READY. ON MAY 25TH, WE HAVE HELD OUR FIRST TELECONFERENCE. AND SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAVE HELD ALL OUR WORK WITH TELECONFERENCING. WE HAVE HAD MORE THAN SIX TELECONFERENCES AND WE WILL HAVE ONE MORE TODAY. ON JUNE THE 30TH, WE ISSUED A FORMAL CALL FOR RECOMMENDATION AND STATEMENTS OF INTEREST. THIS IS THE OFFICIAL START FOR HUNTING THE NEW CANDIDATES. ON AUGUST THE 7TH, WE'LL HAVE THE DEADLINE FOR RECEIVING THE STATEMENTS OF INTEREST. AND AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER WILL BE DEVOTED FOR REVIEWING AND EVALUATING THE CANDIDATES. IN OCTOBER, WE WILL ANNOUNCE THE SELECTED NOMINEES. AS FOR OUR PROCEDURES, ALL OUR PROCEDURES ARE PUBLIC AND POSTED ON THE NET. SO YOU MAY HAVE A LOOK, IF YOU WANT. IT'S FOR YOU. WE HAVE ENCOURAGED RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A DEEP POOL OF QUALIFIED CANDIDATES. WE ARE LOOKING AS WIDE AS POSSIBLE AN OUTREACH FOR CANDIDATES. ALL CANDIDATES ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE A STATEMENT OF INTEREST. THIS IS A FORM THAT IS PUBLIC ON OUR NET, SO YOU CAN SEE IT, AND IF YOU ARE A CANDIDATE, YOU ARE INVITED TO FILL IT. ALSO SUBMISSIONS ARE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RULE THAT WE FOLLOW. EACH NOMCOM MEMBER HAS AGREED TO ABIDE BY A CODE OF ETHICS THAT IS ALSO PUBLISHED ON OUR NET. A SUBCOMMITTEE HAS BEEN FORMED TO ADDRESS ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. SO THAT'S THE ESSENTIAL OF MY PRESENTATION. YOU HAVE HERE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION YOU MAY GO TO OUR WEB SITE THAT YOU HAVE THE URL HERE. E-MAIL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS TO BE DIRECTED TO THE ADDRESS THAT IS HERE. AND E-MAIL RECOMMENDATIONS AND STATEMENTS OF INTEREST, WHICH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FOR US, ARE WELCOMED ON THE E-MAIL NOMCOM-SUBMISSIONS@ICANN.ORG. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JEAN-JACQUES. (APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: WE'RE VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE SOMEONE OF JEAN-JACQUES'S CALIBER TO LEAD THIS GROUP THIS YEAR.

THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM KURT PRITZ ON THE STLD STATUS.

>>KURT PRITZ: GOOD AFTERNOON.

FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT WERE IN ROME OR FOLLOWED EVENTS THERE OR HAVE FOLLOWED EVENTS ON OUR WEB SITE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, YOU'LL KNOW THAT THE ICANN BOARD RESOLVED THAT THE STAFF OPENED OUR RFP FOR A NUMBER OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS AND THEY WILL BE SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. AND IN ADDITION, THE NEW TLDS WILL BE ANALYZED IN THE NEW GTLD PROCESSES THAT WILL BE DEVELOPED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE NEW REGISTRIES. SO IN RESPONSE TO THAT, ICANN RELEASED AN RFP AND RECEIVED TEN BONA FIDE APPLICATIONS THAT UPON INITIAL REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS WERE COMPLETE, AND THEN WERE FORWARDED ON THROUGH THE PROCESS. THESE APPLICATIONS ARE LISTED HERE. DOT ASIA, DOT CAT, DOT JOBS, DOT MAIL, DOT MOBI, DOT POST, TWO DOT TEL'S, TWO DIFFERENT MODELS, AND DOT TRAVEL, AND DOT XXX. A PORTION OF THEIR APPLICATIONS ARE POSTED ON THE ICANN WEB SITE. FOR REASONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROPRIETARY BUSINESS REASONS, PORTIONS OF THE APPLICATIONS ARE NOT POSTED AND THOSE GO TO PROPRIETARY TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION THAT THE APPLICANTS WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AS PART OF THE PROCESS. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT FOLLOWED FROM LAST TIME, YOU MAY REMEMBER THIS SLIDE. THIS WAS ESSENTIALLY THE PROCESS FOR EVALUATING THE APPLICATIONS. AFTER THE APPLICANTS COMPLETED AN ONLINE APPLICATION, THEY WERE TO GO INTO AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION PROCESS, AND I'LL DESCRIBE THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER. THOSE THAT SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP, AND THERE ARE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS, AND SPONSORED COMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS, THOSE THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT RFP LISTED THERE WILL GO ON TO SEPARATE TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS. FROM THAT AGREEMENT, AGREEMENTS WILL BE EXECUTED, AND I'LL PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON THAT IN A SECOND. THESE ARE THE TIME LINES THAT ICANN ORIGINALLY POSTED FOR PERFORMING THIS WORK. BY THE END OF MARCH, WE HAD COMMITTED TO REVIEWING THE APPLICATIONS FOR COMPLETENESS. THEN A SERIES -- THEN WE HAD A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, AND THEN AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, INDEPENDENT EVALUATORS WOULD TEST THE APPLICATIONS AGAINST THE CRITERIA USING THE INFORMATION IN THE RFP, THE INFORMATION IN THE APPLICATIONS AND THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. THAT INDEPENDENT EVALUATION WAS SCHEDULED TO CLOSE AT THE END OF JULY, AND THEN FROM THAT POINT FORWARD, THOSE THAT QUALIFIED WOULD ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS. I JUST WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION PANELS FOR A SECOND THAT HAVE BEEN FORMED.

THERE'S A PROGRAM MANAGER, AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROGRAM MANAGER IS TO KEEP THE PANELS BLIND FROM -- THE PROCESS AND THE PANELS SEPARATE FROM ONE ANOTHER. SO ALL COMMUNICATIONS GO BETWEEN THE -- ALL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE PANELISTS AND THE APPLICANTS OR THE PANELISTS AND ICANN STAFF WOULD GO BETWEEN THE PROGRAM MANAGER TO KEEP THE PANELISTS SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT. THERE'S, LIKE I SAID, A TECHNICAL PANEL, A BUSINESS PANEL, AND A SPONSORSHIP PANEL. THERE'S THREE MEMBERS TO EACH PANEL. IT'S AN INTERNATIONALLY DIVERSE GROUP OF WELL-THOUGHT-OF EXPERTS, AND IT'S INTERNATIONAL IN SCOPE. THE PANELISTS REPRESENT -- THE NINE PANELISTS REPRESENT EIGHT COUNTRIES, AND ALL REGIONS OF THE WORLD. THE PANELS WERE ESTABLISHED AND REVIEW WAS BEGUN IN MAY 2004. I GOT AHEAD OF MYSELF BEFORE, BUT IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THIS BLIND, INDEPENDENT REVIEW, ALL COMMUNICATIONS WERE THROUGH THE PROJECT MANAGER; AND THAT IS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PANELISTS AND THE ICANN STAFF AND PANELS AND THE APPLICANTS. EACH PANEL OPERATED SEPARATELY AND INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHERS, BUT BY AND LARGE, THEY FOLLOWED THE SAME PATH, AND THAT IS THEY MET SIX TO EIGHT TIMES BY TELECONFERENCE. AT THE END OF THE INITIAL EVALUATION, THE PANELISTS AUTHORED A SERIES OF QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION TO EACH OF THE APPLICANTS.

THOSE SETS OF QUESTIONS WERE VERY DIFFERENT FOR EACH APPLICANT DEPENDING UPON THE NATURE OF THE APPLICATION. AND THEN AT THE END OF THE DAY, EACH PANEL WILL REPORT SEPARATELY, THE TECHNICAL PANEL, THE BUSINESS PANEL, AND THE COMMUNITY PANEL. AND ESSENTIALLY, THE FORM OF THE REPORTS IS TO COMPARE THE INFORMATION -- COMPARE THE APPLICATIONS, THE INFORMATION IN THE APPLICATIONS AGAINST THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE RFP. SO IT'S FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD FROM THAT STANDPOINT. SO WHAT'S LEFT TO GO? THE PANELS HAVE COMPLETED DRAFT REPORTS. ICANN IS REVIEWING THEM AND SEEKING CLARIFICATION IN SEVERAL AREAS. THE SUBSEQUENT DRAFTS WE GET FROM THE INDEPENDENT REVIEWERS OR THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATORS, RATHER, WILL BE DELIVERED TO ICANN ON AN APPLICANT-BY-APPLICANT BASIS. SO FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, THE PATHS OF THE APPLICANTS WILL DIVERGE AND THOSE APPLICANTS THAT CAN MOVE AHEAD QUICKLY WILL BE TAKEN AND NOT HELD BACK BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS REMAINING FOR OTHER APPLICANTS. AT THE FINAL CLOSE OF THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION PROCESS, ICANN WILL COMMUNICATE THE EVALUATION REPORTS DIRECTLY TO THE APPLICANTS. AND FOR ONE OR TWO PURPOSES. ONE IS TO MOVE THE STLD APPLICATIONS INTO THE TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATION PHASE, OR ICANN WILL REQUEST CLARIFYING DOCUMENTATION OR INFORMATION RELATING TO ANY POTENTIAL DEFICIENCIES IN THE APPLICATION THAT WERE HIGHLIGHTED IN THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION. AND AFTER THAT PROCESS IS COMPLETE, THOSE APPLICATIONS MAY MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PHASE. UPON COMPLETION OF THE TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS, SUCCESSFUL APPLICATIONS WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE ICANN BOARD WITH ALL THE ASSOCIATED INFORMATION, SO THE BOARD CAN INDEPENDENTLY REVIEW THE FINDINGS ALONG WITH THE INFORMATION AND MAKE THEIR OWN ADJUSTMENTS. AND THEN FINAL DECISIONS WILL BE MADE BY THE BOARD, AND THEY'LL AUTHORIZE STAFF TO COMPLETE OR EXECUTE THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS, THEREBY DESIGNATED IN THE REGISTRIES. AS I STATED EARLIER, EACH APPLICATION WILL BE TREATED INDEPENDENTLY IN ORDER TO MOVE IT FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. THE FIRST REPORTS SHOULD BE FINISHED IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS OR SO. AND THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION PROCESS, IT WILL BE COMPLETED PRETTY MUCH BY THE END OF JULY. THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CONFLICT THERE. THE PROCESS MAY SPILL OVER INTO AUGUST A LITTLE BIT. AT THE CLOSE OF THIS PROCESS, AT THE CLOSE OF THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION PROCESS, ICANN WILL PUBLIC A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EXECUTION OF THAT PROCESS AND THE IDENTITY OF THE EVALUATORS. SO THAT INFORMATION WILL BECOME PUBLIC. SOME DETAILED INFORMATION IN THE EVALUATIONS THEMSELVES MAY BE HELD CONFIDENTIAL AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANTS. THAT IS STILL PROPRIETY. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN THE REGISTRIES, IDENTIFIED, ICANN WILL MAKE A FINAL REPORT STATING THE RESULTS. AND I THINK THAT'S ALL.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>KURT PRITZ: MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, THIS IS AN EXCELLENT SEGUE INTO THE NEXT PRESENTATION, AND I WAS GOING TO INTRODUCE MIRIAM SAPIRO TO GIVE THAT.

>>VINT CERF: THAT'S FINE. NORMALLY WE WOULD HOLD QUESTIONS UNTIL LATER, BUT THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC IS HIGH INTEREST, AND SO I WANT TO JUST TEST TO SEE IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS ON THE FLOOR OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

I SEE ONE OR TWO. ALL RIGHT. SO I'D LIKE TO INVITE THOSE QUESTIONS NOW, KURT. I SEE TWO OF THEM. THIS IS AN OPENING OF QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE STLD MATTER.

>>RON ANDRUFF: GOOD AFTERNOON, RON ANDRUFF FROM TRALLIANCE CORPORATION. WE ARE BEHIND THE DOT TRAVEL APPLICATION. KURT, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IT WAS A LITTLE AMBIGUOUS IN TERMS OF THE TIMING, AS YOU SAID. COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC? AS WE UNDERSTAND, THE RFP CALLED FOR JULY 31, THE COMPLETION OF THE EVALUATION, AND MOVING TO THE TECHNICAL CONTRACT PHASE AS OF AUGUST 1. IS THAT CORRECT?

>>KURT PRITZ: THAT'S CORRECT. IN CERTAIN CASES, IN ORDER TO HELP SOLVE SOME OF THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE APPLICATIONS, THE ICANN STAFF IS ASKING FOR A FURTHER CLARIFICATION FROM THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL IN ORDER TO AID THOSE APPLICATIONS, AND THAT MIGHT ADD A COUPLE WEEKS ON TO THE PROCESS.

>>RON ANDRUFF: SO THEN TO UNDERSTAND, WILL THERE BE A POSTING OF SOME SORT ON THE WEB SITE SAYING AT THIS POINT, THESE GO FORWARD, AT THIS POINT THESE ARE STILL IN REVIEW? OR --

>>KURT PRITZ: THE RESULTS THAT -- THE REPORTS WILL BE COMMUNICATED INDIVIDUALLY TO THE APPLICANTS. THE RESULTS WON'T BE POSTED BUT, RATHER, THERE WILL BE A DELIVERY OF THE REPORT AND, YOU KNOW, SORT OF IN PERSON BY PHONE OR SOME SORT OF MEETING WHERE WE HAVE A COMMUNICATION.

>>RON ANDRUFF: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. ONE OTHER QUESTION.

>>TIM RUIZ: TIM RUIZ WITH THE GO DADDY GROUP. COULD YOU SPEAK MORE TO THE SPONSORED COMMUNITY. THIS ROUND OF TLDS HAS EXPANDED TO BE MUCH LARGER COMMUNITIES, AND I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS ANY LINE THAT ICANN WAS LOOKING AT DRAWING IN THAT REGARD.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE NEXT ROUND OF TLDS COULD I APPLY FOR DOT FOOD AND CLAIM THAT MY SPONSORED COMMUNITY IS THE COMMUNITY OF FOOD CONSUMERS. JUST WHERE IS THAT LINE GOING TO BE DRAWN?

>>KURT PRITZ: OBVIOUSLY I'VE NOT BEEN PART OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS SO I CAN'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. THE DEFINITION OF COMMUNITY THAT WAS USED WAS THE SAME DEFINITION AS IN THE PREVIOUS ROUND OF STLDS.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: A SHORT QUESTION, KURT.

OH, THIS TIME WITH THE HAT OF ADVISOR TO THE (INAUDIBLE), ONE OF THE APPLICANTS FOR THIS ROUND OF STLDS. THE COMMENT IS FIRST, I DON'T THINK THAT ANYBODY WILL FORCE THE ICANN STAFF TO STICK TO THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE. WE JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE SCHEDULE WILL NOT -- YOU KNOW, THERE IS NO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION ON BEING THERE AND WE PREFER YOU TO DO A VERY GOOD JOB THAN JUST SAY SOMETHING, EVEN IF IT'S STUPID, BY THE 31 OF JULY. THE OTHER THING IS WE WILL BE GRATEFUL FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON THINGS LIKE THE NEXT STEP. AND YOU UNDERSTAND THINGS ARE CAUSING A LOT OF FAMILIAR STRESS IN OUR TEAM. IN AUGUST, IN SOUTHERN EUROPE, WE TEND TO HAVE A STRANGE HABIT OF CLOSING DOWN THE COUNTRY BECAUSE IT'S TOO HOT AND GO ON HOLIDAYS. AND THERE IS NO WAY THAT WE KNOW WHETHER WE SHOULD ALL BE THERE JUST IN FRONT OF OUR FAX MACHINE OR TELEPHONE OR NOT. AND WE'VE BEEN ASKING THAT SEVERAL TIMES. I REPEAT, WE DON'T WANT A CONTRACTUAL, OBLIGATORY ANSWER. JUST WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE NEXT THREE WEEKS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHETHER WE CAN GO TO THE BEACH OR NOT (LAUGHTER.).

>>VINT CERF: WHILE KURT IS CONSULTING, THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS BOARD POLICY IS MAKE THEM SWEAT.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>VINT CERF: SO WE'RE HOPING THAT YOU WILL BE HANGING AROUND THROUGH AUGUST.

>>KURT PRITZ: I THINK IT'S -- I'LL HAVE TO TEST THIS, BUT I THINK IT'S REASONABLE THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF COMMUNICATION WITH EVERYBODY ON JULY 31ST, EVEN IF IT'S TO SAY WE'RE NOT DONE YET AND HERE'S WHAT THE TIMETABLE GOING FORWARD LOOKS LIKE.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: THANKS A LOT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, KURT. AND NOW LET'S GO ON TO THE GTLD MATTER, AND MIRIAM SAPIRO.

>>MIRIAM SAPIRO: OKAY. IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS WORKING. ONE SECOND.

THERE. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. I'M MIRIAM SAPIRO. AND IT GIVES ME GREAT PLEASURE TO PRESENT TO YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION OF THE NEW GTLDS POLICY AND LEGAL ISSUES THAT I'M VERY PLEASED TO SAY HAS BEEN COMPLETED. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THE BOARD SELECTED 7 PROPOSALS FOR NEW GTLDS IN NOVEMBER 2000, WHICH WAS THE FIRST EXPANSION OF THE DNS SINCE THE 1980S. AND THOSE NEW GTLDS, WHICH I REALIZE IS, TODAY, PERHAPS A SLIGHTLY CONFUSING TERM TO USE, AND I HOPE YOU'LL INDULGE ME AS I DEFINE IT, INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING IN THE ORDER OF LAUNCH: DOT INFO, DOT BIZ, DOT NAME, DOT MUSEUM, DOT COOP, DOT AERO, AND AS OF RECENTLY, DOT PRO. THE BOARD, IN THEIR WISDOM, HAD DECIDED THAT AN EVALUATION OF THE PROOF OF CONCEPT -- I.E, THE EXPERIMENTAL NATURE OF THE NEW GTLDS -- WAS IMPORTANT TO DO EVEN BEFORE THEY WERE FIRST LAUNCHED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2001. AND SO THE BOARD FORMED THE NEW TLD EVALUATION PROCESS PLANNING TASK FORCE, NTEPPTF, WHICH REMAINS TODAY UNPRONOUNCEABLE. AND FOR THAT REASON, I WILL REFER TO IT AS SIMPLY THE TASK FORCE. THAT TASK FORCE DECIDED THAT THERE WERE SEVEN QUESTIONS, AMONG OTHERS, THAT WOULD TAKE PRIORITY IN THIS EVALUATION, WITH THE OVERALL GOAL BEING TO ASSESS HOW WELL THIS PROOF OF CONCEPT IDEA WORKED IN PRACTICE. THOSE SEVEN QUESTIONS ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE REPORT THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO ICANN. THE FOCUS OF THEM IS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTIONS, COMPLIANCE WITH REGISTRATION RESTRICTIONS, COMPETITIVENESS ISSUES, THE REASONABLENESS OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK, AND OTHER LEGAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES. ADDITIONAL PRIORITY QUESTIONS ON TECHNICAL AND PROCESS ISSUES WILL BE ADDRESSED BY OTHERS LATER. EACH QUESTION HAD UNIQUE METHODOLOGY. IN GENERAL, HOWEVER, THEY DEPENDED UPON THE FOLLOWING. FIRST, INTERVIEWS WITH MORE THAN 80 REPRESENTATIVES FROM REGISTRIES, REGISTRARS, ICANN BOARD, ICANN STAFF, ICANN CONSTITUENCIES, NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND GOVERNMENTS. SECOND, DATA SAMPLING. THIRD, STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. FOURTH, INDUSTRY AND MARKET RESEARCH. AND FIFTH, PUBLIC COMMENT FORA. THE FIRST BASKET OF QUESTIONS, AS I MENTIONED, REFERS TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTIONS, AND THE THREE QUESTIONS THAT FALL IN THAT GROUP ARE AT THE TOP OF THE SLIDE. THEY BASICALLY DEALT WITH THE QUESTION OF HOW EFFECTIVE HAVE THESE MECHANISMS BEEN IN TERMS OF PROTECTING TRADEMARK OWNERS AND ALSO FUNCTIONING EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THEY WERE FAIRLY EFFECTIVE, THE EVALUATION FOUND, AT PROTECTING TRADEMARK OWNERS. BUT THEY DID RAISE OTHER CONCERNS. THE DOT INFO SUNRISE PERIOD, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH PROGRESSED WITHOUT SCREENING OR VERIFICATION, DID LEAD TO SOME SERIOUS ABUSES. THE DOT BIZ CLAIMS PROCESS WAS FAIRER IN TERMS OF ALSO PROTECTING NONTRADEMARK HOLDERS, BUT IT WAS QUITE COMPLEX TO USE AND TO UNDERSTAND. BOTH DOT NAME AND DOT COOP OFFERED DEFENSIVE REGISTRATIONS. THE DOT NAME PROCESS WAS ALSO FAIRLY COMPLEX AS A RESULT OF THE DOT NAME NAMING CONVENTIONS AT THE THIRD LEVEL THAT WERE THE ONLY ONES AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME. AND ALSO CRITIQUED AS BEING AN EXPENSIVE OPTION. BUT I THINK THE LARGER CONCLUSION TO DRAW FROM THAT MECHANISM IS THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY CONSISTENT WITH AN UNSPONSORED, UNRESTRICTED TLD.

SO WHEREAS, DEFENSIVE REGISTRATIONS MAY HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE IN A DOT NAME OR DOT COOP CONTEXT, IT MAY NOT OFFER MUCH UTILITY AS WE LOOK BEYOND THOSE KINDS OF TLDS WHERE YOU WANT TO ATTRACT NEW USERS AND NEW USES. THE LAND-RUSH ALLOCATION METHODS THAT WERE USED WERE SEVERAL. BOTH AFILIAS AND NEULEVEL; IE, DOT INFO AND DOT BIZ, USED A ROUND-ROBIN PROCESS WHICH UNFORTUNATELY DID ENABLE SOME TO GAME THE SYSTEM. DOT NAME USED A DIFFERENT PROCESS WHICH DEALT WITH SOME OF THE ISSUES, BUT STILL ENABLED DETERMINED REGISTRANTS TO TRY TO USE THE SYSTEM TO THEIR ADVANTAGE. WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTION OF REGISTRATION RESTRICTIONS, IT WAS RELEVANT TO LOOK AT DOT BIZ AND DOT NAME. THIS QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO THE SPONSORED TLDS HAD ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH IN AN EARLIER REPORT BY SUMMIT ON THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION. INTERVIEWS WITH A VARIETY OF PEOPLE, IN AND OUTSIDE OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY, RAISED SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER THE RESTRICTIONS ON DOT BIZ -- BASICALLY, YOU HAVE TO BE A BONA FIDE BUSINESS -- AND DOT NAME -- BASICALLY, THE REGISTRATION HAS TO BE A PERSONAL NAME OR A NICKNAME -- THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH THESE WERE BEING ENFORCED. THERE WERE ALSO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY OUGHT TO BE ENFORCED. SO WHAT WE DID WAS TAKE SOME DATA SAMPLES FROM BOTH REGISTRIES. APPROXIMATELY A THOUSAND. AND ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE NAMES AND SEE WHAT WE COULD BEST DETERMINE. WE FOUND THAT IN DOT BIZ, 1.8 PERCENT OF REGISTRATIONS DID NOT APPEAR TO BE USED FOR BONA FIDE -- TO HAVE BEEN REGISTERED FOR BONA FIDE BUSINESS PURPOSES, AND 9.6 PERCENT WERE UNCLEAR. IN DOT NAME, WE FOUND THAT 10.6 PERCENT OF SAMPLED REGISTRATIONS WERE UNLIKELY TO BE PERSONAL NAMES OR NICKNAMES. BUT I WANT TO NOTE THAT IT IS SOMEWHAT EASIER TO ASSESS NONCOMPLIANCE IN DOT NAME THAN IT IS IN DOT BIZ BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE REGISTRATION. TURNING TO COMPETITIVENESS QUESTIONS, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT, OVERALL, THE NEW GTLDS HAVE HAD A POSITIVE IMPACT ON PROMOTING COMPETITION. IT'S NOT BEEN A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, HOWEVER, IN TERMS OF MARKET SHARE. THE DEGREE OF CHOICE VARIES SINCE A FIRST-TIME REGISTRANT HAS A FAIRLY LARGE DEGREE OF CHOICE AS TO WHERE TO REGISTER. BUT ONCE PEOPLE OR ORGANIZATIONS OR COMPANIES ARE IN A TLD, THERE CAN BE VERY LARGE AND FORMIDABLE SWITCHING COSTS WHICH SOMEWHAT LIMITS THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE AT THAT POINT. WE ALSO FOUND INDICATIONS OF NEW REGISTRANTS AND NEW USES. BUT I THINK THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTION AT THIS POINT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN TERMS OF FACILITIES-BASED COMPETITION. IN OTHER WORDS, DEVELOPING NEW PROVIDERS OF REGISTRY SERVICES THAT CAN COMPETE EFFECTIVELY WITH THE INCUMBENT PROVIDER, OR WHAT HAD BEEN THE INCUMBENT PROVIDER BACK IN 2000, 2001. WE ALSO FOUND THAT INNOVATION PLAYS A SUPPORTING ROLE AND IS PROBABLY LIKELY TO PLAY AN EVEN GREATER ROLE AS THE LARGER REGISTRIES, NOW THREE, TRY TO DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM ONE ANOTHER. WITH RESPECT TO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK, IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT IT WAS UNDERSTANDABLE FOR ICANN TO HAVE BEEN CAUTIOUS AT THE OUTSET IN DRAFTING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK, BUT THE LEVEL OF GREAT DETAIL THAT IS IN THOSE SEVEN AGREEMENTS, EACH ONE HAVING ABOUT 24, 26 APPENDICES FOR A GRAND TOTAL OF OVER 160, THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL MAY NOT BE NECESSARY GOING FORWARD. THERE HAD BEEN INSISTENCE ON ADHERENCE TO THE NEW GTLD PROPOSALS, WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE BOARD'S SELECTION. AND IN HINDSIGHT, SOME GREATER FLEXIBILITY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN USEFUL IN THAT REGARD. THERE WAS ALSO, AT THE TIME, LITTLE DIVERGENCE FROM AN INSISTENCE ON UNIFORMITY AMONG THE SEVEN AGREEMENTS AND THEIR APPENDICES, BUT UPON REFLECTION, IT APPEARS THAT SOME DIVERGENCE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL. IT THEREFORE SEEMS THAT FUTURE TLD AGREEMENTS COULD PROBABLY BE STREAMLINED AND SHOULD CERTAINLY BE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO ADDRESS ROUTINE ISSUES, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT PERHAPS CONSIDERED ENOUGH AT THE TIME THAT THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK WAS CREATED. THE LAST ISSUE THAT THE REPORT DEALS WITH CONCERNS LEGAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES OTHER THAN THOSE RELATING TO STARTUP, WHICH I ADDRESSED UNDER THE FIRST TOPIC. THE REGISTRIES INDICATED THAT THERE WERE NO MAJOR LAWSUITS IN THIS CATEGORY AND NO EVIDENCE INDICATING OTHERWISE WAS FOUND. THERE WERE OTHER ISSUES THAT DID ARISE INVOLVING COUNTRY NAMES, ALTERNATE ROOTS, DATA PRIVACY, TLD COMPATIBILITY, AND FOR DOT AERO, MIGRATION FROM DOT INT. IN CONCLUSION, LET ME SAY THAT IT'S CLEAR LAUNCHING A NEW REGISTRY IS NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART. THE EXPERIENCES OF THE SEVEN NEW TLDS AND THE WISDOM THAT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE HAS GAINED SHOULD BE VERY HELPFUL AND PROVIDE VALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO THOSE TLDS THAT WILL FOLLOW. I'D LIKE TO CLOSE WITH SOME ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, IN APPRECIATION TO EVERYONE TO SO SELFLESSLY PARTICIPATED IN INTERVIEWS. AND FINALLY, A SPECIAL COMMENDATION TO THE NEW GTLDS THEMSELVES FOR THEIR COOPERATION IN THIS EFFORT. AND I SHALL NOW GIVE A COPY OF THE REPORT, WHICH IS A WEIGHTY TOME, TO THE PRESIDENT. (APPLAUSE.).

>>MIRIAM SAPIRO: ANY QUESTIONS? IS IT QUESTION TIME?

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WELL, I'M HESITATING A LITTLE, ONLY BECAUSE I HAVE TO SAY WE ARE NOW WELL DELAYED IN OUR PACE. SO UNLESS THERE IS SOMEONE WITH AN ABSOLUTELY INESCAPABLE NEED TO ASK A QUESTION, I'M GOING TO ASK IF YOU'LL HOLD THEM.

I FIND IT INTERESTINGLY SYMBOLIC THAT THE REPORT IS PRESENTED -- ON THIS HIGHLY ELECTRONIC MATTER IS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT IN PAPER FORM. I GUESS WE STILL HAVEN'T QUITE MIGRATED INTO THE 21ST CENTURY. TINA DAM IS NEXT TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THE GTLD TRANSFERS POLICY IMPLEMENTATION. WHILE TINA IS GETTING HER MACHINE CONNECTED UP TO THE DISPLAY, LET ME JUST WARN EVERYONE THAT BECAUSE WE ARE BEHIND TIME, WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO RUN LATE TONIGHT. SO FOR THE BOARD'S INFORMATION, WE WILL POSTPONE OUR DINNER MEAL A LITTLE. MY GUESS IS THAT IF WE CONTINUE AT THIS PACE, WE WILL PROBABLY NOT FINISH UNTIL PROBABLY 7:00. I WILL TRY HARD TO SPEED IT UP, BUT I WANT TO GIVE TIME FOR THE PUBLIC SESSION. TINA, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE READY, SO PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU.

IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY. BUT THIS TIME, I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT IT EVEN MORE SO WILL PROVIDE A VERY POSITIVE UPDATE. REASON BEING THAT VERY RECENTLY, THE INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY WAS ANNOUNCED AND READY FOR ADOPTION. AND THAT TOOK PLACE ON 12TH OF JULY, 2004. THE POLICY WILL BE IMPLEMENTED OVER A PERIOD OF ABOUT FOUR MONTHS' TIME. SO IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE ON 12TH OF NOVEMBER, 2004. NOW, WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT IF YOU ARE A DOMAIN NAME HOLDER OR A REGISTRAR AND YOU HAVE SOME DIFFICULTIES IN GETTING TRANSFERS PASSED THROUGH, THEN THE NEW POLICY WILL ONLY COVER THOSE TRANSFERS THAT ARE INITIATED BEFORE OR ON 12TH OF NOVEMBER. SO, BASICALLY, MEANS THAT YOU NEED TO RE-INITIATE THE TRANSFER IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS CURRENTLY. THE TRANSFER POLICY ESSENTIALLY PROVIDES A PROCEDURE THAT THE -- SORRY, DOMAIN NAME HOLDERS CAN USE IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO TRANSFER THEIR DOMAIN NAME FROM ONE ICANN AN ACCREDITED REGISTRAR TO ANOTHER. THE PROCEDURE AND THE POLICY CONTAIN SOME SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ON HOW REGISTRARS MUST HANDLE A REQUEST FROM A DOMAIN NAME HOLDER. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE STANDARDIZED FORMS THAT MUST BE USED WHEN REGISTRARS COMMUNICATE WITH DOMAIN NAME HOLDERS THAT WISH TO PERFORM TRANSFERS. THE POLICY IS A CONSENSUS POLICY, AND THAT MEANS THAT IT APPLIES TO ALL ICANN-ACCREDITED REGISTRARS AND ALSO TO ALL UNSPONSORED GTLD REGISTRY OPERATORS. IN THAT SENSE, IT WILL REPLACE THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU WILL FIND IN THE REGISTRAR AND REGISTRY AGREEMENTS. AS SOME OF YOU ARE AWARE, THE TRANSFER POLICY HAS GONE THROUGH QUITE A LONG DEVELOPMENT PHASE. AND THERE ARE SEVERAL DOCUMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADVISORIES AVAILABLE ON THE ICANN WEB SITE THAT RELATES TO THIS POLICY. THE LATEST ONE IS THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE FINAL POLICY ON 12TH OF JULY. AND THIS ANNOUNCEMENT ALSO CONTAINS SOME IMPLEMENTATION NOTES THAT ARE RELEVANT FOR REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS. NOW, ALL OF THE INFORMATION HAS ALSO BEEN GATHERED IN ONE INFORMATION AREA. AND IT'S ON THE ICANN WEB SITE UNDER ICANN.ORG/TRANSFERS. AND SINCE EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE WE HEAR THAT'S DIFFICULT TO FIND INFORMATION ON THE WEB SITE, I AM JUST GOING TO SHOW YOU QUICKLY WHERE YOU CAN FIND THIS. HERE. IF YOU GO TO THE ICANN.ORG WEB SITE AND BASICALLY JUST SCROLL DOWN ON THE PAGE A LITTLE BIT, YOU WILL FIND SOME RESOURCES FOR DIFFERENT PARTIES. ALMOST AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT, THERE'S RESOURCES FOR REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES. IF YOU GO INTO THAT AREA, ONE OF THESE AREAS, YOU WILL FIND A LINK TO THE TRANSFER POLICY AREA. AND IN THIS AREA, THERE IS GENERAL INFORMATION IN THE BEGINNING. THEN THERE IS THE TRANSFER POLICY. THE TRANSFER DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY, AND THE TWO STANDARDIZED FORMS THAT REGISTRARS MUST USE FOR THEIR COMMUNICATION. THERE'S ALSO SOME BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AND SOME MORE GENERAL INFORMATIONS FOR PARTIES INVOLVED IN PERFORMING TRANSFERS. NOW, THIS WEB SITE WILL BE -- THE CONTENT OF THIS WEB SITE WILL BE UPDATED OVER TIME. BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU FEEL THAT I LEFT SOMETHING OUT, THEN PLEASE GO AHEAD AND CONTACT ME.

THE NEXT STEPS, JUST BECAUSE THE POLICY IS FINAL AND READY FOR IMPLEMENTATION, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE'RE DONE. WE NEED TO ENGAGE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVIDERS. WE NEED TO ESTABLISH POLICY REVIEW MEASUREMENTS. THE MEASUREMENTS ARE INTENDED FOR WHEN THE POLICY IS UNDER REVIEW, WHICH TAKES PLACE AT THREE, SIX, AND 12 MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE. AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, WE MAY GO TO BOTH REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS AND REQUEST INFORMATION AND POSSIBLY CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MONTHLY REPORTS. WE ALSO NEED TO DEFINE THE SUPPLEMENTAL RULES. AND WHILE THIS IS MAINLY A REGISTRY AND A DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVIDER TASK, PART OF THIS WILL ALSO BE DONE WORKING WITH ICANN STAFF. WE'RE CURRENTLY TRYING TO DEVELOP A COMPLAINT FACILITY. AND AS I MENTIONED, THE FAQ AND SUPPORT INFORMATION ON THE WEB SITE WILL BE UPDATED AND EXPANDED AS PEOPLE NEED IT. AND AT LAST, I JUST, AS ALWAYS, WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING THIS POLICY AND MAKING IT READY FOR IMPLEMENTATION. MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS TASK. I HAVE LISTED THE GNSO TRANSFER TASK FORCE, THE TRANSFER IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE, AND THE TRANSFER ASSISTANCE GROUP. BUT CERTAINLY MANY OTHERS NEED A BIG THANK YOU FOR THEIR HELP WITH THIS WORK.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TINA.

THIS IS JUST A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW POLICY DEVELOPMENT, LEADS TO IMPLEMENTATION, LEADS TO ALL OF THE FOLLOW-UP THAT'S NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT OUR WORK DONE. AS I RECALL, WE WERE REMINDED OF THAT EARLIER THIS MORNING. AND I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP REMINDING OURSELVES OF THAT. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE BREAK NOW. WE HAVE ONE OTHER PRESENTATION HAVING TO DO WITH DOT NET. BUT I AM GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE TAKE A BREAK. LET ME ASK IF YOU COULD BE BACK AS NEAR TO 4:00 AS POSSIBLE. AND THEN WE WILL CONTINUE FROM THERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TINA. (BREAK.)

>>VINT CERF: BOARD MEMBERS, PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF YOU WILL ALSO TAKE YOUR SEATS.

IF YOU NEED TO CONTINUE YOUR CONVERSATIONS, WOULD YOU BE SO KIND AS TO GO OUTSIDE. WE'RE GOING TO RESTART NOW WITH A REPORT FROM KURT PRITZ ON THE DESIGNATION OF THE DOT NET REGISTRY OPERATOR, AND AN UPDATE ON OUR PLAN SO FAR. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I ASK YOU TO PLEASE CEASE CONVERSATION SO WE CAN GET THIS MEETING STARTED.

>>IVAN MOURA CAMPOS: VINT, VINT.

THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT. SOMEBODY FOUND HERE A WALLET. AND IT APPEARS TO BELONG TO SHARMILA GANAPATI.

>>VINT CERF: DOES IT HAVE ANY MONEY IN IT?

>>IVAN MOURA CAMPOS: I HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED.

>> SHE'S COMING.

>>VINT CERF: THIS IS AN ALTERNATE SOURCE OF FUNDING.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>VINT CERF: WE'RE GOING TO START A NEW PICK POCKET CORPS AS A WAY OF ALTERNATE FUNDING.

OKAY. KURT, YOU'RE ON.

>>KURT PRITZ: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

DESIGNATION OF THE DOT NET REGISTRY. THE DOT NET REGISTRY AGREEMENT EXPIRES JULY 1ST, 2005. THAT AGREEMENT STATES THAT NOT LATER THAN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE END OF THAT TERM, JULY 1ST, 2005, ICANN SHALL ADOPT AN OPEN, TRANSPARENT PROCEDURE FOR DESIGNATING A SUCCESSOR. AND THAT'S FROM SECTION 5.2 OF THAT AGREEMENT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT, ICANN REQUESTED THAT THE GNSO ESTABLISH A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR THAT SUCCESSOR OPERATOR. AND THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT SAYS THAT ICANN SHALL SELECT A SUCCESSOR REGISTRY OPERATOR THAT IT REASONABLY DETERMINES IS BEST QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THE REGISTRY FUNCTION TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL FACTORS RELEVANT. AND THOSE FACTORS ARE ALSO DESCRIBED BRIEFLY IN THE AGREEMENT. PROMOTION OF COMPETITION, MAXIMIZING CONSUMER CHOICE. YOU CAN READ THEM THERE. ICANN, ALONG WITH PUBLICATION OF THE PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING THE SUCCESSOR OPERATION -- OPERATOR, PUBLISHED THESE TASKS AND TIME LINES. AND SO WE'VE REQUESTED FROM THE GNSO ADVICE ON THE SELECTION CRITERIA. THAT EFFORT AND THE PROCEDURE IS SCHEDULED TO FINISH JULY 31ST. IN PARALLEL WITH THAT OR RIGHT AFTER THAT, ICANN WILL DEVELOP -- THE ICANN STAFF WILL DEVELOP, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADVICE RECEIVED FROM THE GNSO A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. THAT WILL BE PUBLISHED ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30TH. APPLICANTS WILL THEN HAVE TWO MONTHS TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL BY NOVEMBER 30TH. THE PROPOSALS WILL BE PUBLISHED DURING A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. AND THAT'LL BE FOLLOWED BY AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION PERIOD. THE RESULTS OF THAT INDEPENDENT EVALUATION WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION AND THE ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE SUCCESSOR OF THE DOT NET REGISTRY WILL BE PUBLISHED ON MARCH -- IN MARCH OF 2005. AS YOU KNOW, THE SUCCESSOR OPERATOR WILL -- THE CURRENT OPERATOR WILL EITHER SUCCEED ITSELF OR A NEW OPERATOR WILL SUCCEED THE CURRENT OPERATOR ON JULY 1ST. SO THAT WILL GIVE SOME MONTHS FOR THE SUCCESSOR OPERATOR TO PREPARE. THESE ARE SOME OF THE DETAILS BEHIND THE PROCESS AND PROCEDURE. THE PROCEDURE WAS POSTED AT THE END OF JUNE AND CAN BE FOUND AT THAT WEB SITE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BYLAWS, WE CONDUCTED A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, AND THE COMMENTS CAN BE FOUND AT THIS WEB SITE. AND THE PROCEDURE FOR THE -- DETERMINING THE SUCCESSOR OPERATOR WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD ON JUNE 29TH. THE GNSO IS OFFERING ADVICE ON THE CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSION. AND THE MISSION THAT I HAVE LIFTED OUT OF THE GNSO MINUTES IS TO DRAFT A SET OF CRITERIA AND CONDITIONS FOR DOT NET CONSISTENT WITH THE ICANN MISSION AND SO ON. AND THAT'S FROM THE DOT NET SUBCOMMITTEE. THE GNSO DOT NET SUBCOMMITTEE HAS DONE SIGNIFICANT WORK. THEY'VE PUBLISHED THESE THREE DRAFT REPORTS THAT ARE POSTED ON THEIR WEB SITE. TWO DIFFERENT, SEPARATE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS WERE HELD, AND A FINAL REPORT WAS ISSUED TO THE GNSO COUNCIL ON JUNE 16TH AND THEN WAS FURTHER ADVISED AND REISSUED. I'D LIKE TO INVITE PHILIP SHEPPARD TO COME UP NOW. HE'S THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DOT NET SUBCOMMITTEE. AND HE CAN INFORM US AS TO SOME OF THE CONTENT AND SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION THAT WAS DEVELOPED IN THAT COMMITTEE.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: KURT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

JUST TWO SECONDS WHILE I TRY AND FIND A TOGGLE BUTTON THAT WORKS FOR ALL OF US. THERE WE GO. SO YOU'VE HEARD THE TIME LINE IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS FROM KURT. SO I DON'T NEED TO GO OVER THAT. BUT I THINK IT'S JUST WORTH STRESSING, BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN SOME CONFUSION, THAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKED, THE GNSO, TO GIVE ADVICE. AND THE WAY WE CHOSE TO DO THAT WAS TO FORM A SUBCOMMITTEE, ONE MEMBER FROM EACH MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE PLUS THE AT-LARGE LIAISON. AND IN WORKING OUT A CONSENSUS PROCESS, WE HAVE MIRRORED THE TIME LINES AND SOME OF THE OTHER DETAILS YOU WOULD FIND IN THE PDP, ALTHOUGH WE ARE NOT PER SE FOLLOWING A PDP IN THIS CASE. WE HAVE PRODUCED A CONSENSUS REPORT, THE SUBCOMMITTEE, AS YOU HEARD, SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL. MINOR REVISIONS WERE REQUESTED YESTERDAY. A THIRD OF THOSE ARE IN PLACE, TWO-THIRDS OF THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE AND SHOULD BE IN PLACE WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS. A NUMBER OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED TO THE PROCESS ALSO CAME OUT AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE RFP. AND SOME OF THOSE WERE MORE CLEARLY RELATED TO THE RFP ITSELF. AND WE HAVE TRIED IN THE WAY OF INCORPORATING THOSE INTO THE REPORT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THOSE TYPES. IN OUR REPORT ITSELF, WE HAVE A PREAMBLE THAT LINKS WHAT WE'RE DOING TO THE RELEVANT PARTS OF THE ICANN MISSION. WE TALK ABOUT THE NEED FOR A PROPORTIONAL APPLICATION FORM, ONE THAT IS NOT OVERBURDENSOME. WE TALK ABOUT THE NEED FOR IMPARTIAL CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF EVALUATORS AND THE CRITERIA ITSELF.

WE DIVIDE IT INTO TWO TYPES, ABSOLUTE CRITERIA, QUALIFYING THRESHOLDS, AND RELATIVE CRITERIA, WHICH IS THE WAY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN COMPETING APPLICANTS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE QUALIFIED FOR THE ABSOLUTE CRITERIA. ABSOLUTE CRITERIA, THINGS LIKE TARGETING, IT SHOULD REMAIN OPEN AS A DOMAIN, CONTINUITY, SHOULD BE GRANDFATHERING, POLICY COMPLIANCE, YES, OF COURSE. POLICY DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE BOTTOM-UP, REGISTRARS SHOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT. TECHNICAL ABSOLUTE CRITERIA, CLEARLY, THINGS LIKE COMPLYING WITH THE BASIC CRITERIA YOU WILL FIND WITHIN EXISTING DOT NET AGREEMENT, RELATING ALSO TO THINGS LIKE DISASTER RECOVERY, GENERAL COMPETENCE, THE NATURE OF THE MIGRATION PLANS, AND, OF COURSE, FINANCIAL STABILITY. UNDER RELATIVE CRITERIA, THE FIRST OF THOSE IS THE PROMOTION OF COMPETITION. AND THERE WE HAVE BASICALLY SAID, LOOK, IF YOU HAVE AN APPLICATION THAT YOU ARE MEETING CERTAIN TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, HOW ARE WE GOING TO JUDGE THIS? ONE VERY IMPORTANT POINT IS THE PUBLIC POLICY MISSION WITHIN ICANN'S MISSION. WE ALSO TALK ABOUT PRICE AND COSTS. THIS, OF COURSE, IS REFERRING TO REGISTRY/REGISTRAR. AND WE'RE SAYING, LOOK, IF THERE ARE WAYS OF REDUCING COSTS IN A PROPOSAL, THEY SHOULD ALSO BE VIEWED POSITIVELY. WE TALK ABOUT INNOVATION IN TERMS OF SERVICES AND IN GENERAL THE VALUE PROPOSITION THAT MAY BE OFFERED BY ANY APPLICANT. UNDER STABILITY AND SECURITY, WE TALK ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF STABILITY AND SECURITY ALSO COMING FROM THE PLURAL SUPPLY BASE, ABOUT IMPROVED IMPLEMENTATION OF GNSO POLICIES. PERHAPS THAT'S TRANSFERS AND DELETES. AND IN GENERAL ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF SEEING ENHANCED SERVICES AND REGISTRY OPERATION. AND THAT'S ABOUT IT. SO THE FULL REPORT, WE HOPE, SHOULD BE WITH YOU VERY SHORTLY. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PHIL.

IF BRUCE TONKIN IS THERE, I SEE HIM, PERHAPS HE CAN GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THE WHOIS ISSUES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.

THANK YOU, VINT. WELL, BEFORE I COMMENCE THE UPDATE ON WHOIS, WHICH IS MORE OR LESS A STANDING ITEM ON THE ICANN AGENDA, WE HAD A WHOIS WORKSHOP ON TUESDAY. AND AT THE END OF THAT WORKSHOP, I RECEIVED A COMMENT FROM SOMEONE SAYING THIS IS ALL TOO HARD. WHY DON'T WE JUST GET RID OF WHOIS? AND I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT A BIT FURTHER. AND I EVENTUALLY GAVE AN EVERY WHICH INVOLVED BEER AT THE TIME. BUT I WILL GIVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ANSWER THIS TIME. AND THAT IS THAT I BELIEVE WHOIS IS LIKE A CAR. SHOULD WE BAN CARS? CARELESS DRIVERS CAN KILL PEOPLE WITH A CAR. CARS TRAVEL VERY FAST AND CAN GO ALMOST ANYWHERE. DANGEROUS WITHOUT ROAD RULES, SPEED LIMITS, OR POLICE. DANGEROUS WITHOUT BRAKES OR EVEN QUALITY CONTROL OF BRAKES. MANUFACTURERS NEED TO RECALL CARS THAT HAVE DEFICIENT COMPONENTS. WE NEED TIGHT REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS. CARS REQUIRE MINING FOR OIL. THIS CAUSES WARS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. THEY GIVE OFF FUMES THAT DAMAGE THE ENVIRONMENT. SO I THINK WE SHOULD REALLY GET RID OF CARS AND MOVE TO TELEPORTATION INSTEAD. IN FACT, I BELIEVE A GROUP OF AUSTRALIANS HAVE MADE SOME PROGRESS ON THIS. SO IF I SHOULD SUDDENLY DISAPPEAR IN THIS PRESENTATION, JUST PUT THAT DOWN TO TESTING. (LAUGHTER.)

>>BRUCE TONKIN: BUT THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS THAT I LOVE HAVING ACCESS TO CARS.

AND A CAR IN THE HANDS OF A SKILLFUL DRIVER IS A WONDERFUL THING. SO WHY IS WHOIS LIKE A CAR, YOU MIGHT ASK. WELL, IMAGINE AN UNLICENSED, UNDERAGE DRIVER OF A SPORTS CAR WITH NO SPEED LIMITS AND NO BRAKES, WITH NO POLICE, WITHOUT ANY QUALITY CONTROL ON THE COMPONENTS OF THE CAR. IMAGINE LOTS OF PEDESTRIANS IN THE WAY. IMAGINE UNRESTRICTED MINING FOR OIL TO FUEL THE CAR. THIS IS LIKE WHOIS TODAY. BUT THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT WE STILL HAVE CARS AND WE STILL HAVE WHOIS. AND IT IS STILL A VERY USEFUL SERVICE. BUT WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR CARS HAVE EVOLVED OVER 100 YEARS, AND THERE ARE STILL BEING IMPROVED. SO LET'S HAVE A LOOK AT SOME WHOIS POLICY CONCEPTS AND SORT OF RELATE THEM TO SOMETHING LIKE CARS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE STUDYING WITHIN THE WHOIS AREA IS PROVIDING IMPROVED INFORMED CONSENT TO REGISTRANTS WHEN THEY PROVIDE THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THAT INFORMATION WILL BE ACCESSED BY THIRD PARTIES. THEN WE NEED -- WE'RE STARTING TO LOOK AT THINGS LIKE ACCESS TIERS. ONE ACCESS TIER MIGHT BE SOME BASIC INFORMATION FOR ANONYMOUS, EFFECTIVELY, UNLICENSED ACCESS. AND FOR THIS, THINK ABOUT A BICYCLE. WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO RIDE BICYCLES WITHOUT LICENSES. BUT A BICYCLE CAN REALLY DO LIMITED DAMAGE. FULL CONTACT INFORMATION WOULD ONLY BE AVAILABLE FOR USERS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN SOME WAY. ESSENTIALLY, THESE WOULD BECOME LICENSED USERS. THINK A CAR. THAT CAN BE QUITE DANGEROUS. WE'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME LICENSE PROCEDURES TO IDENTIFY WHO THE DRIVER IS AND ARE THEY PROPERLY QUALIFIED TO DRIVE THAT CAR. WE NEED IMPROVED MONITORING OF ACCURACY AND COMPLIANCE. AGAIN, THINK THE CAR INDUSTRY. WE CONSTANTLY HAVE SPEED CAMERAS, POLICE. WE HAVE A VERY EXTENSIVE COMPLIANCE REGIME AROUND ROAD RULES AND AROUND THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS IN CARS. THE NEXT STEPS WHEN WE START TO CONSIDER NOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO LICENSE USERS OR WE'RE CONSIDERING THE CONCEPT OF LICENSING USERS, WE'RE CONSIDERING NEW, IMPROVED METHODS OF COMPLIANCE MONITORING, IS WHAT -- HOW IMPLEMENTABLE ARE THESE NEW CONCEPTS? WE NEED TO DESIGN A REFERENCE IMPLEMENTATION. THEN WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT'S THE COST OF THAT IMPLEMENTATION. AND THEN WE NEED TO LOOK AT A FUNDING MODEL TO COVER THOSE COSTS. THIS COULD BE VIA EITHER ADDITIONAL FEES FOR REGISTRANTS OR FOR WHOIS USERS. SO THESE ARE KIND OF WHERE WE'RE GOING. AND THE REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED SO FAR GO QUITE A BIT FURTHER IN THE CONCEPTS. AND I WILL DISCUSS A FEW OF THOSE. ONE OF THE IDEAS IS YOU MIGHT HAVE EFFECTIVELY DIFFERENT TYPES OF IDENTIFICATION OF USERS, DIFFERENT LICENSE LEVELS. YOU MIGHT HAVE A ONE-TIME USE WHERE YOU ACTUALLY GO TO A REGISTRAR AND YOU GET PERMISSION TO -- JUST TO DO ONE QUERY FOR ONE DATA ELEMENT AND THAT'S IT. SIMILAR TO PERHAPS GETTING A LICENSE TO RENT A CAR. IT'S JUST KIND OF A ONE-TIME USE PURPOSE. OR YOU MIGHT WANT TO HAVE A LICENSE TO USE THE DATA OF A PARTICULAR REGISTRAR. YOU'D GO TO THAT REGISTRAR. THAT REGISTRAR WOULD PERHAPS GIVE YOU AN ANNUAL LICENSE TO ACCESS THE WHOIS INFORMATION, SIMILAR, PERHAPS, TO A CAR LICENSE. OR MAYBE YOU WANT TO HAVE A LICENSE THAT YOU CAN USE ACROSS DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS FOR DIFFERENT REGISTRARS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. MIGHT BE A BIT LIKE AN INTERNATIONAL CAR LICENSE. THESE ARE JUST SORT OF CONCEPTS THAT WE'RE GOING -- INVESTIGATING FURTHER. AND THEN IF WE HAVE SOME SORT OF MECHANISM OF IDENTIFYING AND EFFECTIVELY LICENSING A USER, SHOULD WE DO THAT CENTRALIZED? IS THERE ONE BIG, YOU KNOW, WHOIS LICENSE BUREAU? OR DO WE ALLOW EACH REGISTRAR TO MAKE ITS OWN DECISIONS REGARDING ISSUING LICENSES? AND DO INDIVIDUAL REGISTRARS RECOGNIZE INDIVIDUAL LICENSES? I MEAN, PROBABLY IN THE UNITED STATES, I CAN HIRE A CAR WITH AN AUSTRALIAN DRIVER'S LICENSE. SO THEY HAVE OBVIOUSLY DECIDED TO RECOGNIZE EACH OTHER'S QUALIFICATIONS. BUT ALSO INTERNATIONAL DRIVER'S LICENSES ALSO EXIST. WE'RE LOOKING AT GOING BEYOND MERELY SEEKING COMPLIANCE FROM REGISTRANTS. CURRENTLY, REGISTRANTS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ACCURATE INFORMATION. AND IF THEY DON'T, THERE ARE SANCTIONS, SUCH AS DELETION OF THE DOMAIN NAME. WE COULD GO THE NEXT STEP AND SAY THAT WE REQUIRE A REGISTRAR TO CARRY OUT DATA VERIFICATION. IF WE DID THAT, WE COULD DO THAT AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OR MAYBE JUST DO IT AFTER THERE'S BEEN A COMPLAINT AND THEN WE DO VERIFICATION. THE FORMER COULD IMPOSE A COST ON ALL REGISTRANTS. THE LATTER MAY ONLY PROVIDE A COST WHEN A COMPLAINT OCCURS. HERE ARE SOME MORE CONCEPTS. LET'S GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. SO NOW THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED USERS AND WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE, WE MIGHT THEN LOG THEIR ACTIVITY, LOG THE USER REQUESTS. AND THIS IS FAIRLY SIMILAR IF YOU THINK ABOUT THESE SYSTEMS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE NOW WITH TOLL WAYS, YOU HAVE ROADS THAT CHARGE A FEE. YOU CAN HAVE A -- EFFECTIVELY, A TOKEN IN THE CAR THAT CAN BE READ AS YOU DRIVE UNDER A SCANNER. AND THAT LOGS THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ON THAT ROAD. SO YOU CAN, IN EFFECT, LOG THE USAGE OF A CAR AND THE DRIVER OF THAT CAR OF A PARTICULAR PART OF THE NETWORK. MORE THAN JUST LOGGING THE REQUEST, YOU CAN GO ANOTHER STEP FURTHER AGAIN, AND YOU CAN COLLECT INFORMATION ON WHY THAT REQUEST WAS SUBMITTED. IN OTHER WORDS, WAS THE WHOIS REQUEST FOR REASONS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, WAS IT FOR REASONS OF TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT? WAS IT FOR REASONS OF WANTING TO BUY THE DOMAIN NAME? YOU KNOW, THERE COULD BE A NUMBER OF REASONS WHY A REQUEST MAY BE SUBMITTED. NOW THAT I HAVE THIS INFORMATION, I KNOW WHO THE USER IS AND I'VE LOGGED THE FACT THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED A PARTICULAR DOMAIN NAME RECORD AND I KNOW WHY THEY'VE REQUESTED THAT DOMAIN NAME RECORD, THE NEXT ISSUE IS WHAT DO I DO WITH THAT INFORMATION. WELL, I CAN NOTIFY ICANN AND SAY THESE ARE THE REQUESTS I HAVE RECEIVED, OR I COULD NOTIFY THE REGISTRANT. IN FACT, THIS WAS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE WLS SERVICE, THAT THE REGISTRANT BE NOTIFIED WHEN A WLS NAME WAS -- OR WLS WAS PLACED ON A NAME. AGAIN, THERE'S MORE CHOICES HERE. WE COULD DO THIS AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST OR MAYBE LATER, MAYBE THREE MONTHS LATER, WE MAKE A NOTIFICATION. MAYBE THE PEOPLE IN -- REQUEST THAT INFORMATION. SO INSTEAD OF NOTIFYING YOU, YOU COULD SAY -- YOU COULD PUT IN ALMOST LIKE A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST TO ICANN AND SAY, "PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT WHAT IS -- WHO HAS BEEN ACCESSING INFORMATION ABOUT MY DOMAIN NAME." AND, AGAIN, MORE CHOICES. DO WE DO THAT IMMEDIATELY? DO WE DO THAT AFTER SOME PERIOD OF DELAY? WE MAY CHOOSE TO PUBLISH THE LOGS PUBLICLY ON A WEB SITE, SAYING THESE ARE THE USERS THAT ARE USING WHOIS AND THESE ARE THE RECORDS THAT THEY REQUESTED. THIS WOULD CERTAINLY ASSIST IN COMPLIANCE. SO WE COULD PUBLICLY SEE WHO HAS BEEN ACCESSING RECORDS AND WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN ACCESSING THEM FOR. THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION IF WE START LOOKING AT THIS TECHNICALLY IS WE THEN, IN FACT, COULD CREATE A WHOIS USER DIRECTORY WHICH CONTAINS THE CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE USERS OF WHOIS AND A LIST OF RECORDS THAT THEY HAD REQUESTED. THIS, HOWEVER, LEADS US TO AN INTERESTING CONCEPT THAT PERHAPS WE THEN CREATE A NEW PROBLEM. WE HAVE PRIVACY CONCERNS BY WHOIS USERS THAT ACCESS THE PRIVACY INFORMATION OF REGISTRANTS. SO WE ACTUALLY MANAGED TO COMPLETELY COMPLETE THE CYCLE THERE. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT PRIVACY OF REGISTRANTS, WHEN USERS START REALIZING THAT THEIR INFORMATION STARTS TO BECOME AVAILABLE, THEN THEY PERHAPS BECOME A BIT MORE SENSITIVE TO THE CONCERNS THAT REGISTRANTS DO HAVE. SO THERE'S MUCH TO DO.

AND I'M REALLY JUST PRESENTING CONCEPTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE WHOIS REPORTS BUT TRYING TO RELATE THEM TO, REALLY, HOW WE WOULD DEAL WITH SUCH AN ISSUE ON ANY OTHER AREA OF SOCIETY, WHETHER IT WAS CAR LICENSES OR ANYTHING ELSE. SO THE APPROACH WE NEED TO TAKE IS SMALL STEPS, BECAUSE, CLEARLY, IF I PUT UP A PROPOSAL TO THE BOARDS WITH ALL OF THOSE CONCEPTS THAT I JUST SUGGESTED, WE WOULD BE QUITE CONCERNED, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT NO EXPERIENCE IN HOW ANY OF THOSE THINGS WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL THE IMPLICATIONS OF THOSE THINGS WOULD BE. AND SO WE NEED TO TAKE SMALL STEPS FORWARD, CONTINUOUS SMALL IMPROVEMENTS. YOU THINK ABOUT CARS. THINK ABOUT A CAR 100 YEARS AGO. YOU DIDN'T NEED BRAKES. YOU JUST STUCK YOUR FOOT OUT. THEN YOU GOT BRAKES, BECAUSE THE CAR GOT FASTER. THEN PEOPLE FOUND THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY GOT SO CONFIDENT THAT THEY HAD BRAKES SO THAT THEY COULD DRIVE REALLY FAST, THAT THEY JAMMED THE BRAKES ON AND THEY LOCKED UP. SO THEN WE PUT ANTILOCK BRAKES IN THERE. THEN WE FOUND THAT DEPENDING ON THE SURFACE, AND YOU JAMMED YOUR ANTILOCK BRAKES AND THEY DIDN'T WORK, SO WE PUT IN TRACTION CONTROL. AND WE FOUND PEOPLE STILL LIKE TO KILL THEMSELVES IN CARS, SO WE PUT IN SOME AIRBAGS. BUT ULTIMATELY, TELEPORTATION, I THINK, IS THE ONLY SOLUTION. SO REALLY, WHAT DO WE DO HERE? WELL, WE WANT TO RECOMMEND SOME NEW WHOIS IMPROVEMENTS BY THE NEXT ICANN BOARD MEETING THAT ARE IMPLEMENTABLE.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YOU OBVIOUSLY OUTLINED HOW COMPLEX ALL OF THIS CAN BECOME. ANYONE WHO IS A FAN OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION CAN SEE HOW EASILY THE SIMPLE WHOIS CONCEPTS OF 20 OR MORE YEARS AGO COULD EASILY EVOLVE INTO A VERY, VERY COMPLICATED ON, INDEED. I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE TELEPORTATION, FRANKLY. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BIT ERRORS AND INVERSIONS. AND ANYBODY WHO HAS EVER WATCHED THE TRANSPORTERS GO BAD ON STAR TREK WOULD HAVE SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS IDEA. OKAY. THE NEXT TOPIC ON THE AGENDA IS A VERY EXCITING ONE FOR ALL OF US. AND THAT'S TO GET AN UPDATE ON AFRINIC FROM ADIEL AKPLOGAN, WHO IS ON HIS WAY UP, I THINK, NOW.

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

AND BEFORE STARTING, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE BOARD FOR GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO GIVE FOR THE FIRST TIME A PUBLIC UPDATE AT ICANN ON AFRINIC PROGRESS AND ON OUR STATUS. A BRIEF BACKGROUND ON AFRINIC. TODAY, AFRICA IS SERVED BY THREE DIFFERENT RIRS, WHICH BROUGHT THE CONCERN ABOUT COORDINATION AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN AFRICA, AND CONSISTENCY ON THE POLICY APPLIED ON THE CONTINENT. SO BACK IN 2000, IN CAPE TOWN, AFTER AFRICAN ONE MEETING, WE AGREED TO SET UP A REGISTRY WHICH WOULD SERVE AFRICA AS A WHOLE. AT THAT MEETING, A COMMITTEE WAS SET UP TO DRAFT THE FIRST BYLAW THAT SHOULD GOVERN AFRINIC. SINCE 2000, AFRINIC HAS BEEN RECEIVING SUPPORT FROM ISP AND ORGANIZATIONS IN THE CONTINENT, INCLUDING ALREADY-ESTABLISHED RIR. BETWEEN 2000 AND 2001, 68 ORGANIZATIONS SIGNED THE FUNDING DECLARATION. WE RECEIVE 27 LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM 25 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, AND SINCE MAY 2004, THAT WE OPENED THE FORMAL MEMBERSHIP PROCESS, WE ALREADY RECEIVED 13 REGISTERED MEMBERS. THE LIST OF ALL OF THOSE FOUNDING MEMBERS IS ONLINE, ON AFRINIC WEB SITE. SO WHAT HAPPENED IN OUR PROCESS SINCE 2000? IN MAY 2001, AT AFNOG II, A BOARD, AN INTERIM BOARD OF TRUSTEES WAS APPOINTED TO SET UP AFRINIC AS AN ORGANIZATION. THE BOARD WAS COMPOSED OF TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE TWO DIFFERENT SUBREGIONS IN AFRICA. AND THEY HAVE THREE YEARS TO SET UP THE ORGANIZATION. IN 2002, DURING THE SAME YEAR, THE FIRST BOARD MEETING HELD IN CAIRO, WHERE A PRESENTATION WAS MADE ON THE FIRST AFRINIC INCORPORATION PLAN. A BOARD MEMBER WAS DESIGNATED TO DISCUSS WITH THE RIR AND CONCLUDE ON AN AGREEMENT WITH RIPE NCC FOR INCUBATION PERIOD FOR AFRINIC OPERATION. ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT DECISION WAS MADE TO HIRE A STAFF TO WORK FULL TIME FOR AFRINIC IN JANUARY 2002. IN MAY OF THE SAME YEAR, ANOTHER BOARD MEETING WAS HELD IN AFNOG III IN LOME, WHERE AN AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED WITH RIPE NCC TO INCUBATE AFRINIC FOR TWO YEARS AND TRAIN ITS STAFF. AT THE SAME MEETING, WE RECEIVED A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM ARIN ON OUR PROCESS, ON AFRINIC'S SETUP, WHICH WAS SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM THE COMMUNITY. IN AUGUST, THE BOARD HAD ITS SECOND PUBLIC MEETING IN NAIROBI, KENYA, WHERE AN ACTIVITY PLAN WAS ADOPTED, AND IT WAS AGREED ON PEOPLE THAT WILL BE TRAINED AT RIPE NCC. IN 2003, AFRINIC STAFF STARTED THEIR TRAINING AT RIPE NCC. AN EMERGING WORKSHOP WAS ORGANIZED BY LACNIC IN JUNE IN MONTEVIDEO WHERE REPRESENTATIVES FROM AFRINIC AND ALL THE RIRS WERE THERE TO LEARN FROM THE LACNIC PROCESS AND ALSO IMPROVE AFRINIC TRANSITION PROCESS. IN JUNE 2003, AN OUTREACH MEETING WAS ORGANIZE IN KAMPALA, BACK TO BACK WITH AFNOG IV, WHERE HOSTING COUNTRIES WERE SELECTED AFTER A CALL FOR PROPOSAL WAS LAUNCHED IN FEBRUARY 2003. MAURITIUS WAS THEN SELECTED AS THE COUNTRY TO HOST THE HEADQUARTERS. SOUTH AFRICA FOR TECHNICAL OPERATION. EGYPT AS DISASTER RECOVERY AND DATA REPLICATION CENTER. AND GHANA WAS SELECTED TO COORDINATE TRAINING ACTIVITIES FOR AFRINIC. IN SEPTEMBER 2003, DURING A MEETING, AN OUTREACH MEETING WAS ORGANIZED BY AFRINIC WHERE THE TERM OF REFERENCE FOR HOSTING COUNTRIES WAS REVIEWED. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE AFRINIC POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. THE BOARD PRESENCE AT THAT MEETING ALSO USED THAT OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT THE HOSTING FACILITIES OFFERED BY SOUTH AFRICAN GOVERNMENT OFFERED FOR AFRINIC OPERATION. DURING THE SAME YEAR, OTHER ACTIVITY WAS SET UP AND CONDUCT BY AFRINIC TEAM AND BOARD. A REGULAR REPORT WAS SENT TO THE COMMUNITY. THE FIRST TRANSITION PLAN WAS DRAFT. A NEW WEB SITE WAS DESIGNED FOR AFRINIC TO BETTER INFORM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON ON AFRINIC PROCESS. A MEMBERSHIP NEWSLETTER WAS LAUNCHED, AND VOLUME 1 AND 2 WAS ALREADY PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED AND SENT TO POTENTIAL MEMBER OF AFRINIC. IN OCTOBER 2003, A PROJECT MANAGER WAS APPOINTED FOR AFRINIC TO CONDUCT THE PROCESS AS THE FOCAL POINT AND MAIN CONTACT IN THE PROCESS. IN 2004, THIS YEAR, I MUST SAY IT'S ONE OF THE IMPORTANT YEAR IN AFRINIC PROCESS, BECAUSE IT WAS THE RESULT OF ALL THE PREVIOUS YEAR EFFORT. IN JANUARY 2004, THIS YEAR, I WAS THE PROJECT MANAGER OF AFRINIC, AND I HAVE THE CHANCE TO VISIT ARIN OFFICE IN AMERICA TO DISCUSS WITH THE MANAGEMENT TEAM ABOUT AFRINIC TRANSITION PLAN. IN FEBRUARY, AFTER AFRINIC WAS FORMALLY REDUCED TO A COMPANY IN MAURITIUS, A POLICY WORKING GROUP WAS SET UP COMPOSED OF VOLUNTEER FROM THE COMMUNITY AND FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRY IN AFRICA TO IMPROVED TO THE POLICIES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN SEPTEMBER IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN JOHANNESBURG AND TO DISCUSS THE POLICY IN THE POLICY WORKING GROUP WHICH IS A PUBLICLY AND OPEN POLICY MAILING LIST. IN FEBRUARY OF 2004, AS I WAS SAYING, AFRINIC WAS REGISTERED AS A NONGOVERNMENTAL AND NOT-FOR-PROFIT COMPANY MAURITIUS. IT'S GOVERNED BY IT'S MEMBER WHO HAVE CONTROL ON ITS OPERATION BY DEFINING AND APPROVAL ALL THE POLICY AND ACTIVITY PLAN. THE MEMBER ALSO HAVE THE DUTY TO ELECT THEIR REPRESENTATIVE TO FORM THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AND WE KEEP THE SAME STRUCTURE AS THE INTERIM BOARD. THAT MEANS HAVING A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SIX SUBREGION IN AFRICA. ONE AS PRIMARY BOARD MEMBER AND THE SECOND ONE AS A SECONDARY. IN APRIL 2004, ALL THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENT REGARDING OUR ALLOCATION POLICY AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT WERE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED ON AFRINIC WEB SITE IN PREPARATION OF THE FIRST PUBLIC POLICY MEETING HELD IN MAY OF THIS YEAR IN DAKAR. DURING THAT POLICY MEETING, AFRINIC MEMBER ALREADY ESTABLISHED ISP AND RIR AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE FIRST SET OF POLICY; MEANING IPV4, IPV6, ASN, AND REVERSE DELEGATION POLICY. THOSE POLICY WERE DISCUSSED AND ADOPT AT THIS FIRST PUBLIC POLICY MEETING. A BUDGET WAS ALSO ADOPT FOR 2004 AND 2005. THE NEW ARTICLE OF CONSTITUTION OF AFRINIC WAS ALSO ADOPT ACCORDING TO THE MAURITIUS BYLAW COMPANY ACTS. A NEW BOARD WAS ALSO ELECT TO REPLACE THE INTERIM BOARD ACTING UNTIL MAY THIS YEAR. IN JUNE 2004, THIS YEAR STILL, AFRINIC RECEIVE ITS FIRST EQUIPMENT COMPOSED OF SERVER AND ALL WORKING EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR SETTING UP ITS OPERATION CENTER. AFRINIC ALSO HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND THE ARIN REGIONAL MEETING ORGANIZED BY (INAUDIBLE) IN AFRICA, WHERE WE PRESENT OUR TRANSITION PLAN TO MEMBER AND DISCUSS ALSO THE POLICY PROPOSED FOR AFRINIC. IN JULY, AN ACTIVITY REPORT LETTER WAS SENT TO ICANN. IT WAS A JOINT ACTIVITY REPORT WITH THE RIR AND NRO. IN THIS MONTH TOO, WE FINISH THE SETUP OF OUR SERVER, AND WE RELOCATE THEM ALL TO OUR HOSTING ESTIMATE IN SOUTH AFRICA. SO HOW AFRINIC IS STRUCTURED. AS I WAS SAYING, THERE IS A BOARD COMPOSED OF 12 MEMBER AND ELECT FROM EACH REGION. SO THE BOARD MEMBER ARE LISTED THERE. THE NEW BOARD ELECT IN MAY IS CHAIRED BY PIERRE DANDJINOU FROM (INAUDIBLE). THE BOARD ALSO HAS SOME WORKING GROUP AND COMMITTEE FORMED BY BOARD MEMBER AND ALSO MEMBER FROM THE COMMITTEE. SO WE HAVE THE POLICY WORKING GROUP, WE HAVE THE MEETING COMMITTEE, WE HAVE THE ELECTION COMMITTEE AND THE FINANCIAL COMMITTEE. THERE IS ALSO THE CEO POSITION, WHICH IS FILLED BY ME. AND AN ENGINEER WORKING FOR AFRINIC FULL-TIME IN SOUTH AFRICA WHICH IS ERNEST B., AND WE HAVE A BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT WHO IS WORKING IN MAURITIUS. YOU ALSO HAVE A LIST OF THE DIFFERENT WORKING GROUP AND COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD LISTED THERE. SO AFRINIC HAS ITS OFFICES SET UP IN SOUTH AFRICA NOW WHERE TWO STAFF ARE WORKING, AND ANOTHER OFFICE IN MAURITIUS AS THE HEADQUARTER WHERE ONE STAFF IS WORKING FULL TIME. YOU ALSO HAVE THE FULL PERMANENT ADDRESS OF AFRINIC WHERE WE CAN BE DIRECTLY (INAUDIBLE). AFRINIC ALSO HAS LAUNCHED SINCE 2003 AN AGGRESSIVE OUTREACH PROGRAM WITH, AS I WAS SAYING, AFRINIC NEWS, VOLUME 1 AND VOLUME 2 WAS RELEASED. WE ARE WORKING ON THE THIRD VOLUME NOW. THE WEB SITE IS KEPT UP-TO-DATE. WE SEND OR RELAY ALL THE INFORMATION ACCORDING TO INTERNET RESOURCE AND INTERNET GOVERNANCE RELATED TO IP AND IP RESOURCE TO THE COMMUNITY. WE REINFORCE OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH RIR BY ATTENDING THEIR DIFFERENT MEETING AND UPDATING THEIR MEMBER WHO WILL BECOME AFRINIC MEMBER ON OUR PROGRESS ON OUR PROCESS. ALL THE DIFFERENT PRESENTATION ARE AVAILABLE ON OUR WEB SITE. WE ALSO REINFORCE OUR PRESENCE IN THE CONTINENT BY ATTENDING THE VARIOUS ICT MEETING. RESULT FROM THE OUTREACH PROGRAM THAT WE STARTED, WE NOTE AN INCREASING NUMBER OF LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM ISP ON THE CONTINENT. WE START RECEIVING MEMBERSHIP, AS I WAS SAYING PREVIOUSLY. WE WERE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE SLASH 22 AS IPV4 MINIMUM ALLOCATION SIZE FOR ARIN, RIPENCC AND APNIC AFRICAN MEMBER. WE WERE ALSO ABLE TO HAVE A UNIFORM BLOCK, IP BLOCK, THE 196/8 USED FOR ALLOCATION TO LIR IN AFRICA. WE SIGN WITH THE NRO AN MOU TO FINANCIALLY SUPPORT PART OF AFRINIC SETUP. THIS HAPPEN IN MARCH 2004. AND WE ALSO DESIGN A TRANSITION PLAN TO BE ABLE TO COORDINATE -- TO COORDINATE OUR TRANSITION FROM THE DIFFERENT RIR TO AFRINIC AND HAVE A CONSISTENT TRANSFER, DATA TRANSFER. THE TRANSITION PLAN IS ORGANIZED IN FOUR PHASES: THE PREPARATION PHASES, THE CO-EVALUATION PHASES, THE UNIFORM POLICY AND EVALUATION PROCESS; THE PROVISIONAL RECOGNITION OF AFRINIC AND STAFFING ON INDEPENDENT EVALUATION WITH AUDIT BY RIRS. AND THE FINAL APPROVAL WHERE EVERYTHING WILL FALL ON THE AFRINIC MANAGEMENT. THE PHASE ZERO IS COMPLETELY DONE. THIS PHASE INCLUDE THE TRAINING OF THE STAFF AT RIPENCC IT'S DONE. THE PHYSICAL SETUP IS DONE. THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNICAL TRANSITION DESIGN IS DONE WITH ALL THE EQUIPMENT SETUP. THE POLICY DOCUMENTS, THE BASE POLICY THAT AFRINIC WILL BE USING ARE ALSO DONE, APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY AND RATIFIED BY THE BOARD. REGISTRATION SERVICE AGREEMENT IS DONE. THE MEMBERSHIP PROCESS IS ALSO AVAILABLE ONLINE. AND MOST OF THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENT ARE ALSO AVAILABLE. AFRINIC HAS ALSO DESIGNED A FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE COMING YEAR, PROVING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE ORGANIZATION. IT'S ALSO DONE. AND NOW WE ARE READY TO START THE PHASE 1, WHICH IS THE CO-EVALUATION PHASE. SO WHAT WILL HAPPEN DURING THE CO-EVALUATION? ALL THE REQUESTS WILL BE SENT DIRECTLY TO THE RIR, WHICH WILL FORWARD THEM TO THE AFRINIC TECHNICAL TEAM FOR EVALUATION, FOR DEALING WITH THE MEMBER. BUT THE FINAL DECISION WILL BE TAKEN BY THE DIFFERENT RIR, WHICH WILL SEND THE FINAL ALLOCATION TO THE CUSTOMER. SO AFRINIC WILL ACT AS INTERFACE BETWEEN THE LIR AND THE ALREADY-ESTABLISHED RIR. SO THAT IS ALL AFRINIC HAS DONE SO FAR. AND HOW ALL OF THIS MEET THE ICP-2 REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS THE MAIN DOCUMENT THAT IS USED TO EVALUATE THE NEW RIR. REGION OF COVERAGE. REGION OF COVERAGE HAS BEEN DEFINED FOR AFRINIC OPERATION. IT INCLUDE THE 54 AFRICAN COUNTRY WITH THE INDIAN OCEAN. SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY. SINCE 2000, AFRINIC HAS RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM ISP, LIR ORGANIZATION ON THE CONTINENT. THE LIST OF ALL OF THOSE SUPPORT ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE. SELF-GOVERNANCE. A POLICY WORKING GROUP IS SET UP, A PUBLIC MAILING LIST IS ALSO SET UP TO WORK ON AFRINIC POLICY. A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS HAS ALSO BEEN ADOPT BY MEMBER. IMPARTIALITY. AFRINIC IS REGISTERED AS NON-GOVERNMENTAL AND NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION. IT'S GOVERNED BY ITS MEMBER WHO HAVE CONTROL ON ITS OPERATIONS BY DEFINING POLICY AND ACTIVITY PLAN. AFRINIC ALSO HAS AN INDEPENDENT BOARD OF TRUSTEE COMPOSED OF REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE 6 SUBREGION OF THE CONTINENT. TECHNICAL EXPERTISE. AFRINIC TEAM, THE BOARD AND THE STAFF, IS COMPOSED OF EXPERIENCED PEOPLE THAT HAVE ALREADY WORKED AND MANAGED INTERNET SERVICE AND ARE WELL ARMED TO MANAGE ALL REQUIRED RIR SERVICES. TODAY, AS I WAS SAYING IN MY PRESENTATION, AFRINIC ALREADY HAS ITS OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE SET UP IN PRETORIA AND MAURITIUS, INCLUDING MAIL SERVICE, TICKETING SYSTEM AND ALL OF THOSE. ADHERENCE TO GLOBAL ADDRESS ALLOCATION POLICY. AFRINIC FULLY ADHERES TO TO GLOBAL ADDRESS ALLOCATION POLICIES REGARDING ADDRESS CONSERVATION, AGGREGATION AND REGISTRATION. THESE PRINCIPLES ARE REFLECTED IN THE IP RESOURCE, IPV4, IPV6, AND ASN ALLOCATION POLICY ADOPTED IN MAY IN DAKAR 2004. EXCUSE ME, 2004. ACTIVITY PLAN. AFRINIC IS NOW IN ITS TRANSITION PLAN FROM THE DIFFERENT RIR SERVING ITS FUTURE REGION OF SERVICE. IN SHORT TERM, OUR MAIN ACTIVITY PLAN IS TO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THIS TRANSITION PLAN. IN THE MEANTIME, AFRINIC HAS PLANNED MANY OTHER ACTIVITIES ESSENTIALLY FOCUSED ON INFORMATION AND TRAINING OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY ON IP RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. AFRINIC IN ITS MISSION ASSESSMENT -- IN ITS MISSION STATEMENT ALSO HAS THE GOAL OF PROVIDING AN INTERFACE ENVIRONMENT FOR INTERNET DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA. FUNDING MODEL. AFRINIC HAS A FUNDING MODEL BASED ON TWO CATEGORY OF FUND-RAISING. ONE, DURING THE INCUBATION PERIOD, MOST OF THE FUND OF AFRINIC IS COMING FROM THE HOSTING COUNTRY AND THE DIFFERENT DONORS. AND IN THE SECOND STAGE, AFTER THE TWO-YEAR OF INCUBATION, AFRINIC WILL BE ABLE TO FORM ITS OPERATION BY MEMBERSHIP FEE. A BUSINESS PLAN BASED ON THIS IS ALSO PRODUCED AND WILL BE PART OF AFRINIC APPLICATION DOCUMENT. RECORD KEEPING. AFRINIC HAS DEVELOPED A STRONG RECORD KEEPING POLICY BASED ON PHYSICAL DOCUMENT, MEANING PAPER, STORAGE IN SAFE LOCATION AND ALSO ON ELECTRONIC DATA REGULAR BACKUP AND REPLICATION PROCESS. CONFIDENTIALITY. AFRINIC ALSO HAS A NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT THAT WILL BE SIGNED WITH ANY EXTERNAL ENTITY, INCLUDING EMPLOYEES, AUDITING COMPANY, AND OTHER, THAT WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO INFORMATION THAT AFRINIC WILL BE HAVING OR GETTING FROM ITS MEMBER. AFRINIC ALSO PROVIDE IN ITS REGISTRATION SERVICE AGREEMENT A CLOSE FOR NONDISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE DATA RECEIVED FROM ISP IN THE PROCESS OF THEIR REQUEST EVALUATION. SO TREMENDOUS PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE BY AFRINIC SINCE 2003. WE WOULD LIKE HERE PUBLICLY TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE ARE READY TO INITIATE THE FORMAL RECOGNITION PROCESS BY ICANN. WE ARE GOING TO SUBMIT OUR DOCUMENT FOR FORMAL RECOGNITION IN THE COMING DAY WITH THE STRONG HOPE THAT WE WILL RECEIVE A PROVISIONAL RECOGNITION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. WE ARE ALMOST THERE. AND WE HOPE TO BECOME THE FIFTH REGIONAL REGISTRY AS AFRINIC. THANK YOU. (APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW EXCITING AND PLEASED I AM TO SEE THIS MUCH PROGRESS. IT'S TAKEN A VERY LONG TIME FOR ALL OF YOUR COLLEAGUES TO WORK THEIR WAY THROUGH EVERYTHING. THIS YEAR, YOU SEEM TO HAVE HAD A ROCKET TIED TO THE ORGANIZATION, AND YOU'VE TAKEN OFF.

I REALLY DO LOOK FORWARD TO RECEIVING YOUR DOCUMENTS AND TO HAVING BOARD ACTION ASSOCIATED WITH IT. LET ME PAUSE TO -- PAUL, YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: NO, VINT. I JUST WANTED AS THE CEO TO SAY THE SAME THING AND ALSO RECOGNIZE RECEIPT OF THE LETTER I RECEIVED TODAY INDICATING AFRINIC'S WILLINGNESS TO PUT FORWARD THE DOCUMENTATION AND JUST TO SAY IT WAS WELCOME TO RECEIVE SUCH A LETTER.

>>VINT CERF: I THINK YOU'LL HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT IN THE COMMUNITY. THIS IS REALLY WONDERFUL PROGRESS.

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE ONE MORE -- OH, I'M SORRY. MOUHAMET.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: I JUST WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT OF THANKFUL FOR ALL THE REGISTRY, BECAUSE I JUST COME BACK ON BRUCE STATEMENT THAT WE'RE ALL WORKING IN ORDER TO ENHANCE THE REPUTATION OF ICANN. AND I THINK THAT THE JOB THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IN ORDER TO MAKE AFRINIC HUGE PROGRESS HAS BEEN DONE WITH THE COMMITMENT OF ALL THE REGISTRIES, I MEAN EXISTING REGISTRIES THAT HELPED A LOT, THAT HAVE EXPERIENCE IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS THING HAPPEN.

AND I JUST WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THANK ALL THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE WORK VERY HARD FOR MANY YEARS IN ORDER TO MAKE THESE THINGS HAPPEN.

THE IDEA OF AFRINIC HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED FOR MORE THAN SIX YEARS BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS NOT HOW LONG IT TAKES TO BE DONE. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THIS WILL BE DONE. AND THAT'S JUST A STATEMENT I WANT TO MAKE. THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MOUHAMET.

I THINK YOU CAN STEP DOWN, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>>ADIEL AKPLOGAN: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: ALL RIGHT. THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE IANA PROCESSES UPDATE FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER OF IANA, DOUG BARTON. AND WHEN HE FINISHES, THEN WE WILL OPEN UP THE FLOOR FOR QUESTIONS AND GENERAL COMMENTS.

>>DOUG BARTON: EXCELLENT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

AS THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE SUFFERED THROUGH THIS OR SIMILAR PRESENTATIONS IN THE PAST ARE WELL AWARE, I'M FAR FROM AN EXPERT IN POWERPOINT. HOWEVER, THE ADVANTAGE OF THE ELECTRONIC FORMAT IS THAT THE PRESENTATION CAN BE REVISED TO MEET CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES. SO FIRST I'D LIKE TO SAY, GOOD EVENING, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE. AND THE SUBJECT OF MY PRESENTATION IS WHAT'S HAPPENING AT ICANN AND IANA. I WOULD LIKE TO, WITH HIS PERMISSION, AND I DON'T SEE HIM IN THE ROOM BUT I HOPE HE WON'T MIND, ABUSE SHARIL'S STORY OF THE BLIND MAN AND THE ELEPHANT. I HAVE FOUR, AND WITH RESPECT TO THEM, I HAVE FOUR BLIND MEN. I'M SURE YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE STORY OF THE BLIND MEN WHO WERE TAKEN TO SEE AN ELEPHANT FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE FIRST ONE WAS UP CLOSE TO THE TRUNK AND GOT AHOLD OF THAT. THE SECOND ONE WAS NEAR THE LEG, AND GOT AHOLD OF THE LEG. AND THE SECOND -- THIRD ONE, RATHER, WAS PLACED UP AGAINST THE STOMACH OF THE ELEPHANT AND THE FOURTH ONE HAD AHOLD OF THE TAIL AND WHEN ASKED TO DESCRIBE THE ELEPHANT LATER EACH OF THE BLIND MEN HAD A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. THE FIRST SAID IT WAS LIKE A VERY STRONG MUSCULAR SNAKE. THE SECOND SAID IT WAS LIKE A TREE. THE THIRD SAID IT WAS LIKE A LARGE WARM PILLOW. AND THE LAST ONE SAID THAT IT WAS LIKE A BROOM THAT YOU WOULD USE TO CLEAN YOUR HOUSE. AND EACH OF THE BLIND MEN WERE, OF COURSE, CORRECT, BUT NONE OF THEM HAD THE WHOLE PICTURE. AND I HAVE FOUR MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS, THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN MANAGERS, THE REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRIES, THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE, THE DOT INT TLD REGISTRIES, AND THERE ARE OTHER THINGS IT PERFORMS FOR THE COMMUNITY SUCH AS THE DOT ARPA DOMAIN AND OTHERS, AND MY PURPOSE IN MENTIONING THIS IS SIMPLY TO POINT OUT THAT THE PROBLEM HAS MANY MORE FACETS THAN ANY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF MY STAKEHOLDER COMMUNITIES IS NECESSARILY AWARE OF. AND FOR THAT REASON I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE CHALLENGES PRESENTED BY THE POSITION, AND ALSO APPRECIATIVE OF THE SUPPORT THAT I RECEIVED OVER THE LAST SEVEN MONTHS FROM THE MEMBERS OF MY STAKEHOLDER COMMUNITIES. WE'LL START OFF WITH SOME GOOD NEWS. THESE ARE SOME STATISTICS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE ROOT MANAGEMENT FUNCTION OF IANA. WHEN I ASSUMED MY POSITION IN THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2003, THERE WERE 62 REQUESTS IN THE QUEUE, AND WE RECEIVED ROUGHLY 74 REQUESTS DURING THAT THREE-MONTH PERIOD. IN THE PERIOD THAT JUST CLOSED, THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2004, WE HAD REDUCED THE QUEUE TO 44 PENDING REQUESTS AT THE SAME TIME AS WE HAD RECEIVED 101 NEW WORK ITEMS DURING THE QUARTER. AND IF YOU DO THE MATH ON THOSE TWO STATISTICS, THERE'S BEEN A 40 PERCENT REDUCTION IN THE QUEUE, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME THERE'S BEEN A 36 PERCENT INCREASE IN THE REQUEST VOLUME. AND I NEED TO PAY A GREAT DEAL OF CREDIT TO BOTH THE IANA STAFF AND THE MEMBERS OF THE ICANN STAFF THAT ASSIST IANA WITH THE PROCESSING OF THESE REQUESTS. PAUL, WITH ALL DUE CREDIT, HAS HIRED AN EXCELLENT SENIOR MANAGEMENT TEAM -- I SHOULD SAY WITH ALL DUE MODESTY HAS HIRED AN EXCELLENT SENIOR MANAGEMENT TEAM, AND I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO WORK WITH THEM: PAUL VERHOEF, THERESA SWINEHART, AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ICANN STAFF, TO REALLY IMPROVE OUR FOCUS IN GETTING THE WORK DONE AND WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE TLD MANAGERS. AND I AM PROUD TO SAY THAT THIS EFFORT HAS PRODUCED FAIRLY GOOD RESULTS. NOW, THIS IS THE BAD NEWS. THIS IS THE 2003 STATISTICS. AND IF I CAN PLAY WITH MY NEW TOY A BIT, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THIS NUMBER HERE ON THE "Y" AXIS IS 250. AND THE "Y" AXIS REPRESENTS THE NUMBER OF DAYS THAT A REQUEST ENTERED THE QUEUE AND THE "X" AXIS -- SORRY, THE NUMBER OF DAYS THAT THE REQUEST WAS IN THE QUEUE, AND THE "X" AXIS IS THE DAY THAT IT ENTERED THE QUEUE. CLEARLY, THIS IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE STATE OF AFFAIRS. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT, HOWEVER, THAT I JOINED THE TEAM RIGHT ABOUT THERE (INDICATING). BUT WE CAN GET A LITTLE BIT MORE ACCURATE AND I THINK A LITTLE MORE HOPEFUL VIEW OF THE FUTURE WITH THIS SLIDE. AND I REALIZE IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT THIS NUMBER UP HERE (INDICATING) IS NO LONGER IN THE HUNDREDS. IT'S NOW 60. AND IF YOU LOOK TOWARDS THE -- THIS END DOWN HERE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE NUMBER OF DAYS THAT IANA SPENDS ON THESE REQUESTS HAS BEEN REDUCED SIGNIFICANTLY. AND THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IN COMPARISON TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE WAS A HUGE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF DAYS WHEN THE TLD MANAGERS HAD THE REQUEST IN THEIR QUEUE, EITHER FOR VERIFICATION OR CLARIFICATION, AND THE NUMBER OF DAYS THAT THE IANA STAFF WAS SPENDING ON THESE REQUESTS. AND ONE OF THE SUCCESS STORIES HERE IS THAT THE IANA AND ICANN STAFF HAVE BEEN ABLE TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THE TLD MANAGERS, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THESE TWO NUMBERS ARE MUCH CLOSER TOGETHER. AND I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER PART OF THE SUCCESS STORY THAT I CAN IN NO WAY CLAIM CREDIT FOR, EXCEPT SIMPLY TO POINT OUT THAT EVERYBODY IS WORKING VERY HARD TO IMPROVE THIS SITUATION, AND I APPRECIATE THE CONFIDENCE THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS SHOWN IN ALLOWING US TO GET ON WITH THIS WORK. WE HAVE SIMILAR STATISTICS FOR THE IETF DRAFTS. ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS THE BAD NEWS. THIS IS THE STATE OF AFFAIRS LAST YEAR, AND ONCE AGAIN, THIS NUMBER (INDICATING) OVER HERE ON THE "Y" AXIS IS 400. I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT SOME OF THESE DRAFTS THAT WERE IN THE QUEUE FOR A VERY LONG TIME HAD COMPLICATED INTERDEPENDENCIES AND SO THE PROCESSING DELAY IN SEVERAL CASES WAS RELATED TO THE FACT THAT DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE SYSTEM HAD TO BE UPDATED MORE OR LESS IN PARALLEL, AND THOSE PROJECTS TOOK A LONG TIME TO COORDINATE. BUT CLEARLY, THIS SORT OF TIME FRAME IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, WHEREAS, IN THIS CHART, WHICH REPRESENTS 2004, THE "Y" AXIS HERE IS 160 DAYS, AND YOU CAN SEE THE TREND CLEARLY IS GOING THE DIRECTION THAT WE'D LIKE IT TO. I WOULD PARTICULARLY LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IF WE GET DOWN IN THIS REGION, WHICH IS THE LAST TWO MONTHS, THE AVERAGE PROCESSING TIME IS 19 DAYS. AND IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE IETF AND THE INTERNET ARCHITECTURE BOARD, WE'RE STILL STUDYING THE PROBLEM OF HOW TO HANDLE THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE IETF, THE RFC EDITOR AND THE IANA. BACK IN THE OLD DAYS, THAT PROCESS WAS SIMPLE BECAUSE JON POSTEL WAS ESSENTIALLY ONE, EACH OF ALL THREE OF THOSE TASKS AND NOW THEY'RE IN DIFFERENT PLACES, IN SOME CASES DIFFERENT BUILDINGS, DIFFERENT REGIONS OF THE WORLD. BUT THOSE PROCESSES NEED TO CONTINUE TO BE IMPROVED AND WE'RE WORKING WITH THE VARIOUS MEMBERS OF EACH GROUP TO IMPROVE THEM. IN ADDITION TO THE THINGS THAT WE'VE ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED, WE HAVE PLANS FOR THE FUTURE. ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING TO HELP IMPROVE THE PROCESSING TIME FOR ROOT MANAGEMENT REQUEST IS TO IMPROVE THE TEMPLATE SYSTEM. I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF ADDRESSING THE CCNSO THIS WEEK, AND AS I POINTED OUT IN THAT FORUM, THE TEMPLATE SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY, WHERE THE TLD MANAGERS FILL IN AN E-MAIL TEMPLATE AND SEND IT TO THE IANA STAFF, IS THE BEST OF 1980S TECHNOLOGY AND HAS SERVED ITS PURPOSE WELL OVER THE YEARS, BUT CLEARLY NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED AND REPLACED. AND WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. AND AS PART OF THAT PROCESS, I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF TRAVELING TO MEETINGS LIKE CENTR AND APTLD AND THE REGIONAL TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN ASSOCIATIONS AND ADDRESS THE MEMBERSHIP THERE AND WORK WITH THEM AND GET FEEDBACK FROM THEM ON WHAT TYPE OF SYSTEM IS GOING TO MEET THEIR NEEDS. AND I THINK THIS PART OF THE PROCESS IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL TO DEVELOP A SYSTEM THAT IS NOT DESIGNED IN A VACUUM AND NOT INTENDED TO BE USED IN A VACUUM BUT, RATHER, TO BE INTERACTIVE AND RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY. ALONG THAT LINE, WE'RE LOOKING AT METHODS LIKE PGP AND PERHAPS X509 OR OTHER TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE BOTH THE SPEED AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR METHOD OF AUTHENTICATING REQUESTS FROM ALL OF IANA STAKEHOLDERS. AND DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT IS AN ONGOING ACTIVITY AND IS SOMETHING I'M VERY EAGER TO PURSUE GOING INTO THE FUTURE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH -- OR IN COOPERATION, I SHOULD SAY, WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ICANN STAFF, WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON A WORK FLOW OR TICKETING SYSTEM, IS A TERM THAT SOME OF YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH, THAT IS GOING TO ALLOW US TO TRACK REQUESTS BETTER FROM BEGINNING TO END. THIS IS TECHNOLOGY THAT I'M SURE YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH. IT'S IN USE IN MANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO BUSINESS ON THE INTERNET. AND IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE ARE PLACING A HIGH PRIORITY ON INTRODUCING. AT DIFFERENT TIMES IN THE PAST, THE IANA MANAGER HAS SENT THE TLD MANAGERS E-MAIL NOTIFICATIONS ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING AT IANA. THIS CUSTOM WAS DROPPED AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST. NOBODY IS QUITE SURE WHEN IT HAPPENED OR WHY. BUT I'VE HAD FEEDBACK FROM THE TLD MANAGERS THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THEY WOULD LIKE TO REINSTATE. IT'S SOMETHING I'M DEFINITELY INTERESTED IN DOING, AND I'M WORKING WITH JOHN CRAIN AND HIS TEAM, HE'S THE CTO FOR ICANN, AND PUTTING THAT PROCESS IN PLACE. ALSO, WE'RE WORKING WITH THE REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRIES ON CONTINUING TO IMPROVE OUR PROCESS. AS MOST OF YOU ARE NO DOUBT AWARE, IN JULY OF 2003, THE IANA AND ICANN STAFF WORKED TOGETHER WITH THE REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRIES AND AGREED ON BOTH AN IPV4 ALLOCATION POLICY AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE TO EVALUATE THOSE APPLICATIONS FROM THE RIRS. THIS WAS AN EXTREMELY VALUABLE EXERCISE. WE HAVE ON PAPER NOW A PROCESS WHICH BOTH PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO AND IS EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE TO A LIMITED EXTENT. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES I FACED WHEN I ASSUMED MY POSITION IN DECEMBER AND BEGAN WORKING WITH MY STAFF TO EVALUATE APPLICATIONS FROM THE RIRS ON THE BASIS OF THESE DOCUMENTS WAS THAT THERE WERE SOME ASPECTS OF THE SITUATION THAT HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, AND THERE WERE SOME ASPECTS OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS THAT WERE EVOLVING OVER TIME AND NEEDED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES. AND I'M PLEASED TO SAY THAT THE STAFF MEMBERS FROM THE VARIOUS RIRS HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY HELPFUL IN THAT PROCESS. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ONGOING AND SOMETHING THAT WE'RE VERY INTERESTED IN. ALONG THAT SAME LINE, WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO DEVELOP AN IPV6 ALLOCATION POLICY, AND THERE'S ENORMOUS INTEREST IN THE COMMUNITY. WE'RE BEGINNING TOES CONVERSATIONS WITH THE RIRS, AND THAT'S ALSO A VERY EXCITING STEP FORWARD. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S COME UP IN THE COMMUNITY AS THE INTERNET BECOMES INCREASINGLY MORE IMPORTANT TO THE ECONOMIES AND BUSINESSES OF THE WORLD IS THE IDEA THAT ICANN NEEDS TO HAVE 24-HOUR ACCESS AND TECHNICAL ACCESSIBILITY TO PERFORM ANY CHANGES THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE MADE IN AN EXPEDIENT MANNER. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE WORKING ON, ALTHOUGH IF YOU'LL EXCUSE A RATHER BLATANT SOLICITATION, IT'S NOT INEXPENSIVE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE WORKING ON, ALTHOUGH IF YOU'LL EXCUSE A RATHER BLATANT SOLICITATION, IT'S NOT INEXPENSIVE AND IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO PLAN FOR AND BUDGET FOR. MULTILINGUAL RESOURCES ARE ANOTHER TOPIC THAT IS IDENTIFIED EACH TIME I GO TO SPEAK AT ONE OF THE REGIONAL MEETINGS OF EITHER THE RIRS OR THE CCTLDS. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO DOCUMENT OUR PROCEDURES AND POLICIES AND APPLICATIONS AND TEMPLATES IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES, AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THOSE LANGUAGES WHEN THEY'RE SUBMITTED TO US. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE DEDICATED TO WORKING TOWARDS. AND I'LL GET TO MORE ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE. SUPPORT FOR NEW TECHNOLOGY IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING ICANN DOES. IPV6, I WILL HAVE MORE ABOUT THAT IN A MOMENT. IDNS WE HEARD A GREAT DEAL ABOUT YESTERDAY. AND ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS VERY EXCITED TO WORK ON WHEN I TOOK OVER THIS POSITION IN DECEMBER WAS THE IDN LANGUAGE TABLE REGISTRY. IT'S A SMALL THING THAT ICANN CAN DO WITHIN ITS LIMITED SCOPE TO SUPPORT THE EFFORT OF IDN ADOPTION AROUND THE WORLD. AND IT'S BEEN A VERY INTERESTING EXERCISE WORKING WITH THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN AND COUNTRY CODE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN REGISTRIES THAT HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS AS EARLY ADOPTERS. STEVE CROCKER MENTIONED DNSSEC EARLIER IN HIS PRESENTATION. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IANA NEEDS TO GEAR UP FOR ON SEVERAL LEVELS, BOTH AT THE ROOT MANAGEMENT LEVEL, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A REGISTRY OPERATION FOR THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN, THE ULTIMATE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN, THE ROOT, AND ALSO IN OTHER PARTS OF THE ORGANIZATION. AND IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE VERY INTERESTED IN. AND, FINALLY, WE'RE WORKING ON MODEST IMPROVEMENTS TO THE IANA WEB SITE. FOR SOME PEOPLE, WE'RE CHANGING IT WAY TOO FAST, AND THEY REALLY LIKE THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN USING IT FOR 20 OR 30 YEARS AND DON'T HAVE TO THINK TOO MUCH ABOUT IT. AND FOR OTHER PEOPLE, IT'S ORGANIZED IN AN INTERESTING MANNER AND COULD STAND SOME IMPROVEMENT. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY IN THAT AREA. AND WE'VE MADE SOME MODEST IMPROVEMENTS TO DATE, AND WE HAVE SOME MORE THINGS IN THE QUEUE THAT HOPEFULLY YOU'LL ENJOY. WOULD I LIKE TO MAKE ONE MORE SOLICITATION, AND THAT IS THAT I AM HIRING FOR THE IANA STAFF. WE ARE -- AS PAUL MENTIONED IN HIS REPORT, WE ARE VERY INTERESTED IN RECRUITING MEMBERS OF BOTH THE ICANN STAFF IN GENERAL, AND, IN MY DEPARTMENT IN PARTICULAR, FROM THE DEPARTMENT REGIONS OF THE WORLD THAT ICANN IS DEDICATED TO SERVE. AND, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT INTERNET PRESENCE IN THIS PART OF THE WORLD. AND IF ANY OF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN POTENTIALLY BECOMING PART OF THE ICANN STAFF, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO VISIT THAT URL. IT'S ALSO LINKED FROM THE FRONT PAGE OF OUR WEB SITE. NOW, FINALLY, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS WHAT WE FEEL AND WHAT I THINK THE COMMUNITY WILL AGREE WITH US IS A FAIRLY INTERESTING SUCCESS STORY FOR THE ICANN STRUCTURES. AS OF THE 20TH UTC OR 2:30 IN THE MORNING MALAYSIA TIME YESTERDAY, IPV6 GLUE WAS PRESENT IN THE ROOT ZONE FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME. AND I WON'T BORE TO YOU DEATH WITH WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT AT THE DNS LEVEL, BUT I WILL SAY IT'S AN INCREDIBLY EXCITING STEP FORWARD IN THE PROCESS OF ADOPTION FOR IPV6. AND I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY AS TO HOW THIS HAPPENED, BECAUSE I DO THINK IT'S A SUCCESS STORY FOR THE ICANN STRUCTURES. IN 2002 AND 2003, VARIOUS CCTLD MANAGERS SUBMITTED REQUESTS TO THE IANA TO ADD IPV6 NAME SERVER ADDRESS RECORDS, WHICH ARE REFERRED TO AS GLUE IN DNS TERMINOLOGY, TO THE ROOT ZONE. BECAUSE THIS HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE AND BECAUSE, CLEARLY, THE CUSTODIANSHIP FOR THE ROOT ZONE IS ONE OF THE KEY FUNCTIONS OF ICANN AND IANA, THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE IANA STAFF FELT THAT THEY SHOULD PROCEED WITH WILLY-NILLY, SO TO SPEAK. AND SO FOR THAT REASON, THEY REFERRED THE QUESTION TO THE LARGER ICANN STRUCTURES FOR ADVICE AND FOR SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO PROCEED. CLEARLY, ONE KEY TEAM WITHIN ICANN TO ADDRESS ISSUES RELATED TO THE ROOT ZONE IS THE ROOT SERVER ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THEY ADOPTED THE QUESTION AND CONDUCTED, LITERALLY, AN EXHAUSTIVE STUDY ON THE ISSUE, EXPLORING IT FROM EVERY POSSIBLE ANGLE. TOOK THEM ROUGHLY NINE MONTHS TO COMPLETE. AND THE STUDY ITSELF IS LINKED FROM THE PROCEDURES DOCUMENT WEB SITE THAT YOU CAN SEE THE URL ON BELOW AND IS REALLY A VERY INTERESTING AND THOROUGH TREATMENT OF THE TOPIC. AND THEY HAD NUMEROUS CONCLUSIONS IN THEIR SUGGESTION TO THE -- I'M SORRY, THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICANN BOARD ON HOW TO PROCEED. BUT ONE OF THEM WAS THAT THE IANA DEVELOP AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH THESE ISSUES. THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD WAS ISSUED SHORTLY AFTER I ARRIVED IN MY POSITION. AND SO AFTER DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD AND THE LARGER ICANN STRUCTURES, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE DEVELOPED A DRAFT DELEGATION DATA PROCEDURE THAT NOT ONLY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BUT I ALSO TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO DOCUMENT NOT ONLY THE ISSUES RELATED TO IPV6 GLUE, BUT TO DOCUMENT FROM BEGINNING TO END THE PROCESS WHICH THE IANA STAFF USES TO EVALUATE NAME SERVER CHANGE TEMPLATES THAT ARE SUBMITTED TO US. AND THIS SEEMS LIKE A SMALL THING, BUT IN THE PAST, THERE HAS BEEN A SORT OF STIGMA TO SOME OF THE IANA PROCESSES THAT THEY HAPPEN WAY OVER IN A DARK CORNER BEHIND CLOSED DOORS IN SMOKE-FILLED ROOMS. AND I REALLY FELT LIKE THIS WAS AN OPPORTUNITY THAT SHOULDN'T BE MISSED TO BOTH OPEN UP OUR PROCESS FOR PUBLIC REVIEW, BUT ALSO TO SOLICIT COMMENT FROM THE COMMUNITY AS TO WAYS THAT WE CAN IMPROVE THAT PROCESS. AND I'M VERY PLEASED TO SAY THAT NOT ONLY DID WE RECEIVE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION FROM THE COMMUNITY IN PRIVATE CONSULTATION, BUT WE ALSO OPENED UP THE PROCEDURE DOCUMENT TO A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, WHICH GAINED US EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT INPUT AND ALLOWED US TO THOROUGHLY REFINE THE PROCEDURE INTO SOMETHING THAT I THINK THE COMMUNITY CAN BE VERY PROUD OF IN TERMS OF HOW IT WAS PRODUCED AND THE ULTIMATE PRODUCT. AND THE URL IS THERE. I ENCOURAGE ANY OF YOU, ESPECIALLY TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN MANAGERS, TO EXAMINE THE DOCUMENT. AND, OF COURSE, IF YOU HAVE FURTHER COMMENT OR FEEDBACK, I'D BE VERY INTERESTED TO HEAR THAT. NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE TO DO AT THIS POINT IS TO RECOGNIZE TWO PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE INCREDIBLY HELPFUL IN THIS PROCESS. AND IF I COULD ASK THEM TO COME UP TO THE STAGE, I -- I APOLOGIZE, I FORGOT I ADDED THIS SLIDE. THIS IS PART OF THE SUCCESS OF THE IPV6 GLUE. SO I REALIZE THIS IS A BIT DIFFICULT TO READ. HOTTA-SAN FROM DOT JP WAS KIND ENOUGH TO PROVIDE THIS TO ME. AND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE IPV6 GLUE IN THE ROOT ZONE IS JUST HERE. AND WHAT THIS CHART SHOWS IS THE IPV6 REQUESTS THAT CAME INTO DOT JP BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE GLUE WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE ZONE. AND FROM THE TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE, IT'S A BIT COMPLICATED AS TO EXACTLY WHAT THIS CHART SHOWS. BUT WHAT YOU CAN SEE HERE IS THAT THE NUMBER OF REQUESTS INCREASED DRAMATICALLY IN THE TWO-DAY PERIOD FOLLOWING THE INTRODUCTION AND ARE NOW STABILIZING AT A LEVEL THAT'S SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS THAN IT WAS PREVIOUSLY. AND WHAT THIS SHOWS IS THAT THERE IS IPV6 USAGE OUT THERE ALREADY. AND EVERY STEP THAT ICANN AND ITS COMMUNITY TAKES FORWARD IN THE ADOPTION OF IPV6 IS GREETED WITH RAPID ADOPTION AND TREMENDOUS APPRECIATION FROM THE COMMUNITY.

AND FOR THIS REASON, I AM VERY EXCITED TO BE PLAYING A VERY SMALL PART IN THIS. AND NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK OLIVIER GUILLARD, THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATIVE FOR AFNIC, AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT FOR DOT FR, AND HIROFUMI HOTTA, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR JAPAN REGISTRY SERVICES LIMITED TO PLEASE STEP UP TO THE STAGE. AND THE REASON -- DON'T BE SHY, GUYS. COME ON. THE REASON I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THESE TWO GENTLEMEN TO YOU IS THAT THEY ARE A CRUCIAL PART OF THE FORMATION OF THIS DELEGATION DATA PROCEDURE BOTH ON THE BACK END, WHEN I CAME ALONG AND BECAME PART OF THE PROCESS, BUT ALSO FOR A LONG TIME IN THE PAST BEFORE I EVEN ARRIVED AT ICANN, THESE TWO GENTLEMEN WERE CONSISTENT AND ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORTERS OF IPV6 GLUE FOR THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. AND THEY PLAYED THEIR OWN SMALL PART. AND I AM CERTAIN THAT THEY WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ONLY ONE PART OF THE PROCESS AS WELL, BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY'RE BOTH EMBARRASSED ABOUT STEPPING UP TO THE PLATFORM. BUT THE IMPORTANCE OF ACKNOWLEDGING THEIR CONTRIBUTION IS SIMPLY TO POINT OUT THAT WE ARE ALL IN A VERY REAL SENSE A TEAM, AND EACH OF US PLAYS A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE PROCESS OF MOVING THE OXCART KNOWN AS THE INTERNET FORWARD ONE STEP AT A TIME. AND I AM NOW BORROWING AND ABUSING AN ANALOGY FROM THE CHAIRMAN. SO HATTO-SAN AND OLIVIER, IF YOU GUYS COULD COME FORWARD. (APPLAUSE.)

>>DOUG BARTON: AND THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR ANTICIPATING MY NEXT REQUEST, WHICH WAS TO PLEASE COME FORWARD.

WE HAVE SCROLLS TO PRESENT TO THESE TWO FINE GENTLEMEN. AND I AM NOT SURE HOW WE WANT TO DO THIS. THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. AND THIS IS THE TEXT OF THE SCROLLS.

>>VINT CERF: WOULD YOU HOLD ON TO THAT FOR A MOMENT.

WE DIDN'T PRACTICE ANY OF THIS. BUT IT'S -- IT'S MY --

>>DOUG BARTON: CLEARLY, WE DIDN'T PRACTICE.

>>VINT CERF: -- MY DEEP PLEASURE TO THANK MR. HOTTA FOR ALL OF THE WORK THAT HE HAS DONE TO MAKE IPV6 A REALITY.

THE ENTIRE BOARD PRESENT HAS SIGNED THIS CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION. AND WE WANT TO THANK YOU PUBLICLY FOR THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE. (APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: AND IF I CAN SAY THE SAME THING TO MR. GUILLARD.

AGAIN, A REMARKABLE AMOUNT OF EFFORT TO MAKE IPV6 A REALITY, SOMETHING THAT I LOOK FORWARD TO ENJOYING AS THE V6 TECHNOLOGY PENETRATES DEEPER INTO THE NET. BUT YOU BOTH TOOK THE FIRST STEP. SO, AGAIN, ANOTHER SCROLL OF APPRECIATION SIGNED BY THE BOARD. THANK YOU. (APPLAUSE.)

>>DOUG BARTON: AND WE HAVE A VERY SMALL GIFT WHICH MUST REMAIN SECRET DUE TO ITS MODESTY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GUYS. (APPLAUSE.)

>>DOUG BARTON: AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. (APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: WELL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I MUST TELL YOU THAT THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MORE POSITIVE AND PLEASANT OPEN SESSIONS SO FAR.

WE'VE HAD A GREAT DEAL OF POSITIVE REPORTING DONE DURING THE DAY. I THINK PART OF IT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE VERY PLEASANT VENUE IN WHICH WE FIND OURSELVES. BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO A CONSEQUENCE OF THE DETERMINED EFFORTS OF SO MANY IN OUR INTERNET COMMUNITY AND OUR ICANN COMMUNITY TO WORK TOGETHER. WE ALL KNOW THAT THE INTERNET DOESN'T WORK WITHOUT A GREAT DEAL OF COLLABORATION. SO I THINK MUCH OF WHAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT WE ARE LEARNING HOW TO WORK TOGETHER BETTER AND BETTER AS TIME GOES ON. IT NOW COMES TIME FOR OUR OPEN COMMENTARY SESSION. WE ARE STARTING ABOUT A HALF AN HOUR LATE, SO WE HAD SCHEDULED AN HOUR FOR COMMENTS. I WILL -- I'M SORRY. PAUL?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: VINT, JUST I THINK PRIOR TO STARTING THE OPEN COMMENT, ONE POINT THAT I SHOULD MAKE, WHICH WAS AN INADVERTENT ERROR ON MY PART DURING THE -- MY PRESIDENT'S REPORT THIS MORNING.

ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT IS BEFORE THE BOARD AND THAT IS STILL IN AN OPEN, PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, IS THE PROPOSED MOU FOR THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR TO THE PEOPLE IN ATTENDANCE AND PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING US ONLINE. AND THAT'S CERTAINLY ONE OF THE TOPICS IF PEOPLE WISH TO RAISE OR GIVE US FEEDBACK IN THIS SESSION THAT WE WOULD WELCOME.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PAUL.

I APOLOGIZE. YOU DID TELL ME THAT YOU WANTED TO SAY THAT AND I FORGOT. SO NOW WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE THIS OPEN MICROPHONE SESSION. MY PROPOSAL IS TO GO UNTIL 6:30, WHICH WOULD GIVE US ABOUT AN HOUR, PUSHING US ABOUT HALF AN HOUR LONGER THAN ORIGINALLY PLANNED. IF IT LOOKS AS THOUGH WE NEED MORE TIME THAN THAT, I AM PREPARED TO CONTINUE ON UNTIL AS LATE AS 7:00. BUT I WOULD TRY VERY HARD TO CLOSE THIS OFF AT THAT HOUR. SO I HOPE EVERYBODY WILL BE ATTENTIVE TO THAT AND TO KEEP YOUR REMARKS AS BRIEF AND TO THE POINT AS YOU COMFORTABLY CAN. LET'S BEGIN.

>> ROBERT CONNELLY: MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM ROBERT CONNELLY, SECRETARY OF RC, REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY. THE CONSTITUENCY WAS TREATED TO AN INFORMATIVE PRESENTATION, A NUMBER OF PRESENTATIONS BY SEVERAL APPLICANTS FOR THE NEW STLDS.

ONE ITEM WE HEARD THAT WAS A CAUSE FOR CONCERN. AN APPLICANT WHO WAS PLANNING TO REGISTER THROUGH ICANN AN ACCREDITED REGISTRARS AND ALSO THROUGH CCTLD REGISTRARS. WHILE WE -- ICANN-ACCREDITED REGISTRARS OPERATE UNDER A UNIFORM SET OF REGULATIONS AND POSSIBLY SANCTIONS, THE 243 OR SO CCTLD REGISTRAR RULES RANGE FROM STRICT TO LAISSEZ FAIRE. WE FEEL SUCH A RANGE IS INAPPROPRIATE AND WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PROCESS OF CONTINUING TO USE ICANN-ACCREDITED REGISTRARS ONLY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> RAYMOND KING: THANK YOU.

HI, I'M RAY KING, WITH SNAP NAMES. AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS ABOUT THE CURRENT SITUATION REGARDING THE SECONDARY MARKET. I AM GOING TO TRY AND MAINTAIN THE POSITIVE ATMOSPHERE THAT VINT REFERRED TO.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, RAY.

>>RAYMOND KING: AS SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT, THERE'S A SERIOUS ABUSE OF THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION SYSTEM GOING ON RIGHT NOW.

AND, IN FACT, THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF ACCREDITATIONS THAT ARE EITHER -- EITHER HAVE BEEN GRANTED OR ARE ABOUT TO BE GRANTED. SORRY, AM I GOING -- TOO LOUD? CLOSER? OKAY. AND THESE ACCREDITATIONS ARE BEING SOUGHT FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GAMING THE THREAD SYSTEM. PAUL, I HEAR YOUR RESPONSE THAT THE POLICIES MUST BE FOLLOWED IN A CONSISTENT FASHION. AND I AGREE THAT ALL APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE TREATED CONSISTENTLY. BUT THIS ABUSE WAS ALREADY ENVISIONED A LONG TIME AGO. AND A GOOD SOLUTION HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED UPON. AND THAT SOLUTION, OF COURSE, IS WLS. WLS WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD THREE TIMES, MOST RECENTLY IN ROME. AND IT WAS AGREED THAT ICANN AND VERISIGN WOULD SEND A SIMPLE AMENDMENT TO THE DOC TO FURTHER THAT PROCESS. IN THE PAST FIVE MONTHS, THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED. I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH VARIOUS OF YOU GUYS IN THE LAST FEW DAYS. AND I GET THE SENSE THAT, IN GENERAL, ICANN WANTS TO MOVE WLS FORWARD, AND WE APPRECIATE THAT. BUT THE PROCESS IS STILL STUCK. AND THE RESULT OF THE PROCESS BEING STUCK IS THAT MANY WHO ARE NOT ABUSERS, LIKE OURSELVES, AND OTHERS, ARE VERY MUCH BEING HARMED. I KIND OF LIKE VINT'S CHESS ANALOGY OF THERE BEING A PINNED PIECE AND WE SEEM TO BE UNABLE TO RESOLVE THIS. BUT THE ONLY THING I DON'T LIKE ABOUT IT IS WE'RE THE PINNED PIECE. AND THAT'S NOT A VERY COMFORTABLE POSITION TO BE IN. NOTWITHSTANDING LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS, IT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAT YOUR PREVIOUS GOOD DECISIONS BE FOLLOWED AND THE COMMUNITIES SERVED. I ASK THAT WE GET OUT OF THE WEEDS AND HONOR THE COMMITMENT TO IMPROVE THE SECONDARY MARKET BY MOVING WLS FORWARD AND STOPPING THE ABUSIVE SITUATION OF TODAY. I'D LIKE TO FINISH BY ASKING THE BOARD JUST IF THEY'RE AWARE OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE BAD BEHAVIOR THAT WE HAVE WITH THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATIONS AND THE DELAY IN WLS. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, RAY.

THIS IS AN AREA OF REAL SIGNIFICANT, I THINK, TO EVERY ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS AND TO THE STAFF. I TAKE YOUR POINT. AND WE WILL FOLLOW UP PAUL.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I'M SORRY, VINT.

AND, RAY, I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION AND I APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT. I I JUST WANTED TO PICK UP ON THAT LAST SENTENCE THAT YOU SAID. BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT YOU CONSIDERED THERE WAS SOME SORT OF LINK BETWEEN ACCREDITATION AND BAD BEHAVIOR. CAN I ASK YOU TO CLARIFY THAT? BECAUSE IF THERE'S ANY ACCUSATION HERE THAT STAFF ARE DOING SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE, I WANT TO BE --

>>VINT CERF: NO, NO, NO, NO.

I DIDN'T INTERPRET IT THAT WAY. BUT GO AHEAD AND --

>>RAYMOND KING: NO, NO.

MY POINT WAS SIMPLY THAT WLS RESOLVES A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM IN THE REDISTRIBUTION OF DELETED DOMAIN NAMES. WE BELIEVE THAT'S A GOOD SOLUTION AND ONE THAT SERVES USERS VERY WELL. THE LACK OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT SOLUTION WHICH THE BOARD ALREADY AGREED TO HAS CREATED THE SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE ARE RUNNING OUT AND GETTING TONS AND TONS OF ACCREDITATIONS. THAT'S THE ABUSE I WAS REFERRING TO. THE QUESTION WAS, IS IT CLEAR THERE'S A CONNECTION? BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE BOARD MAY NOT BE AWARE THAT THE DELAY IN WLS IS CREATING A PROBLEM. AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO POINT TO.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT FOR ME.

>>RAYMOND KING: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

>>OLIVIER MURON: MY NAME IS OLIVIER MURON, AND I WORK FOR FRANCE TELECOM, AND I HAVE A QUESTION CONCERNING ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION. AND THE DISCUSSION WITH THE NRO IN ORDER TO BUILD THE NEW ASO, THE ASO OF ICANN 2, I WOULD SAY.

WE ALREADY EXPRESS SOME CONCERN THROUGH ASSOCIATION OF EUROPEAN NETWORK ABOUT THE FIRST VERSION OF MOU CONCERNING ASO. OF MAIN CONCERN WAS ROLE OF EXECUTIVE COUNCIL IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. ANOTHER CONCERN IS THE GOOD REPRESENTATION OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS AND OTHER CONSTITUENCIES IN THE NEW ASO. THIS CAN BE DONE THROUGH A LIAISON AS MENTIONED BY VINT THIS MORNING IN RESPONSE TO REMARKS BY THE GAC. THIS -- MY IDEA, IT SHOULD ALSO BE DONE THROUGH THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE. THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF ICANN 2, AND I THINK THE PART OF THE ASO SHOULD BE NOMINATED THROUGH THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE, LIKE ALL OTHER SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION. I WOULD LIKE AN UPDATE FROM THE STAFF ABOUT THE ONGOING DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE ISO AND THE MOU.

>>VINT CERF: I'M NOT SURE I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE LINK ACKNOWLEDGE, SO CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH THAT A LITTLE MORE CLOSELY.

WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HAPPEN?

>>OLIVIER MURON: I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IN THE ASO PART OF THE ISO NOMINATING COMMITTEE LIKE OTHER SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION OF PART OF THE (INAUDIBLE).

AND THAT'S A WAY TO HAVE ALL STAKEHOLDERS AND STAKEHOLDERS FROM OTHER CONSTITUENCIES INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF THE ASO.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: QUESTION, OLIVIER. YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS IS THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE ETNO? IS THIS AN OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE ETNO?

>>OLIVIER MURON: THE ETNO IS USED IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT. CONCERNING THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE BUT CONCERNING THE FIRST VERSION OF THE DRAFT OF THE MOU.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: HI. BRUCE TONKIN FROM MELBOURNE IT. I'D JUST LIKE TO COMMEND THE LAST PRESENTATION ON IANA. I THINK THAT IS A POSITIVE STEP FORWARD FOR ICANN TO BE SHOWING MEASURABLE RESULTS AND MEASURABLE IMPROVEMENT. AND I THINK PART OF MELBOURNE IT'S SUPPORT FOR ICANN AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF ICANN IS BASED AROUND BEING ABLE TO MEASURE ITS SUCCESS. AND FROM THAT MEASURE, SEE MEASURABLE IMPROVEMENT.

SO IT'S REALLY JUST A COMMENDATION ON THAT TOPIC.

>>VINT CERF: THANKS VERY MUCH. BRUCE.

>>TOM BARRETT: HI, TOM BARRETT. I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE SITE FINDER REPORT. AND I'M THE TECHNICAL CONTACT FOR DOT PW, WHICH WAS REDELEGATED JUST A YEAR AGO AND PLANS TO GO LIVE IN SEPTEMBER.

WE FOUND THE SSAC REPORT TO BE A USEFUL PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE SITE FINDER INCIDENT IN THE COM AND NET DOMAINS BUT IT BARELY SCRATCHES THE SURFACE IN ASSESSING HOW THE WILDCARD FEATURE IS BEING USED IN THE 15 OTHER TLDS IN THE ROOT. AND BELIEVE THAT EACH TLD USING THE WILDCARD FEATURE NEEDS TO BE INDIVIDUALLY ASSESSED AND ANALYZED TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS STANDARD DNS FEATURE. AND IT'S PREMATURE TO SUGGEST THAT EXISTING USE OF THE WILDCARD FEATURE BE PHASED OUT WITHOUT ANY ANALYSIS OF HOW THESE 15 TLDS ARE ACTUALLY USING THE WILDCARD FEATURE. I APPRECIATE, AND WE ALL APPRECIATE THE SSAC'S POSITION THAT THE SITE FINDER INCIDENT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. HOWEVER, IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO SUGGEST THAT NO OTHER TLD OPERATOR WHO IS USING THE WILDCARD FEATURE IN A SAFE AND SECURE MANNER OR WOULD LIKE TO USE THE WILDCARD FEATURE IN A SAFE AND SECURE MANNER SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO SO. NONETHELESS, WE DO FIND THE SSAC REPORT AS A GOOD FIRST STEP TOWARDS THE START OF A DIALOGUE THAT CAN TAKE PLACE WITH THE TLD OPERATORS AND THE INTERNET COMMUNITY REGARDING THE WILDCARD FEATURE, AND HOPEFULLY THIS SHOULD RESULT IN ONE OR MORE CONSENSUS POLICIES REGARDING FUTURE USE OF THE DNS WILDCARD FEATURE AND UNRESTRICTED DOMAINS AND RESTRICTED DOMAINS AS WELL AS COUNTRY CODE DOMAINS. AND ONE BYPRODUCT HOPEFULLY IS A SET OF GUIDELINES ON HOW TO PROPERLY USE THE WILDCARD FEATURE SO THAT IT DOESN'T CONTRIBUTE TO ANY RISK OR INSECURE ACTIVITY ON THE INTERNET. SO I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST THREE RECOMMENDATIONS COMING OUT OF THE SSAC REPORT. ONE, THAT WE TREAT THIS DOCUMENT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO START A DIALOGUE. AS I SAID, IT MENTIONS THE 15 TLDS, BUT THOSE WERE NOT INCLUDED OR ANALYZED AS PART OF THE REPORT. BUT LET'S START A DIALOGUE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE ACCEPTABLE USES OF THE WILDCARD MECHANISM. AND LET'S TASK THE GNSO AND DEVELOPING A PROCEDURE SO THAT PROSPECTIVE GTLD SPONSORS AS WELL AS EXISTING ONES SUCH AS DOT MUSEUM ARE ABLE TO ASSESS WHETHER THEIR USE OF THE WILDCARD FEATURE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE TLD. AND FINALLY, LET'S ALSO TASK THE CCSO WITH A SIMILAR CONSENSUS POLICY EFFORT SO THAT THE 15 TLD OPERATORS IN THE CC NAME SPACE CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEIR USE OF THE WILDCARD MECHANISM IS BEING DONE SO IN A SECURE AND SAFE MANNER. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: QUESTION. A QUESTION, TOM.

ONE SCENARIO THAT ONE COULD ENVISION, THE PHASING OUT OF THE -- OF THE WILDCARDS WOULD OF COURSE HAPPEN IN A WAY THAT RESPECTS THE STABILITY NEEDS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL REGISTRY THAT IS USING THEM AND OF EVERYONE ELSE THAT DEPENDS ON THEM. I DON'T KNOW HOW LARGE THE PROBLEM IS IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF NAMES AFFECTED. COULD YOU JUST GIVE US A GUIDELINE OF HOW MANY NAMES ARE REGISTERED ON DOT PW?

>>TOM BARRETT: DOT PW HAS NOT LAUNCHED YET SO THERE ARE NO NAMES AFFECTED IN DOT PW.

AND I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER FOR YOU IN TERMS OF THE OTHER 15 TLDS, IN TERMS OF WHAT THE IMPACT IS THERE, WHICH IS MY POINT HERE. THERE'S BEEN NO ANALYSIS OF WHAT THE IMPACT MIGHT BE, OF HOW THEY'RE ACTUALLY USING THE WILDCARD AND HOW THAT COMPARES TO WHAT VERISIGN DID. SO IT SIMPLY SEEMS PREMATURE TO SUGGEST ALL USES BE PHASED OUT WITHOUT DOING THAT ANALYSIS. NOR DOES IT SEEM TO SUGGEST THAT THERE'S ANY MIDDLE GROUND, THAT THERE'S ANY POSSIBLE SAFE USE OF THE WILDCARD MECHANISM, WHICH I BELIEVE THERE IS.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: AND ONE MORE QUICK. CAN YOU SAY WHETHER IT IS CRITICAL TO THE BUSINESS MODEL?

>>TOM BARRETT: CERTAINLY FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IT IS CRITICAL.

>>VINT CERF: I SEE THAT JOHN KLENSIN HAS A COMMENT.

>>JOHN KLENSIN: I WANT TO CAREFULLY SEPARATE WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY FROM ALL THE POLICY QUESTIONS WHICH YOU'RE RAISING AND HOW THOSE SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.

BUT I THINK THERE ARE TWO THINGS IT'S IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS THAT COME IN PART OUT OF THE COMMENTS THE IAB HAS MADE TO THE SSAC REPORT AND OTHER PLACES. THE FIRST IS THAT TREATING THIS WILDCARD FEATURE IN ALL OF ITS MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE USES AS A STANDARD FEATURE OF THE DNS IS SIMPLY AN INCORRECT READING, AND IT'S BEEN AN INCORRECT READING ALL THE WAY ALONG. IT'S NOT HOW YOU READ INTERNET STANDARDS. IF INTERNET STANDARDS WERE READ THAT WAY IN IMPLEMENTATIONS, NOTHING WOULD WORK. NOTHING AT ALL. THE SECOND OBSERVATION IS THAT, ONCE AGAIN, FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT, THE ONLY WAY OF USING A WILDCARD FEATURE WHICH WE UNDERSTAND TO WORK, AND AS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD TECHNICALLY IN ALL OF ITS IMPLICATIONS TO WORKS, IS THE USE OF THE WILDCARD FEATURE ON A DNS STANDARD WITH ONLY ONE PROTOCOL. IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE FIND SOMETHING BY DOING A LOOKUP AGAINST THAT RECORD WE KNOW THE HOST SUPPORTS THAT PROTOCOL BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE RECORD WORKS. RIGHT NOW THERE'S ONLY ONE WITH THAT PROPERTY AND IT'S THE MX USED FOR MAIL. THERE MIGHT BE OTHERS IN THE FUTURE BUT THAT'S THE ONLY ONE. SO IN TERMS OF WHAT CAN BE DONE SAFELY FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT, THE ANSWER IS THE ONLY WILDCARDS WHICH ARE SAFE TO USE ARE WILDCARDS ASSOCIATED WITH MAIL RECORDS.

AND EVERYTHING ELSE FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT IS UNSAFE. NOW, FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT, HOW FAR INTO UNSAFE LAND IS IT REASONABLE TO GO IS PARTLY A TECHNICAL ISSUE AND PARTLY A POLICY ISSUE AND SOME TRADEOFFS THERE. BUT IF WE'RE ASKING ABOUT SAFE VERSUS NOT SAFE, IT IS ONLY TODAY WILDCARDS IN MX RECORDS. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, JOHN. THIS ILLUSTRATES THE INTERESTING FINE LINE BETWEEN THE TECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS THAT DRIVE THE INTERNET AND THE POLICY CONSTRAINTS THAT INCREASE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXCURSIONS INTO LESS SAFE TERRITORY.

WE WILL TAKE THAT COMMENT, HOWEVER, AND WE'LL GIVE SOME DUE CONSIDERATION TO IT.

>>TOM BARRETT: AND JUST TO RESPOND TO YOUR COMMENT, THERE ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INTEROPERABILITY, AND IT'S NOT SO MUCH TECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS BUT TECHNICAL DESIRES FOR INTEROPERABILITY. AND THE QUESTION IS COULD WE ENVISION A FUTURE TLD THAT COULD BE SELECTIVE IN TERMS OF WHERE IT'S INTEROPERABLE AND WHERE IT MIGHT NOT BE, AND WOULD THAT BREAK ANYTHING.

>>VINT CERF: I HAVE A STRONG PERSONAL DESIRE, OF COURSE, FOR INTEROPERABILITY EVERYWHERE. ANYBODY, I THINK BOTH OF THESE POINTS ARE TAKEN. ALSO, UPON LOOKING AT THOSE 15 CCTLDS WE MAY FIND ALTERNATIVE MEANS FOR ACHIEVING WHATEVER IT IS THEY'RE DOING WITH THE WILDCARD, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE DISCOVERED ELSEWHERE.

>>TOM BARRETT: ABSOLUTELY.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TOM.

>>TOM BARRETT: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: LET'S MOVE ON.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS SUSAN. CRAWFORD I'M A PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE CORDOZA SCHOOL OF LAW IN NEW YORK CITY. IN MY PRIOR LIFE I WAS REPRESENTING MEMBERS OF THE REGISTRY COMMUNITY BUT THIS AFTERNOON I'M SPEAKING TO YOU AS A POLICY FELLOW FOR THE CENTER OF DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY IN WASHINGTON, D.C, AND I BRING YOU GREETINGS FROM JERRY BURMAN AND ALAN DAVIDSON WHO HAVE OFTEN ATTENDED THESE MEETINGS.

CDT IS A NONGOVERNMENTAL, NON-PROFIT DEDICATED TO ADVOCATING FREE EXPRESSION, PRIVACY, OPEN ACCESS, AND DEMOCRACY ONLINE. CDT HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH ICANN SINCE ITS INCEPTION AND HAS BEEN AN ADVOCATE BOTH OF GOOD GOVERNANCE AND BROAD GLOBAL PARTICIPATION IN ICANN'S PROCESSES. I WANT TO BRING TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION AND THE COMMUNITY'S ATTENTION A REPORT THAT CDT HAS RECENTLY PUT OUT ENTITLED ICANN AND INTERNET GOVERNANCE, GETTING BACK TO BASICS. I'VE LEFT COPIES OUTSIDE FOR THE BOARD AND FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE TODAY, AND IT'S POSTED AT CDT'S WEB SITE AT CDT.ORG. SOME PRESS REPORTS HAVE CHARACTERIZED THIS REPORT AS HARSHLY CRITICAL OF ICANN. I'M HERE TO EMPHASIZE TO YOU THAT THAT IS EMPHATICALLY NOT THE CASE. CDT IS A BELIEVER IN ICANN, AND HAS BEEN SINCE THE BEGINNING, AND IS AN ADVOCATE OF THE BOTTOM-UP CONSENSUS-BASED PROCEDURES THAT HAVE MADE ICANN THE BOLD AND GREAT EXPERIMENT THAT IT IS. WE ARE YOUR FRIENDS. BUT THIS IS A TOUGH-LOVE REPORT. WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE WAY THAT ICANN EXPLAINS ITSELF TO THE WORLD AND THE WAY THAT ICANN PRO CLAIMS ITS POWERS TO DO WHAT IT WANTS TO DO. WE HAVE SOME DEEP CONCERNS THAT ARE EXPRESSED IN THE REPORT. WE THINK THE BOARD SHOULD MAKE EXPLICIT AND CLEAR ICANN'S LIMITED MISSION, AND MAKE THAT STATEMENT OF MISSION TIED TO THESE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS WHICH ARE SO SHARPLY CONTESTED RIGHT NOW. WE THINK THAT WILL HELP US IN THE WSIS PROCESS AS A COMMUNITY, TO TIE BUDGET AND MISSION TOGETHER AND TO HAVE THE BOARD OF ICANN VERY TIGHTLY FOCUSED ON WHAT ICANN'S JOB IS. IT IS IMPORTANT NOT TO ALLOW STAFF TO LEVERAGE THEIR PARTICULAR ROLE IN THE ICANN PROCESS AND GAIN ANY ABILITY FROM THAT LEVERAGE TO HOLD THINGS UP. I THINK YOU HEARD IN MIRIAM SAPIRO'S REPORT SOME VERY DIPLOMATICALLY EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT HOW STAFF LEVERAGE MAY HAVE AFFECTED THE NEW REGISTRIES THAT CAME INTO BEING IN NOVEMBER 2001 AND HOW THE CONTRACTS THAT EXIST FOR THOSE REGISTRIES AND FOR EXISTING REGISTRIES MAY HAVE BEEN OVERDETAILED. I APPRECIATE THE BOARD'S COMMISSION OF THAT REPORT AND HOPE THAT THE BOARD WILL FOCUS ON IT. ICANN'S CLAIM TO LEGITIMACY, AS THE BOARD KNOWS SO WELL, COMES FROM MAKING CLEAR THAT ANY RULES THAT ICANN ADOPTS ARE BASED ON BROAD GLOBAL AGREEMENT THAT SUCH RULES ARE NECESSARY, AND THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THOSE RULES ARE BASICALLY WILLING TO GO ALONG. THAT IS THE ICANN EXPERIMENT IN GOVERNANCE, AND TODAY, WITH THE TRANSFERS POLICY, WE SEE IT WORKING. WE SEE IT WORKING IN ACTION. THE BOARD AND ICANN ITSELF SHOULD LEAVE EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO LOCAL RULES AND ONLY ADOPT GLOBAL RULES WHEN THEY'RE NECESSARY. IF YOU DO THIS, IF YOU LEAVE MOST THINGS TO LOCAL CONTROL AND ONLY ADOPT THOSE FEW CONSENSUS-BASED RULES THAT MOST PEOPLE AGREE ARE NECESSARY, YOUR LEGITIMACY AND THE RESPECT OF ICANN AND THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY IS ASSURED. SO CDT IS VERY FRIENDLY TO THE ICANN EXPERIMENT. THE REPORT SHOULD BE TAKEN AS CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM OF ICANN'S APPEARANCE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. AND WE BELIEVE THAT ICANN WILL CONTINUE TO SUCCEED TO THE EXTENT IT DEVELOPS POLICY FOR DOMAIN NAMES IN AN OPEN AND ACCOUNTABLE MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTRACTUAL DOCUMENTS THAT PROVIDE IT WITH ITS LIMITED POWERS. THANKS SO MUCH.

>>VINT CERF: BEFORE YOU GO AWAY, I THINK WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

I HAVE ONE, JUST AN OBSERVATION.

IT'S VERY TEMPTING TO PAINT THIS PICTURE OF SORT OF LOCAL CONTROL. FROM THE ENGINEERING POINT OF VIEW, I HAVE SOME NERVOUSNESS, AND IT'S -- IT IS FOSTERED IN PART BY THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION. LOCAL CONTROL COULD MEAN OUT OF CONTROL IF IT MEANT SEVERE TECHNICAL EXCURSIONS AWAY FROM STANDARD PRACTICES. SO I DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WORRY THAT BEING -- IGNORING EVERYTHING THAT GOES ON LOCALLY FOR SOME REASON LEADS TO LACK OF INTEROPERABILITY. I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS TAKES AWAY FROM YOUR POINT, BUT I DO RAISE THIS SMALL VOICE IN THE BACKGROUND SAYING: LET'S MAKE SURE WE DON'T BREAK ANYTHING IN THE COURSE OF ALLOWING LOCAL CONTROL TO BE DOMINANT. I HOPE YOU DON'T TAKE THAT AS A PARTICULAR CRITICISM BUT IT'S JUST A LITTLE WORRY I HAVE.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: I CERTAINLY HEAR YOUR CONCERN AND I'M A FAN OF INTEROPERABILITY MYSELF.

WHAT I'M EXPRESSING IS THOSE POLICIES THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY FOCUSED ON INTEROPERABILITY SHOULD BE LEFT TO LOCAL CONTROL. THE DNS IS A HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM. THINGS CAN HAPPEN AT HIGHER LEVELS THAT DON'T DISTURB THE LOWER LEVELS.

>>VINT CERF: PAUL, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: YES, I DO, VINT.

CONSIDERING THE COMMENTS MADE ABOUT STAFF, COULD I JUST ASK THE QUESTION, SINCE YOUR LAST REPORT, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS LAST YEAR --

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: I'M SORRY?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: SINCE YOUR LAST REPORT FROM THE CDT TO ICANN WHICH I BELIEVE WAS LAST YEAR, CAN YOU TELL ME THE INSTANCES WHERE YOU HAVE INTERVIEWED ICANN STAFF BEFORE YOU PRODUCED THIS REPORT?

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: I AM NOT ONE OF THE PRIMARY AUTHORS OF THE REPORT.

THERE MAY HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWS DONE. I WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO WAS ABLE TO BE HERE.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: MY STAFF HAS TOLD ME WE HAVE HAD NO INTERACTIONS FROM THE CDT SO I WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT VERY MUCH. I CAN TELL YOU THIS IS A PERCEPTION ISSUE FOR THOSE WHO ARE PART OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY, MAYBE NOT INCLUDING YOUR STAFF.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I NOTICE THE POINT YOU RAISED AS AN ILLUSTRATION MAY HAVE -- PUTTING ASIDE WHETHER IT'S TRUE OR NOT, ACTUALLY REFERS TO A TIME PERIOD IN 2000-2001.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: VENI HAS A QUESTION AS WELL, SUSAN.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET YOU GO SO EASY. I THINK THE CDT HAS DONE A GOOD JOB ON THE REPORT AND I'M THANKFUL FOR JIM (INAUDIBLE)'S COMMENT THAT I SENT HIM A LETTER ABOUT THE PERCEPTION OF THE REPORT IN THE MEDIA AND HE SAID THERE WILL BE A REACTION ON THAT. AND THE SECOND THING IS TO LET YOU KNOW THAT EVERY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAD THIS REPORT PERSONALLY HAND-DELIVERED THIS MORNING WHEN IT WAS PUT OUTSIDE. SO YOUR TASK IS ONE- FIFTEENTH OR WHATEVER PERCENTAGE COMPLETED. SO NOW IT'S YOUR TASK TO DELIVER IT TO THE OTHERS SO THEY CAN READ IT ON THEIR OWN.

>>VINT CERF: I CAN REPORT THAT I HAVE READ THE REPORT. THANK YOU, SUSAN.

OKAY, KEN.

>>KEN FOCKLER: THANK YOU. KEN FOCKLER. I'D LIKE TO JUST BRIEFLY RAISE A TOPIC I HOPED I MIGHT HAVE HEARD A LITTLE BIT ABOUT EARLIER TODAY, AND THAT'S THE TOPIC OF THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS THAT ARE LONGER THAN THREE CHARACTERS IN LENGTH AND SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THEY'VE BEEN FACING.

WE CHATTED A BIT ABOUT IT IN ROME AND I THINK WE TRIED TO SET UP A FOCAL POINT AND GET SOMETHING DEFINED ON IT, BUT NOT A LOT WAS ACCOMPLISHED DURING THAT TIME. IT WAS DISCUSSED IN SOME MEETINGS HERE THIS WEEK, AND IN ONE MEETING IT WAS MADE VERY CLEAR BY ONE PERSON FROM THE BOARD THAT IN REGARDS THIS TOPIC, THE GUIDELINE IS CAVEAT EMPTOR. IT'S AN UNFORTUNATE FOR US AT ICANN TO BE IN THAT PLACE. THAT'S THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT. UNFORTUNATELY, THE MEETING ENDED ON THAT TONE. BUT THEN HAPPILY, SHORTLY AFTER ANOTHER CONSTITUENCY MEETING, THE REGISTRIES, WITH BOARD AND STAFF, THERE WERE SOME WONDERFUL POSITIVE CREATIVE IDEAS AND COMMENTS THAT CAME OUT PRIMARILY ALONG THE LINES OF EDUCATION AND AWARENESS AND THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE THAT WAY. AND CLEARLY N MY MIND, IF LEFT TO THE INDIVIDUAL DOT MUSEUM OR NAME TO CATCH THE ATTENTION OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION AREA TO DO SOMETHING, IT'S TOUGH. ICANN WON'T CATCH EVERYBODY, BUT I THINK THAT'S A GREAT AVENUE FOR ICANN TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW, AND I JUST HOPE YOU WILL MAYBE CREATE A FOCAL POINT FOR SOME OF US INTERESTED IN THIS TO RELATE TO. THANK! YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, KEN. THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. WE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO TALK. MIKE?

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: I'LL DEFER TO JOHN FIRST.

>>VINT CERF: JOHN, MIKE AND PAUL.

>>JOHN KLENSIN: AS THE UNNAMED, QUOTE, MEMBER OF THE BOARD, WHICH I'M NOT, WHO MADE THAT OBSERVATION, I WANT TO CLARIFY A COUPLE THINGS.

THE FIRST IS THAT I BELIEVE IN MAKING THAT OBSERVATION I TRIED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT I WAS SPEAKING PERSONALLY RATHER THAN AS A MEMBER OF ANYTHING. THE SECOND IS THAT I'M IN FAVOR, GIVEN RESOURCES, SCOPE, AND ALL OF THE OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES, OF ICANN DOING AS MUCH AS IT REASONABLY CAN TO EDUCATE ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND HELP EDUCATE ABOUT THIS ISSUE. AGAIN, PERSONAL OPINION. BUT THAT SAID, WE ACTUALLY HAVE MANY, MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH THE INTERNET OF TRYING TO GET THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE SOMETHING STUPID IN THEIR APPLICATION CODE WHICH ALMOST WORKS, TO PERSUADE THEM TO GO BACK AND FIX THAT APPLICATION WHEN IT IS NOT CAUSING THEM HARM MOST OF THE TIME. IT IS CERTAINLY THE CASE THAT IF WE HAD A DOMAIN WITH A NINE-LETTER LONG NAME THAT WAS THE SIZE OF COM WITH THE ECONOMIC LEVERAGE THAT THE USERS OF THAT DOMAIN WOULD CONSTITUTE, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RUNNING THE WEB SITES AND THE MAIL SYSTEMS THAT ARE CAUSING YOU PROBLEMS WOULD SIT UP AND TAKE NOTICE. SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A VICIOUS CYCLE HERE, BUT IT'S VERY, VERY HARD TO GET THOSE TRANSITIONS MADE. AND THE PARTICULAR COMMENT WHICH I WAS RESPONDING TO WAS A COMMENT THAT IF THESE PEOPLE DID NOT CONVERT THEIR WEB SITES AND THEIR MAIL SERVERS AND OTHER THINGS, THAT THAT WAS SOMEHOW ICANN'S RESPONSIBILITY. AND THE COMMENT WHICH I MADE WAS SIMPLY THAT I THINK THERE'S AN EXPECTATION IN THE COMMUNITY WHEN SOMEBODY COMES FORWARD AND SAYS WE WOULD LIKE A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN WHICH WE UNDERSTAND HOW TO OPERATE ON THE INTERNET IN A WAY WHICH IS STABLE AND PROFITABLE AND WHATEVER ELSE IT TAKES, THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE GETTING THEMSELVES INTO. AND THAT WAS THE COMMENT. IT'S, INCIDENTALLY, NOT ONLY THE LONGER THAN THREE CHARACTER DOMAINS, ALTHOUGH THOSE ARE LIKELY TO GET YOU. THE REALITY IS THERE'S CODE OUT THERE THAT BELIEVES THE ONLY GTLDS ARE COM, NET, AND ORG AND STUFF NOBODY CARES ABOUT BECAUSE IT BELONGS TO GOVERNMENTS. AND ANY NEW TLD WILL RUN INTO A CERTAIN MEASURE OF THESE PROBLEMS. AND ONE JUST HAS TO BUILD INTO ONE'S MODELS EITHER ACCEPTING THOSE PROBLEMS OR DEALING WITH THEM. AS I SAY, THAT'S COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THE ISSUE ABOUT HOW MUCH EDUCATION SHOULD BE DONE.

>>KEN FOCKLER: THANKS, JOHN. I UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THAT. I'M JUST LOOKING FOR SOME WAYS FORWARD WE CAN MAKE A DENT IN THIS SITUATION. I KNOW IT WON'T BE PERFECT.

>>VINT CERF: DON'T GO AWAY, KEN.

>>JOHN KLENSIN: (INAUDIBLE).

>>VINT CERF: OKAY, MIKE.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT KEN'S STATEMENT RAISES IS THAT ALL OF ICANN'S CONTRACTING PARTIES, BOTH CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE, WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR IS PREDICTABILITY. AND NOT TO SOUND LIKE AN ATTORNEY, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO DO AS AN ORGANIZATION IS MAKE SURE THAT SIMILARLY SITUATED PEOPLE ARE TREATED SIMILARLY. I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE CAN NEVER LOSE SIGHT OF.

AND I GUESS ONE OF THE DANGERS THAT I THINK WE NEED TO GUARD AGAINST IS WHERE WE WOULD PROACTIVELY ADDRESS CERTAIN ISSUES THAT RAISE INTEROPERABILITY AND STABILITY CONCERNS WHILE TAKING A LAISSEZ FAIRE APPROACH ON OTHER ISSUES. AND I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO PROCEED CAUTIOUSLY ON AND TAKE CARE IN HOW WE ACT AS AN ORGANIZATION.

>>VINT CERF:PAUL.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT. TAKING NOTE OF THE COMMENTS MADE BY MY BOARD COLLEAGUES AND THE ISSUES OF RESOURCES THAT WILL BE FULLY ADDRESSED IN THE BUDGET PROCESS, BECAUSE IT'S NOT RESOURCE FREE, THE CERTAINLY THE REACTION OF SOME OF THE STAFF TO THE CONVERSATIONS THIS WEEK HAS BEEN VERY POSITIVE AS AN ISSUE AND WE WOULD CERTAINLY BE VERY KEEN TO TALK TO THE CONCERNED MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY ABOUT COST EFFECTIVE AND MESSAGE EFFECTIVE WAYS OF HELPING TO COMMUNICATE THAT ALONG SOME OF THE WAYS I THINK THAT JOHN DESCRIBED IT.

FOR INSTANCE, THERE WAS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION THAT CAME TO SPEAK TO ME AFTERWARDS AND FINDING WAYS OF INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS OR OTHER WAYS OF TRYING TO SEND A VERY NEUTRAL MESSAGE ABOUT THE PROBLEM IS SOMETHING WE WOULD LIKE TO TALK, BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR OVERALL COMMUNICATIONS PLANS.

>>VINT CERF: JUST ONE OTHER COMMENT, KEN. AND I HAD MOUHAMET'S HAND UP. THIS IS A REALLY INTERESTING PROBLEM AND I HOPE THAT AS PEOPLE THINK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT, YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THE PROBLEMS ARE NOT ALL CONFINED TO SOMETHING LIKE AN E-MAIL SERVER OR AN E-MAIL CLIENT OR SOMETHING THAT'S RELATIVELY CLOSE TO THE DOMAIN NAME WORLD, BECAUSE YOU NEED DOMAIN NAMES FOR WEB PAGE IDENTIFIERS OR URLS OR YOU NEED DOMAIN NAMES FOR E-MAIL.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT A LOT OF THIS BAD BEHAVIOR SHOWS UP AS BAD JAVA CODE.

AND OF COURSE THERE IS JUST AN INCREDIBLE ENDLESS SUPPLY OF JAVA CODE. REACHING THE PEOPLE WHO WRITE THAT SORT OF THING IS A LITTLE HARDER THAN REACHING THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE E-MAIL PRODUCTS OR WHO MAKE WEB BROWSERS. I ONLY BRING THIS UP TO SUGGEST THAT WE CAN PROBABLY MAKE SOME PROGRESS WITH THINGS THAT ARE KIND OF CLOSER TO WHERE WE HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT. AND IT GETS A LITTLE HARDER AS WE FLOAT OUT TOWARDS THE APPLICATION SPACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE VERY FAR AWAY FROM OUR NORMAL DOMAINS. NO PUN INTENDED. SO ANYWAY, WE WILL TAKE THE POINT, THOUGH, BECAUSE IT'S A GOOD ONE. BUT YOU SHOULD SORT OF SET YOUR LEVEL OF EXPECTATION DEPENDING ON WHERE THE PROBLEM ACTUALLY LIVES.

>>KEN FOCKLER: I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. I SEE IT AS AN OPPORTUNITY OF ICANN TO SHOW SOME VALUE ADDED.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. KEITH. MY APOLOGIES. MOUHAMET: THANK YOU.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: KEITH, IT'S JUST FOR KEN. I'M SORRY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT BACK ON WHAT KEN FOCKLER EXPLAINED AS AN OPPORTUNITY.

I AM REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT IS OUR CORE BUSINESS, LIKE THE DOMAIN NAME EXPANSION. AND WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT THE DOMAIN NAME EXPANSION, IT'S NOT ONLY RELATED TO WHAT KEN TRIED TO EXPLAIN, BUT I THINK THAT SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO STEP BACK ONE STEP AND TRY TO THINK WHAT WE CAN DO IN TERM OF INNOVATION. WE KNOW THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF MAKING A CON- -- CON- -- IT'S NOT MY NATIVE LANGUAGE. CAN I TELL IT IN FRENCH?

>>>: YES.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: (SPEAKING FRENCH.) IF SOMEBODY CAN HELP ME, I DON'T KNOW.

>>DESIREE MILOSHEVIC: CONSERVATION.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: IF YOU'RE MOVING IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THE FIRST PRINCIPLE IS HOW TO KEEP YOURSELF SAFE, SO YOU'RE ALWAYS AFRAID ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT DIVERTS YOU FROM WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW, AND IT'S VERY DANGEROUS FOR US TO PUT THE TERM NORMAL IN FRONT OF ANOTHER TERM ABNORMAL OR NOT NORMAL.

WE USED TO SEE LATER, FOR THE DOMAIN NAME, WE'RE USED TO SEE ROMAN, WE'RE USED TO SEE ASCII REGISTRATION, SO WE FEEL REALLY AFRAID WHEN WE SEE SOMETHING THAT GETS OUT FROM THIS SCOPE. AND I THINK ONE OF THE AREA WHERE NOBODY WILL COME WITH ICANN IS NOBODY WILL HELP US THINK ABOUT THE EVOLUTION OF THE DOMAIN NAME SPACE. WE HAVE TO LEAD THAT DISCUSSION. AND I THINK THAT EVEN IF WE'RE AFRAID OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN -- I FOLLOW YESTERDAY CAREFULLY THE PRESENTATION OF JOHN KLENSIN WITH ALL THE TECHNICAL PROBLEM WE'RE GOING TO HAVE WITH EXPANSION ON THE IDN. BUT TO BE HONEST, WE DON'T HAVE TO BE AFRAID. WE HAVE MAKE A REVOLUTION IN THE TELECOMMUNICATION AREA WITH THE INTERNET. SO I AM REALLY CONCERNED WHEN PEOPLE ARE FRIGHTENED ABOUT SOME TECHNICAL COMPLICATION. THEY ARE CHALLENGES AND WE HAVE TO OVERCOME THESE CHALLENGES. SO I REALLY THINK WHAT KEN TRIED TO RAISE IN FRONT OF US IS WE NEED TO THINK AHEAD AND TRY TO MOVE AND SET UP -- I MEAN USE PEOPLE WHO CAN HELP US ACHIEVE THIS TYPE OF CHALLENGE AND NOT BEING JUST STAND ON THE POSITION OF THIS IS NORMAL, THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE. AND IF YOU'RE SURE THAT NOTHING WILL BE DISTURBED, THE STABILITY AND -- OF THE INTERNET, I'M PRETTY SURE THERE'S NOTHING TO PREVENT US TO THINK ABOUT HOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH KEN ON THAT.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. THANK YOU, MOUHAMET.

KEITH.

>>KEITH TEARE: YEAH. MY COMMENTS RELATE TO THE SITE FINDER EXPERIENCE. AND JUST BY WAY OF DISCLOSURE, I, ALONG WITH I THINK SIX OR SEVEN OTHERS IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH OF SITE FINDER AND THE CONTROVERSIES SURROUNDING IT WERE ASKED TO SERVE ON A TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO VERISIGN TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND WHY THERE WAS SO MUCH CONTROVERSY.

AND I PARTICIPATED IN THAT AND HAVING DONE SO I'VE LOOKED AT THE PROCESS THAT'S GONE ON SINCE WITH A GREAT DEAL OF INTEREST. AND I THINK I'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH THE BOARD A NUMBER OF THINGS WHICH ACTUALLY MOUHAMET'S COMMENTS WERE A GREAT SEGUE TO. I THINK THE FIRST THING IS THE ATMOSPHERE IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH OF SITE FINDER ACTUALLY MADE IT INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO HAVE A RATIONAL CONVERSATION ABOUT IT, BECAUSE THERE WAS SO MUCH PASSION ON BOTH SIDES, THAT ANYONE WITH AN OPINION OF ANY TYPE USUALLY FOUND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH ANYONE THAT HAD A DIFFERENT OPINION. AND I FEAR THAT SOME OF THAT ATMOSPHERE HAS FED THROUGH TO THE FINAL REPORT. AND THAT IS AN ATMOSPHERE OF LET'S SAY FEAR, ONE IN WHICH WORDS LIKE "SAFETY" END UP BEING INCREDIBLY FRIGHTENING WORDS THAT HAVE THE IMPACT OF STOPPING CONVERSATION, BECAUSE YOU JUST CAN'T GO THERE. HOW COULD YOU BE FOR THINGS NOT BEING SAFE? THEREFORE, PLEASE DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IT ISN'T SAFE DOESN'T FEEL GOOD TO ME. AND WITH SITE FINDER PARTICULARLY, AND SOME OF THE FINDINGS, I'M PUZZLED, ACTUALLY. I RUN LOTS OF DOMAIN NAMES FOR SOME WEIRD REASON TO DO WITH HISTORY, AND MOST OF THEM DON'T SERVE VERY MANY PROTOCOLS. ACTUALLY, MOST OF THEM DON'T HAVE E-MAIL LIVE. MOST OF THEM DON'T HAVE LDAP LIVE, MOST OF THEM DON'T HAVE IMAP LIVE. VERY FEW PEOPLE WHO OWN DOMAIN NAMES RUN PROTOCOLS, ALL THE PROTOCOLS THAT THOSE DOMAIN NAMES SHOULD SUPPORT. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF YOU ANALYZED REAL DOMAIN NAMES THAT PEOPLE OWN AND COMPARED IT WITH WHAT SITE FINDER WAS, THE SAFETY CONSEQUENCES WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME FOR THOSE THAT ARE OWNED AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT OWNED, THE FAILURE TO SUPPORT PROTOCOLS, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME. THE BREAKING OF THE END-TO-END PRINCIPLE WOULD MOSTLY BE THE SAME, BECAUSE MOST DOMAIN NAME OWNERS DON'T RUN ALL THE PROTOCOLS THAT THEY COULD POSSIBLY RUN TO SERVE THE INTERNET. AND SO I FEAR THAT SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS ARE ACTUALLY NOT GOOD ARGUMENTS. NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, CLEARLY, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES AROUND SITE FINDER. BUT I THINK I'D LIKE TO RETRIEVE OUT OF IT SOME REALLY IMPORTANT POSITIVE THINGS THAT THE BOARD SHOULD AT LEAST HEAR AND THINK ABOUT. FIRSTLY, ON ADDRESSING SYSTEMS IN THE ABSENCE OF ADDRESSES, THE MAIL SYSTEM HAS A RETURN TO SENDER SYSTEM. IF YOU SEND A LETTER TO A FAKE OR A NONEXISTENT ADDRESS AND YOU PUT ON WHO YOU ARE, THEY SEND IT BACK TO YOU. THE TELEPHONE SYSTEM, IF YOU RING A WRONG NUMBER, HAS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO TELL YOU YOU DID THAT. EITHER IT MAKES A NOISE OR IT SOMETIMES SAYS YOU'VE DIALED A WRONG NUMBER. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT FOR THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM TO HELP USERS WHO MAKE A MISTAKE, THAT ISN'T A BAD GOAL.

IT'S NOT AN UNWORTHY GOAL. IT'S ACTUALLY QUITE A GOOD GOAL. THE FACT THAT SOMEONE MAKES MONEY FROM IT IS NOT A BAD THING, EITHER. I MEAN, ULTIMATELY, WE LIVE IN MARKET ECONOMIES FOR THE MOST PART. I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING BAD IN THAT. SO I THINK THE UNDERLYING GOALS OF SITE FINDER, THERE'S SOMETHING WORTHY IN THOSE GOALS THAT'S GENERALLY OKAY. AND THE FACT THAT THERE WERE THE PROBLEMS IS SOMETHING THAT'S COMMON TO BOTH SITE FINDER AND EXISTING DOMAIN NAMES. THERE'S NOTHING DIFFERENT IN MY MIND THERE AT THE LEVEL OF THOSE PROBLEMS. APPLICATIONS ARE BROKEN. IF SOMEBODY TRIES TO SEND ME AN E-MAIL AT KEITH@E-MAIL NEWS.COM, WHICH IS A DOMAIN I KNOW. IT'LL BREAK. IT JUST WON'T GET THROUGH TO ME, THE SAME WAY AS IN SITE FINDER. SO I THINK AT LEAST TO SOME EXTENT, PASSION AND OPINION IS OVERRIDING DIALOGUE AND DISCUSSION. AND WHAT MOUHAMET SAID ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT FOR A FREE-THINKING INTERCHANGE THAT CAN LEAD TO INNOVATION IS ACTUALLY CRUSHING IN SOME REGARD. I KNOW I'M PRETTY NERVOUS EVEN MAKING THESE POINTS BECAUSE OF THAT. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S A DIFFICULT DISCUSSION TO HAVE BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH PASSION AROUND THE ISSUE.

>>VINT CERF: KEITH, I'M GOING TO TAKE CHAIRMAN'S PRIVILEGE AND RESPOND, IF YOU'RE FINISHED.

>>KEITH TEARE: YEAH, I CAN FINISH NOW.

>>VINT CERF: I ACTUALLY THINK THOSE ARE VERY BAD ARGUMENTS.

SO I DON'T WANT TO PROLONG THIS TOO MUCH. BUT I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEY ARE ARGUMENTS FOUNDED IN MAYBE A MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT HOW SOME OF THIS STUFF BEHAVES. WHEN YOU DESIGN A SYSTEM SUCH AS THE INTERNET WITH THE DOMAIN NAMES UNBOUND IN ANY FASHION TO ANY PROTOCOL, THE ONLY ASSUMPTION YOU CAN MAKE FROM THE ENGINEERING POINT OF VIEW IS THAT ANY PARTICULAR DOMAIN NAME MAY BE USED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PROTOCOL IN THE INTERNET. YOU CAN'T MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS PARTICULAR DOMAIN NAME IS SOMEHOW SHIELDED, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN YOU'RE DOING THE DESIGN WHETHER AT SOME LATER TIME THAT DOMAIN NAME WILL BE USED WITH A PARTICULAR PROTOCOL. SO THE FEAR AND SAFETY AND SO ON, WHICH ARE LOADED TERMS, SHOULD, I THINK, IN THIS CASE BE THOUGHT OF MORE AS ASSURANCE THAT THINGS WILL WORK IN AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE. THAT'S POINT NUMBER ONE. THE EXAMPLES THAT YOU GAVE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE TELEPHONE SYSTEM TELLING YOU THAT YOU DIALED A WRONG NUMBER OR THE POSTAL SERVICE DELIVERING A MESSAGE BACK TO YOU THAT YOU MISADDRESSED, THE DESIGN OF DNS DOES GIVE EXACTLY THAT SIGNAL. THE SIGNAL WAS, "THIS DOMAIN NAME IS NOT REGISTERED." THAT'S A WELL-DEFINED RESPONSE.

IT'S LEFT TO WHICHEVER PROGRAM SENT THE REQUEST TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH IT. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE SITE FINDER CASE IS THAT THE PARTICULAR DIVERSION, BASED ON THE RECOGNITION THAT THE DOMAIN NAME WASN'T PRESENT, TOOK AWAY FROM THE PROGRAM MAKING THE QUERY THE OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE FOR ITS PURPOSES WHAT TO DO. AND IT DID SOMETHING ELSE. AND THERE WAS NO OPT IN OR OUT OR ANYTHING. SO I THINK THAT THE REASONING THAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH DESERVES SOME CAREFUL DISCUSSION, NOT TODAY. BUT I WOULD LOVE TO ENGAGE YOU ON THIS, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SOME PRETTY DEEP ISSUES THAT ARE MISSED IN THE CONVERSATION. ANYBODY ELSE? NO. THANK YOU.

>>KEITH TEARE: OKAY.

>>DESIREE MILOSHEVIC: GOOD AFTERNOON.

DESIREE MILOSHEVIC, DOT GI, CCNSO MEMBER. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A VERY SHORT AND OLD QUESTION TO MR. TOM NILES, SINCE I WOULD LIKE TO USE AN OPPORTUNITY OF SOMEBODY SPEAKING IN THE SERBO-CROAT LANGUAGE AS WELL. MY QUESTION IS: (SPEAKING SERBO-CROAT.)

>>VINT CERF: I NOW CALL UPON VENI TO ASSIST THE BOARD AND THE STAFF.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: I THINK I CAN TRANSLATE, IF YOU ALLOW ME.

SO TO DEMONSTRATE THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE BOARD.

>>DESIREE MILOSHEVIC: I ALLOW YOU.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: THE QUESTION IS, ACCORDING TO WHAT I MANAGED TO GET, IS THAT WHAT IS ICANN DOING TO BECOME FULLY INDEPENDENT, AND UNTIL WHAT TIME WOULD WE NEED THE MOU WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AND DO WE THINK IT'S NECESSARY?

>>VINT CERF: IS IT POSSIBLE THAT MR. NILES WOULD LIKE MR. TWOMEY TO RESPOND TO THIS QUESTION?

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: OBJECTION.

A LEADING QUESTION.

>> NO, I'M LEADING THE WITNESS.

>>VINT CERF: MR. TWOMEY?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I'VE GOT TO FIND SOME ABORIGINAL TERM FOR "THANKS VERY MUCH."

THE MOU TIME FRAME WHICH IS ESTABLISHED IN THE DOCUMENTATION IS THREE YEARS. IT HAS A SERIES OF 24 MILESTONES, 17 OF WHICH I THINK ARE TIME-LIMITED AND SEVEN OF WHICH ARE ONGOING. SO THEY'RE SORT OF JUDGMENTS ABOUT ACTIVITIES. WE ARE AHEAD ON THE -- SEVEN OUT OF 17 COMPLETED. WHAT WOULD BE THE STATUS OF THE VIEW OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AT ANY STAGE IF WE WERE TO COMPLETE ALL THE MILESTONES BEFORE THE THREE YEARS I CANNOT SAY BECAUSE I DON'T SPEAK FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. I CAN POINT YOU TO WHAT YOU MAY HAVE NOT SEEN THIS MORNING IN MY PRESENTATION IS TWO POINTS. ONE IS THAT IN THE CONTINGENCY PLANNING DOCUMENTATION THAT WAS DONE BY ICANN IN COLLABORATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND UPON THE ADVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, THE CONTINGENCY PLANNING FOR BUSINESS FAILURE MAKES NO SPECIAL PROVISION FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IN ANY FORWARD PLANNING PROCESS. AND I WENT THROUGH THAT IN DETAIL THIS MORNING. NOR DOES -- I ALSO WOULD POINT OUT THE PUBLIC COMMENT OF MICHAEL GALLAGHER, THE ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND THE HEAD OF THE NTIA, ACTING HEAD OF THE NTIA, THAT CONCLUDED WITH A STATEMENT WHEN HE RECOGNIZED THE PROGRESS THAT ICANN HAD MADE, TALKED ABOUT THE FUTURE WORK WE NEED TO DO, BUT CONFIRMED THE DEPARTMENT'S COMMITMENT TO THE TRANSITION TO AN AUTONOMOUS ICANN. SO LIKE MANY THINGS ABOUT THE FUTURE, YOU CAN ONLY DRAW CONCLUSIONS FROM WHAT YOU HEAR TODAY.

>>DESIREE MILOSHEVIC: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT EXERCISE IN INTERNATIONALISM.

CHUCK.

>>CHUCK GOMES: CHUCK GOMES FROM VERISIGN.

I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT REGARDING THE DOT NET SELECTION CRITERIA THAT WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON. IN THE LATEST VERSION OF THE GNSO DOT NET SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT, "THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE, THIS REPORT IS SUPPORTED UNANIMOUSLY BY MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE." NOW, I THINK IT'S REAL EASY TO INTERPRET THAT TO MEAN THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALL SUPPORT EVERYTHING IN THE REPORT. BUT I SUSPECT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY MEAN. AND I REALLY THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THAT, BECAUSE IF THIS IS A CONSENSUS STATEMENT, IT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR AS TO WHAT THE LEVEL OF CONSENSUS IS. AND, IN FACT, I THINK THAT'S A REQUIREMENT. I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT SUPPORT EVERYTHING IN THAT REPORT. AND I WOULD JUST REQUEST THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE CLARIFY THAT SO THAT WE REALLY KNOW WHAT LEVEL OF CONSENSUS IS THERE AND WHAT THIS STATEMENT MEANS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, CHUCK.

>>SABINE DOLDERER: HELLO.

MY NAME IS SABINE DOLDERER. I AM FROM THE (INAUDIBLE) REGISTRY THAT'S -- I WANT TO TALK, ACTUALLY, ABOUT THREE THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SSAC REPORT AND TO THE PROBLEM WHICH WAS CALLED THEIR (INAUDIBLE) WALKING PROBLEM. AND IT WAS REFERRED AS A SIMPLE PRIVACY PROBLEM. WE DON'T SEE IT AS A SIMPLE PRIVACY PROBLEM, BUT ALSO AS A STABILITY AND SECURITY PROBLEM, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT OFFERING THE ZONE TO THE WORLD. SO WHAT WE ALSO THINK WHAT WE INSTALL THE DNSSEC IN THE WAY THAT IT'S IMPLEMENTED NOW, THAT PEOPLE ARE -- WHEN WE GET UP WITH A NEW ZONE, IMMEDIATELY START CRAWLING THE ZONE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KNOW WHICH DOMAIN NAMES ARE NEW AND WHICH DOMAIN NAMES ARE DELETED IN THE ZONE. ACCORDING TO OUR CURRENT SETUP, WE HAVE A RELATED, AND IF ONLY FIVE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD ARE INTERESTED IN OUR ZONE, THAT WILL DOUBLE OUR NAME SERVER REQUEST, THAT IS DEDICATED NAME SERVER. AND THAT'S -- THAT CLEARLY MEANS THAT FIVE PEOPLE INTERESTED IN A ZONE WILL ACTUALLY GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF WORKLOAD AND SYSTEM LOAD AS MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. AND THAT'S WHY WE THINK IT'S ALSO A SECURITY AND STABILITY PROBLEM, WHICH WE PROPOSE THAT THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE SHOULD LOOK INTO. THAT WAS MY FIRST REPORT. MY SECOND REPORT IS A VERY SHORT COMMENT ABOUT THE IANA REPORT FROM DOUG BARTON, WHERE HE MENTIONED THE LANGUAGE TABLES WHICH ARE SET UP BY IANA. AND THEY LAUNCHED THEM THE 1ST OF MARCH. WE ARE NOT REGISTERED IN THOSE LANGUAGE TABLES BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK WE ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF DEFINING LANGUAGES. ACTUALLY, IN GERMANY, WHEN WE WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT THE GERMAN LANGUAGE HAS ON CHARACTERS, EVEN THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT HASN'T DECIDED IT YET. WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS, WE ARE STARTED TO COMING UP WITH CHARACTER SETS, SO WE SUPPORTED THE LATIN CHARACTER SET, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK UP GERMAN DOMAIN NAMES LIKE IBM.DE, COCA-COLA.DE, I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW WHICH LANGUAGE THEY ARE. EVEN IF YOU TALK ABOUT (INAUDIBLE), WHICH IS SOMETHING WITH AN O UMLAUT, THAT'S CLEARLY A GERMAN WORD, BUT IT'S AN INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK AND WITHIN A LOT OF COUNTRIES. SO, THEREFORE, I WOULD RECOMMEND TO THINK ABOUT CHANGING THE WORD LANGUAGE TABLES IN SOMETHING LIKE SUPPORTED CHARACTER SETS WITHIN A REGISTRY, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S MORE APPROPRIATE AND SHOWS ALSO THAT ICANN IS NOT YET IN THE DEFINITION OF LANGUAGES. AND A THIRD COMMENT WHICH I HAVE THAT'S TO THE ORGANIZING OF THE MEETING. I MADE THE SAME COMMENT IN SHANGHAI. FOR A NONNATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER, IT'S SOMETIME VERY DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW THESE SESSIONS. AND IT'S VERY HELPFUL TO HAVE THE SCRIBES UP ON THE SCREEN, BUT SOMETIMES THE SCRIBE IS SO FAST THAT YOU CAN'T FOLLOW IT AND THEREFORE I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THAT ON THE WEB SITE AGAIN AS IT WAS IN THE PAST. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, SABINE.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: HELLO.

MY NAME IS NIKLAS LAGERGREN. I AM A MEMBER OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY, AND I AM ALSO A MEMBER OF ONE OF THE THREE WHOIS TASK FORCES THAT ARE CURRENTLY WORKING. MY COMMENT RELATES TO WHOIS AND THE SHORT PRESENTATION WE HEARD A BIT EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON, WHICH I THINK WAS IMPRESSIVELY FULL OF METAPHORS AND USE OF THE CONDITIONAL TENSE. AND I THINK THAT METAPHORS AND THIS USE OF CONDITIONAL TENSE IS PARTICULARLY WELL-SUITED TO THE EARLY STAGES OF ANY STUDY, DEBATE, OR DISCUSSIONS. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO FINDING ANSWERS TO DIFFICULT QUESTIONS, A LOT OF PRUDENCE AND CAREFUL ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED. AND I THINK THAT ACKNOWLEDGMENT IS REALLY AT THE BASIS OF THE WORK OF THE TASK FORCES THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDER WAY. SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE SPECIFIC WORK OF THE TASK FORCES, I THINK THAT THE SUGGESTION MADE TODAY OF CONTEMPLATING ONLY SMALL STEPS FOR THE MOMENT IS PARTICULARLY WELL-CHOSEN. AND IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT WE SHOULD SEE ANY PLAN OF THE CURRENT OR ANY FUTURE TASK FORCE DEALING WITH THE WHOIS, FOR THAT MATTER, TO LOOK AT THE DESIRABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF TIERED ACCESS TO THE WHOIS DATABASES. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT AT THIS STAGE, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TIERED ACCESS, BUT WE ARE BASICALLY ASKING TWO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, OR AT LEAST WE MIGHT ASK THESE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN THE FUTURE. THE FIRST ONE BEING IS IT DESIRABLE TO HAVE TIERED ACCESS? AND THEN, SECONDLY, IF IT IS, IS IT DOABLE? AND I THINK HERE IN THIS FRAMEWORK, UNTIL A CONVINCING CASE HAS BEEN MADE THAT THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF FREE, ANONYMOUS, AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO WHOIS DATABASES IS NO LONGER APPROPRIATE AND THEREFORE HAS TO BE REPLACED BY ANOTHER SYSTEM, UNTIL THAT -- A CONVINCING CASE HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT THIS -- AND I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS CASE HAS NOT BEEN MADE YET -- I WOULD LIKE TO USE ANOTHER PERHAPS CAR-RELATED METAPHOR AS WE HEARD THIS AFTERNOON, NAMELY, IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE ONE BRIEF OBSERVATION. WHENEVER YOU INTRODUCE NEW MECHANISMS LIKE THE TIERED STRUCTURE FOR WHOIS, YOU INTRODUCE POLICY QUESTIONS, YOU INTRODUCE IMPLEMENTATION, YOU INTRODUCE COMPLIANCE QUESTIONS AND SO ON. I'M NOT NECESSARILY ARGUING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WITH REGARD TO YOUR POINT. BUT I AM IMPRESSED BY HOW EASY IT IS FOR US TO CREATE NEW MECHANISMS THAT CAUSE US SUBSTANTIAL EXTRA WORK. SO YOUR POINT'S WELL TAKEN. LET ME ASK ABOUT A SHOW OF HANDS, PLEASE. WE ARE RUNNING -- IT'S ABOUT 6:20 NOW. COULD I FIND OUT HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS? IF YOU ARE IN LINE, I SEE YOU NOW. IS THERE ANYONE WHO IS IN THE ROOM THAT IS NOT -- IS PLANNING TO JOIN THE LINE AT SOME POINT? OR DO I NOW HAVE A FINITE NUMBER, FIXED NUMBER OF PEOPLE? OKAY. I AM GOING TO ASK THAT WE NOT ADD ANY MORE PEOPLE TO THE LINE IN ORDER TO GET DONE BY 7:00 OR SOONER.

THERE ARE -- ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN PEOPLE. IF YOU WILL CONFINE YOURSELVES TO NO MORE THAN FOUR MINUTES, WE WILL ACTUALLY GET DONE. LET'S TRY.

>>MARTIN DÜRST: MY NAME IS MARTIN DÜRST.

I AM MAKING THESE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS JUST AS AN INDIVIDUAL. I WAS VERY IMPRESSED YESTERDAY BY THE WORKSHOP ON INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES.

IT'S VERY IMPRESSIVE TO SEE WHAT EVERYBODY HAS PUT TOGETHER, THE SPEAKERS AND EVERYTHING, AND THE ORGANIZERS AND SO ON. AND IT'S VERY -- IT WAS VERY IMPRESSIVE TO SEE HOW FAR THIS TECHNOLOGY AND THE -- ALL THE ISSUES, POLICY ISSUES, HAVE COME. I THINK I HAVE TAKEN PERSONALLY A FEW THINGS FROM THE WORKSHOP THAT I WILL TRY TO PUSH FORWARD ON THE TECHNICAL LEVEL AND WILL TRY TO GET FORWARD IN THE IETF AND THE DOUBLE CC AND SO ON. ONE THING THAT I TOOK HOME FROM THE PRESENTATIONS YESTERDAY, AND I GUESS BEFORE, AND I HAVE TO EXPLICITLY SAY THAT WASN'T DUE TO ONE SINGLE PRESENTATION WHICH WAS FILLED WITH A LOT OF BUZZWORDS AND SO, BUT THAT WAS JUST A GENERAL IMPRESSION, IS THE ISSUE OF TOP-LEVEL NON-ASCII DOMAIN NAMES. AND MY IMPRESSION YESTERDAY, AND PROBABLY EVERYBODY ELSE'S IMPRESSION, IS THAT IT WILL TAKE A LONG TIME AND A LOT OF PEOPLE INVOLVED IN MOVING THIS FORWARD. I AM A LITTLE BIT WORRIED THAT THAN MAYBE A LOT OF YOU BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN THINKING OF SOME OF THESE ISSUES IN TERMS OF UNICODE FOR MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. BUT STILL THERE'S A LOT OF WORK TO DO THERE. AND SO I THINK THAT WE SHOULD START THIS WORK SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, BECAUSE WE WILL KNOW THAT IT WILL TAKE A LOT OF TIME AND WE SHOULD TRY TO REALLY DO A VERY GOOD JOB.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU.

I AGREE WITH THAT. I WILL POINT OUT, HOWEVER, THAT THERE'S A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT GETTING TO WHERE YOU WANT TO GO MAY REQUIRE A SUBSTANTIAL REDESIGN AS OPPOSED TO A SIMPLE INCREMENTAL CHANGE TO THE DNS. THIS IS THE WRONG TIME TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. BUT OFFLINE, I'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE THAT.

>>MARTIN DÜRST: I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PLEASE.

>>HORATIO CADIZ: HI, GOOD EVENING TO EVERYONE.

MY NAME IS HORATIO CADIZ FROM THE PHILIPPINE NETWORK FOUNDATION, A NONPROFIT IN THE PHILIPPINES. I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE REPORT OF THE SSAC, BECAUSE OUR CCTLD HAS HAD THIS WILD CARD SINCE 2001, AND WE HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT THE WAY IT BROKE DOWN, THE PERFORMANCE, THE PROTOCOL, AND IT HAD NEVER BEEN TAKEN DOWN. SO MY IMPRESSION NOW IS WHETHER -- MY QUESTION NOW IS WHETHER IT WILL BE TAKEN DOWN TO THE CCTLD. BECAUSE EVERY TIME WE TALK POLICY TO THE CCTLD, THE CCTLD MANAGER DOESN'T LISTEN TO US. ALTHOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO REPORT THAT AS OF TWO WEEKS AGO, THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OF THE PHILIPPINES FINALLY DRAFTED THE GUIDELINES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE PH CCTLD. AND, HOPEFULLY, THERE WOULD BE SOME REFORMS THERE ON HOW THE POLICY IS DRIVEN. BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SUPPORT THAT REPORT. THE ONLY REASON HE IS USING THE WILD CARD IS TO POINT TO A WEB SITE AND SAY, "THIS DOMAIN IS FOR SALE." THAT'S IT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR CONFIRMING AT LEAST ONE CONCERN THAT SOME OF US HAVE.

MISTER --

>>MILTON MUELLER: MARTIN MUELLER, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY AND THE CHAIR OF THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY. I WANT IT MAKE A QUICK COMMENT ABOUT THE WHOIS ISSUE ON BEHALF OF THE CONSTITUENCY. SOMETHING OUR CONSTITUENCY CARES ABOUT A LOT.

AND THEN I WANT TO ASK A VERY SPECIFIC AND I THINK PRESSING QUESTION TO MR. TWOMEY ABOUT TLD ADDITIONS. WITH RESPECT TO WHOIS, BRUCE'S ANALOGY WAS FUN AND A LITTLE BIT SEDUCTIVE, BUT I THINK IT SORT OF OVERLOOKED THE FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE POINT ABOUT THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL REGISTRANTS' PRIVACY. IN OTHER WORDS, IT PRESENTED US WITH AN IMAGE OF SORT OF CONTROLLING PEOPLE OR LICENSING PEOPLE IN ORDER TO DO WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN DOING RATHER THAN ASKING FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THERE ARE RIGHTS HERE THAT OUGHT TO BE PROTECTED. AND IN THAT REGARD I THINK THE SOLUTION IS REALLY MUCH SIMPLER THAN IT'S BEEN MADE OUT TO BE. EVEN THOUGH THE TASK FORCES ON WHICH I SERVED CAME UP WITH A VERY ELABORATE COMPROMISE, OUR POSITION WAS THAT WE SHOULD AT LEAST GIVE REGISTRANTS THE SAME LEVEL OF PRIVACY AS THEY HAVE IN THE TELEPHONE SYSTEM OR IN THE DRIVER'S LICENSE SYSTEM IN WHICH, YES, YOU HAVE A SYSTEM OF LICENSING BUT YOU CANNOT TYPE IN SOMEBODY'S LICENSE PLATE THAT YOU SEE ON THE ROAD AND FIND THEIR HOME ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER. AND IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE SOME ROAD RAGE AT THAT PERSON, GO KILL THEM OR THROW ROCKS AT THEIR CAR OR SOMETHING. WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE THOSE VERY SIMPLE, BASIC PRINCIPLES THAT ARE ESTABLISHED IN OTHER MEDIA, SUCH AS THE TELEPHONE SYSTEM, EXTENDED TO THE WHOIS SYSTEM, AND WE DON'T THINK IT'S DIFFICULT TO DO THAT. NOW, FOUR MINUTES -- I REMEMBER THE BAD OLD DAYS WHEN IT WAS 30 SECONDS, BUT I WON'T GO INTO THAT. LET ME MOVE ON TO THE SECOND QUESTION. ACCORDING TO THE MOU, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE IN PLACE A NEW PROCEDURE FOR TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN ADMISSIONS BY SEPTEMBER 30TH OF THIS YEAR. AND COMING ON THE HEELS OF THE OECD REPORT, WHICH IS AN EXCELLENT REPORT, IT RAISES A LOT OF FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD DO THIS, I DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE MET. HOW IS THIS GOAL GOING TO BE MET? YOU'VE GOT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DO YOU WANT TO DO AUCTIONS OR NOT, IF YOU DO WANT TO DO AUCTIONS WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE FOR THEM. WHAT NUMBER OF TLDS ARE YOU GOING TO ADD EVERY YEAR? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO SETTLE SOME OF THE ISSUES ABOUT REGISTRY VERSUS REGISTRAR RELATIONS AND SO ON IN THESE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. SO MY QUESTION ABOUT THAT IS SIMPLY HOW DO YOU GET THIS GOAL MET BY SEPTEMBER 30TH?

>>VINT CERF:PAUL?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: MILTON, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I'M NOT BEGGING THE QUESTION BUT I WONDER IF I CAN TAKE IT ON NOTICE FOR A COUPLE MINUTES AND PERHAPS COME BACK AFTER MARILYN JUST TO ANSWER IT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU. MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: I'D LIKE TO START OUT BY MAKE AGO COMMENT ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF OPERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY THAT ICANN HAS AND TO NOTE THAT WE ALL COME TOGETHER NOW THREE TIMES A YEAR AND WE WORK ON POLICY WHEN WE'RE TOGETHER AND WE TAKE FOR GRANTED, PERHAPS, THE IMMENSE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT GOES ON BEHIND THE SCENES ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS WHICH IS ACTUALLY A HUGE PART WHAT HAVE ICANN HAS TO DO IN MAKING THE TRAINS RUN ON TIME. I SPENT TWO YEARS AS THE CHAIR OF THE TRANSFERS TASK FORCE AND I HAVE BEEN A LITTLE FRUSTRATED ABOUT HOW LONG IT HAS TAKEN TO REACH THE POINT WHERE WE ARE TODAY WHEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSFERS POLICY. BUT WE ARE THERE, AND I'M VERY PLEASED THAT WE'RE THERE.

I DO WANT TO JUST SAY SOMETHING, THOUGH, AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE REMEMBERS THAT WHEN WE ARE NOT JUST ABOUT DEVELOPING POLICY, BUT WE ARE ALSO ABOUT ENSURING THAT IT IS IMPLEMENTED. AND THAT MEANS THAT WE, TOO, IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES ON THAT FRONT, TO CONTINUE TO BE INVOLVED IN PROVIDING ANY ITERATIVE CHANGES THAT WILL BE NEEDED. SO LET ME MOVE TO ANOTHER POINT THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE MEETINGS. WE STARTED OUT WHEN ICANN WAS FOUNDED WITH HAVING FOUR MEETINGS A YEAR. AND WE SORT OF BARELY GOT OUR WORK DONE TOGETHER. WE'VE GONE NOW TO THREE MEETINGS A YEAR. AND WHEN I SAY THAT, WHAT I MEAN IS THAT WE ARE GROWING IN OUR DIVERSITY AND IN OUR BREADTH. AND THESE MEETINGS, WHEN WE COME TOGETHER, IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY WORK TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY AND TO ESTABLISH THE RELATIONSHIPS THAT THEN HELP US TO WORK OFF-LINE TOGETHER IN BETWEEN THAT TIME. I NOTED IN THE BUDGET, THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO HOW EXPENSIVE THE MEETINGS ARE, AND I MERELY WANTED TO NOTE TO THE BOARD THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUING THESE MEETINGS WHEN THE COMMUNITY DOES COME TOGETHER AND WORK TOGETHER. FINALLY, I WANT TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSULTATION AND THINK THAT PERHAPS WE DON'T QUITE HAVE IT DOWN RIGHT YET. THE NEED TO CONSULT HAS TO BE IN OUR DNA. EVERY TIME THAT WE UNDERTAKE A NEW PROCESS OR REFINE A PROCESS, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THE PROPER OUTREACH AND IF WE HAVE DEVELOPED A PROCESS THAT ENABLES BOTTOM-UP CONSULTATION AS NEEDED ON WHATEVER THE ISSUE IT THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH, WHETHER IT'S THE BUDGET OR THE STRATEGIC PLAN. I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S TOTALLY IN OUR DNA TODAY, AND I THINK THAT, IN FACT, SOME OF THE FAULT OF THAT LIES ON OUR SIDE AS THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS. I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF WE'RE ORGANIZED YET TO CONSULT ON SOME THINGS AS WE NEED TO BE. SO WITHIN THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION I'M IN, I'M GOING TO ASK THAT WE GIVE SOME THOUGHT AS TO HOW WE COULD RESPOND MORE QUICKLY WHEN THE BOARD OR THE SENIOR STAFF HAS A NEED FOR CONSULTATION WITH US. SO THAT WHEN WE COME TO MAKING COMMENTS ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN OR ON THE BUDGET, WE'RE ABLE TO GIVE YOU QUICK TURNAROUND, BUT ALSO ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CONSULTATION BACK INTO OUR COMMUNITY. BUT I DON'T WANT THE SUBTLETY OF MY MESSAGE ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSULTATION TO BE MISSED. I THINK THIS IS A SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO US, AND I HOPE THAT'S COMING ACROSS VERY CLEARLY AND THAT I'M NOT BEING MISUNDERSTOOD. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE SSAC FOR THE REPORT THAT THEY PROVIDED. I LEARNED A GREAT DEAL. I SUSPECT I WASN'T ALONE IN THAT. BUT I HAVE BOTH GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS FOR THE CHAIR OF THE SSAC AND FOR THE SSAC MEMBERS. HAVING DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF HELPING TO INFORM US ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, I SUSPECT THAT WE'LL BE ASKING FOR MORE IN THE FUTURE.

>>VINT CERF: YES, MARILYN, THE REWARD FOR GOOD WORK IS MORE WORK.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO FOLLOW MARILYN TO THE MICROPHONE.

>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY; I'M FAILING POORLY -- BADLY AS CHAIRMAN. VENI ACTUALLY WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING TO MARILYN. SO MARILYN, DON'T GO AWAY YET.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: WE ACTUALLY MADE IT ON PURPOSE SO YOU WILL BE FURTHER AND WALK LONGER.

I HAVE ONLY TWO QUICK REMARKS. THE FIRST IS FOR SABINE. SHE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE SCRIBES ARE NOT ESTABLISHED IN TIME OR QUICKLY AND ACTUALLY THE SCRIBES FROM THE LAST MEETING FROM THE ROME MEETINGS WERE PUBLISHED LIKE THREE DAYS AFTER THE MEETING WAS OVER. IT'S TRUE THE TUNISIAN MEETING WAS LATE, BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH THE STAFF TO MAKE SURE THIS ISN'T REPEATED. AND, MARILYN, ABOUT THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS, I'VE TALKED TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY FROM THE REGIONAL REGISTRIES AND PEOPLE EVEN WANT TO HAVE TWO MEETINGS A YEAR. SO WHILE I UNDERSTAND YOUR DESIRE TO HAVE FOUR MEETINGS A YEAR, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO MAY WANT TO SEE EACH OTHER AND TALK ABOUT THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES EVEN MORE OFTEN, WE HAVE TO KEEP IN CONSIDERATION THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATE IN A NUMBER OF EVENTS IN SOUTH AMERICA, IN AFRICA, IN ASIA AND THEY CANNOT JUST TRAVEL ALL THE TIME. SO, YOU KNOW, THREE -- AND BEING CHAIRMAN OF THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE, I WOULD RATHER GO FOR SIX MEETINGS, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER TOPIC; WE CAN DISCUSS IT AFTERWARDS.

>>MARILYN CADE: VENI, I WAS SUPPORTING CONTINUING THREE, NOT GOING BACK TO FOUR. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

>>VINT CERF: GREAT SIGH OF RELIEF FROM THE CHAIR.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: CHRIS DISSPAIN, DOT AU. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A VERY SHORT POINT ABOUT AN EVENT THAT IS HAPPENING ON SATURDAY, WHICH IS A JOINT EVENT BY ICANN AND THE ITU.

TWO POINTS. THE FIRST IS THAT THE CCNSO HAS NO POSITION IN RESPECT TO THIS MATTER, AND THEREFORE, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY PARTICIPATING IN THE EVENT. SECOND POINT IS THAT A NUMBER OF CCTLD MANAGERS ARE PARTICIPATING, AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, I CAN SPEAK FOR MOST OF THOSE TAKING PART, I THINK, WE VIEW THIS AS MERELY AN INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND WE'RE -- AS WITH ALL MATTERS OF INFORMATION EXCHANGE, CCTLDS ARE VERY HAPPY TO TURN UP AND TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE HOW WE DO WHAT WE DO, AND WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, CHRIS.

AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL, ICANN OBSERVER. IT'S NOW ONE YEAR THAT I LEFT THE BOARD, AND I WENT INTO THE GNSO COUNCIL. I WANTED TO PRESENT A VERY SHORT REPORT OF MY IMPRESSIONS ON THAT.

FIRST, YOU KNOW, VINT, THAT I'VE BEEN DISCUSSING WITH YOU HOW THE MEETINGS ARE RUN AND SOME INTERACTION BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE PAST MEETINGS. I THINK IT'S FAIR TO NOTE THAT IN THIS MEETING, I THINK THIS HAS BEEN DONE MUCH BETTER. I MEAN, AS I SAID REGARDING THE BUDGET THIS MORNING, WHERE WE ARE IS IMPORTANT BUT THE DIRECTION IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT. AND I THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN MORE AND MORE DIVERSE, WHICH IS IMPORTANT, PRESENCE OF BOARD MEMBERS IN THE GROUPINGS. PERHAPS STILL WE WOULD LIKE A LITTLE BIT MORE IMPLICATION IN THE DIALOGUES. AND EVEN HERE IN THE PUBLIC MEETING, EVEN IF THE TEMPERATURE HAS BEEN VERY LOW, THE DEBATE HAS BEEN VERY LOW, THERE'S BEEN MORE DIALOGUE THAN OTHER TIMES AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE NOTED THIS IS THE RIGHT DIRECTION EVEN THOUGH PERHAPS YOU WERE NOT THERE. THE BAD PART IS THAT IF THE PUBLIC MEETING IS NOT THE PLACE TO DECIDE THINGS BUT JUST A VERY GOOD THERMOMETER. THE FACT THAT I WAS THE ONLY ONE TO MENTION THE BUDGET FROM THE MIKE IS SURPRISING. THIS IS THE THING THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED ALL THE TIME THERE AND OVER THERE, OUTSIDE. BUT NO ONE CAME TO THE MICROPHONE TO SAY ANYTHING REGARDING THE BUDGET, BECAUSE STILL, THE ONLY WAY TO HAVE THINGS DONE IS BILATERAL LOBBYING WITH SOME KEY STAFF MEMBERS. WELL, THAT'S NATURAL AND THAT'S LIFE BUT WE WILL TRY TO IMPROVE THAT AS WELL. FINALLY, REGARDING THE GNSO PART, WE WERE SENT THE NONCOM APPOINTEES WITH TWO ROLES. FIRST AS BLUE HELMETS, IN CASE OF WARS JUST TO BE IN THE MIDDLE TO OF THE BARREL TO SEPARATE THE PARTS. LET ME TELL YOU THAT THE (INAUDIBLE) GET BORED DURING THIS YEAR. THAT'S VERY GOOD NEWS. THE SECOND PART WAS JUST TRYING BRING SOME -- BEYOND THE PARTIES, BEYOND THE CONSTITUENCIES, GLUE HERE. AND WE HAVE BEEN OBSERVING HOW THIS IS MANAGED MORE IN AN ENGINEERING WORLD BY (INAUDIBLE) AND WORKING BETTER BUT STILL WE HAVE A PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM THE SENSE THAT I AM A REGISTRAR, I AM A BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY. NOBODY IS GNSO, NOBODY IS ICANN. AND THE DIVISIVENESS IF NOT THE FIGHTING SPIRIT STILL MAKES THINGS BE LESS EFFICIENT. NOW THE PROBLEM IS AT THE WORKING GROUP LEVEL NOT AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL. BUT THE AT THE WORKING GROUP LEVEL EVERYBODY GOES TO A TRENCH. I AM HERE JUST TO DEFEND MY POSITION. I AM NOT HERE TO CONTRIBUTE MY EXPERTISE. AND PERHAPS THIS YEAR WE SHOULD JUST TRY TO IMPROVE THE WORKING GROUP PROCEDURE AS WE HAVE IMPROVED THE COUNCIL AND THE OVERALL ICANN THING. THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU AMADEU. I TAKE THAT AS A CONSTRUCTIVE RECOMMENDATION.

>>MILTON MUELLER: CAN I GET MY QUESTION ANSWERED?

>>AMR HASHEM: GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS AMR HASHEM AND I COME FROM EGYPT. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THIS VERY INTERESTING TWO DAYS OF DISCUSSION AND DEBATE THAT I HAVE ATTENDED FOR MY FIRST TIME HERE.

YET I HAVE A COMMENT AND A PLEA FOR THE ICANN AT LARGE. MY COMMENT IS ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAME WORKSHOP THAT WE HAD YESTERDAY. I VERY MUCH ENJOYED THE PRESENTATION ABOUT THE KIND OF CHALLENGES THAT NEED TO BE FACED WHILE DEVELOPING AN INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAME. BUT YET I DIDN'T SEE US DEVISING SOLUTIONS. I SAW LOTS OF CHALLENGES AND I FELT THAT WE ARE JUST PUTTING THE SPIRIT OF IT IS NOT GOING TO WORK. I SAW THE PRESENTATIONS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE IT EITHER IN JAPAN, CHINA, AND KOREA, AND I SAW THAT SPIRIT OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN TUNISIA AND SAUDI ARABIA OR THE GULF STATES AND I LIKE THAT. I DIDN'T YET FEEL OF SUPPORT OF THE ICANN BOARD FOR SUCH AN EFFORTS, OR I DIDN'T SEE A POSITION. I LIKE THE DOCUMENT THAT I HEARD FROM MR. DIOP TODAY, ACTUALLY, A COUPLE OF MINUTES AGO, ABOUT THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT AND WE ARE GOING TO WORK ON THAT. BUT YET I DIDN'T HEAR ANY OTHER SUPPORT FROM THE BOARD. IS THAT THE POSITION THAT WE DON'T WANT ANY OTHER INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAMES? IS THAT THE WAY THAT WE SEE THE INTERNET DEVELOPING AS A LATIN-BASED CHARACTER? THE CHALLENGES ARE ALWAYS THERE, AND THE CHALLENGES IS THE ONLY DRIVE FOR INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT. BY EINSTEIN CHALLENGING THE CONVENTIONAL MECHANICAL THEOREMS AND DEVELOPING THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY WAS DEVELOPED. BY USER CHALLENGING THE COMMUNICATION NETWORK, WE HAVE NOW THE INTERNET. SO WHY ARE WE AFRAID NOW OF CHALLENGING THE NETWORK TO BRING WHAT WE WOULD CALL INTERNET II OR INTERNET III, A NATURAL INTERNET? I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD ABOUT THAT AND TO HAVE SOME SORT OF A CONSENSUS WHETHER ICANN IS GOING TO SUPPORT THAT OR ICANN IS GOING TO SAY, NO, WE ARE NOT SUPPORTING THAT. AND THEN THE PEOPLE CAN START TO FIND OTHER MEANS TO REACH THE (INAUDIBLE). I KNOW THAT FOR SOME OF US, THE ISSUE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE IMPORTANT. I MEAN, PUT A SMALL TWO CHARACTERS AT THE END OF A DOMAIN NAME AND THIS IS GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. BUT MAYBE FOR OTHER PEOPLE, THIS IS AN ISSUE, OR FOR ARABS, THIS IS AN ISSUE. SO PLEASE TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION. AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR OPINION ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: MIKE, I AM GOING TO RESPOND FIRST.

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY THIS AS TERSELY AS I CAN. IT'S ONE THING TO SAY YOU WANT SOMETHING TO HAPPEN, YOU WANT THE SYSTEM TO BEHAVE OR LOOK A CERTAIN WAY. IT'S SOMETHING ELSE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DESIGN AND ENGINEER IT. ICANN IS NOT AN ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION. THE PRIMARY ENGINEERING OF THE INTERNET IS DONE THROUGH THE STANDARDS PROCESS IN THE IETF. IT'S ALSO DONE THROUGH OTHER STANDARDS ORGANIZATIONS. IT'S MY BELIEF THAT TO ACHIEVE THE KINDS OF DESCRIPTIONS THAT WE SAW YESTERDAY IN A STABLE WAY, WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO EXTEND THE EXISTING DNS SYSTEM TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. IF YOU INSIST THAT ICANN DO SOMETHING, YOU'RE ASKING US TO DO SOMETHING THAT ICANN IS NOT ORGANIZED TO DO. WHAT YOU NEED IS TO GET THE DESIGNERS, THE ENGINEERS, TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN TO THE INTERNET IN ORDER FOR IT TO SUPPORT THAT MODE OF OPERATION. I AM A STRONG PROPONENT OF TRYING TO GET THERE. BUT I DO NOT THINK THAT HARANGUING ICANN WILL DO MUCH GOOD IF SERIOUS ENGINEERING IS, IN FACT, REQUIRED. MIKE.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANKS, VINT.

AND I SHARE YOUR TECHNICAL CONCERNS. I THINK, THOUGH, THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT FOR SOME PEOPLE -- AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THIS PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL'S BACKGROUND, WHETHER HE'S FAMILIAR WITH THE IETF. AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE NEED TO BE SENSITIVE TO IS THAT IF THIS IS THE FIRST FORUM -- I BELIEVE HE SAID THIS WAS HIS FIRST ICANN MEETING THAT HE WAS ATTENDING TO, ICANN NEEDS TO, IF YOU WILL, ACT AS A SHEPHERD THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND HELP PEOPLE FIND THE RIGHT RESOURCES AND EDUCATE THEM. AGAIN, I SHARE A LOT OF THE COMMENTS AND CONCERNS THAT MOUHAMET HAS RAISED. AND I BELIEVE THAT, AGAIN, THE TECHNICAL PEOPLE NEED TO, IF YOU WILL, WORK EXPEDITIOUSLY ON A SOLUTION THAT WILL NOT BREAK THE INTERNET, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE MARKET IS THERE, AND THEY'RE DEMANDING A SOLUTION. SO, AGAIN, I'M OPTIMISTIC AND HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN, IF YOU WILL, HELP PEOPLE. AND, AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO TRY TO END ON A POSITIVE NOTE THERE.

>>MILTON MUELLER: I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT THE STANDING WAS.

I ASKED A QUESTION. I WAS TOLD THAT IT WOULD BE ANSWERED. AND WE WERE WAITING FOR THE ANSWER, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN.

>>VINT CERF: YES, IT IS.

PAUL IS PREPARED TO RESPOND. JAMES.

>>JAMES SENG: I KNOW THE QUEUE IS CLOSED.

I'M SORRY. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. IETF IDN WORKING GROUP HAS WORKED ON THE ISSUES. ITS DESIGN CHARGE (INAUDIBLE) INCLUDING TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN CAN BE NON-ENGLISH CHARACTERS. SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT -- THAT'S HOW WE ACTUALLY WROTE THE INTERNET DRAFT, OR, RATHER, THE RFC THAT'S BEEN PUBLISHED. NOW, WHETHER THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN CAN BE IN NON-ENGLISH CHARACTERS I THINK WILL BE AN ICANN ISSUE RATHER THAN AN IETF ISSUE. THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION. (APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.

WELL, WE'LL HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT IN THE ENGINEERING QUARTERS. PAUL, DO YOU -- WHERE ARE WE? OH, MR. QIAN.

>>HUALIN QIAN: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE IDN SYSTEM, BECAUSE CHINA, KOREA, JAPAN, AND ALSO IN TAIWAN WE HAVE COOPERATED, WORKING TEAM ON THAT AND HAVE MADE MANY PROGRESS.

SO I AM NOT SO PESSIMISTIC AS THE REPORT REPORTED YESTERDAY. SO I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO HAVE INTERNATIONALIZED CHARACTER SET IN THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN. AND WE HAVE ALREADY REGISTERED SEVERAL TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CHINESE DOMAIN NAMES. AND PEOPLE, THEY DOWNLOADING THE CLIENT SOFTWARE, AND THEY CAN USE CHINESE DOMAIN NAME TO RESOLVE THEIR DOMAIN NAMES ALREADY.

OF COURSE, IT'S NOT VERY COMPLETELY -- VERY PERFECT. BUT IT'S WORKING. IT'S NOT DISTURBING THE STABILITY OF THE INTERNET OPERATION. AND SO WE THINK THAT STEP BY STEP WE CAN PUSH -- AT LEAST WE CAN DO SOME TRIALS, DO SOME TESTING. AND NOW I HOPE THAT TWO THINGS CAN BE DONE. FIRST, I AM PROMOTING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE PUNYCODE, INTERNATIONALIZED CHARACTER SET IN PUNYCODE FORMAT BEING REGISTERED IN THE ROOT, NOT ALL, BUT TO SELECT SOME OF THEM TO HAVE A TRIAL. THE SECOND THING I WANT TO PUSH IS THAT WE HOPE THAT THE OPERATING SYSTEM, FOR EXAMPLE, MICROSOFT, CAN HELP US TO IMPROVE THE USER INTERFACE AND NOT ASKING PEOPLE TO DOWNLOAD SOME CLIENT SOFTWARE, BUT TO -- BUILT IN THE OPERATING SYSTEM, IT'S VERY EASY FOR PEOPLE TO USE. SO I AM NOT SO PESSIMISTIC. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: JOHN AND THEN MOUHAMET.

AND THEN PAUL TO RESPOND TO MR. MUELLER.

>>JOHN KLENSIN: I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP A BIT ON THE LAST COMMENT.

I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT TO SAY ABOUT THIS. AND I THINK I HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY. I AM NOT IN ANY RESPECT PESSIMISTIC ABOUT IDNS FROM A TECHNOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. AND IF I LEFT THAT IMPRESSION YESTERDAY, I APOLOGIZE. I AM PESSIMISTIC ABOUT IDNS FROM A COMMUNITY COOPERATION TO GET THE WORK DONE STANDPOINT. THE THING WHICH IS IMPORTANT ABOUT THE JET WORK IS THAT A GROUP OF COUNTRIES AND ENTITIES WHO SHARE A SCRIPT AND SHARE SOME LANGUAGE ISSUES AND SHARE ISSUES WITH THAT SCRIPT GOT TOGETHER AND DID SOME EXTREMELY HARD AND VERY, VERY IMPRESSIVE WORK TOGETHER TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES THERE SO IT BECAME POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD AND BEGIN REGISTERING THINGS WITHOUT RISK TO THEMSELVES OR THE CONSUMERS OR THE USERS OR THE INTERNET. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WORK; IT'S VERY VALUABLE WORK. WHAT IS CAUSING ME TO BE PESSIMISTIC IS NOT THE STATE OF THE STANDARDS, BECAUSE THEY'RE READY, OR THE STATE OF THE CAPABILITY TO DO THIS WORK OR THE STATE OF DEPLOYING THESE IDNS. WHAT'S CAUSING ME TO BE PESSIMISTIC IS I KEEP HEARING PEOPLE STANDING UP AND SAYING, WELL, WE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE TECHNICAL ISSUES ARE HERE AND WE'RE NOT AT LEAST IMPLICITLY WILLING TO WORK WITH OTHERS TO FIND OUT WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE AND RESOLVE THEM. THEY'RE RESOLVABLE, BUT WE'RE NOT WILLING TO DO THE WORK TO DO THAT, BUT INSTEAD, WE WANT IDNS, WE WANT IDNS, WE WANT TO DO IT OUR WAY. WE DON'T WANT TO TALK WITH ANYBODY ELSE. WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. AND THAT'S MAKING ME VERY PESSIMISTIC NOT BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE DONE THAT WAY, BECAUSE IT POSSIBLY CAN. BUT BECAUSE OF THE RISKS OF CONFUSION, WHICH WORRY ME, AND BECAUSE OF THE RISKS OF FRAGMENTING THE NETWORK, BECAUSE WE END UP WITH ISLANDS OF GROUPS OF PEOPLE WHO CANNOT COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER. AND I FIND THAT PRETTY FRIGHTENING, AND I HOPE OTHERS DO, TOO.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, JOHN.

MOUHAMET.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU, VINT.

I JUST WANT TO RECALL AND MAKE PEOPLE REMEMBER THAT ICANN HAS ALREADY MADE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF JOB ON THE IDN ISSUE. JUST HAVE A LOOK ON THE WEB SITE AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF ENERGY AND MANY PEOPLE WERE ALREADY INVOLVED BY THE CREATION -- WITH THE CREATION OF THE IDN COMMITTEE. AND WHAT I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO REMEMBER IS, WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK IN ORDER TO MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDN FOR ICANN. BUT WHAT IS MISSING NOW IS JUST LIKE WE HAVE DONE -- THE MOST IMPORTANT THING OF THE JOB, LIKE PUSHING FOR TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING PEOPLE TO HELP US SORT OUT A SOLUTION FOR THE IDN IMPLEMENTATION, LIKE THE STANDARD, SO THE STANDARDS ARE NOW READY. AND WHEN COMES THE TIME TO DECIDE ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION, IT'S JUST LIKE NOBODY WAS DRIVING THE CAR. AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED ON OUR CORE BUSINESS. AND I REPEAT AGAIN, WE HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED IN OUR CORE BUSINESS. I AM NOT ASKING FOR ICANN TO IMPLEMENT TOMORROW, I MEAN, 10,000 OF IDN TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN. THE ONLY THING THAT PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING FROM ICANN IS TO DRIVE AND TO HELP, I MEAN, ALL THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE THAT HAVE TO WORK AROUND THAT, TO SHOW TO PEOPLE THAT WE CAN DO IT EVEN IF IT IS JUST ONE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDN AT TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAME. IT MEANS WE NEED TO SHOW TO PEOPLE THAT THIS IS FEASIBLE. AND THEN, I MEAN, ALL THE RULES -- PEOPLE WILL LEARN. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED NOW. AFTER WE CREATE THE IDN COMMITTEE, YOU REMEMBER THAT WE HAVE THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, THE (INAUDIBLE) COMMITTEE. AND IN THAT COMMITTEE, WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO IMPLEMENT IDN AT SECOND-LEVEL DOMAIN NAME. AND WE HAVE MANY TECHNICAL REPORTS THAT SHOW TO PEOPLE THAT THERE WAS MANY PROBLEMS THAT OCCURRED. AND THEY LEARNED A LOT. SO WE CANNOT PREVENT ICANN TO LEARN FROM EXPERIMENTATION. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE CAN LEARN AND IMPROVE AND MEET THE COMMITMENT, I MEAN, AND THE EXPECTATION OF THE COMMUNITY. SO THE DEMAND IS HERE. THE PROBLEMS ARE HERE ALSO. SO THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO RECOMMEND IS TO GO CAREFULLY IN IT. BUT WE CANNOT AVOID THINKING ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO IMPLEMENT THIS FIRST THING AND TRY TO LEARN FROM SCRATCH OR FROM THE GROUND. SO, AND IF I -- WITH HUALIN, IF I UNDERSTAND, THEY HAVE DONE THE MOST GROUNDING WORK WITH ENGINEERING STAFF. SO THE ONLY THING THEY ARE EXPECTING IS SOMEONE TO DRIVE THE PROCESS. AND I THINK THAT THIS IS IN THE CORE, I MEAN, MISSION OF ICANN TO DRIVE INNOVATION IN THAT DOMAIN NAME SPACE. AND NOBODY ELSE WILL BE ABLE TO ACT AT THE ROOT SERVER. WE HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CREATE IT. SO THE ONLY THING I AM EXPECTING IS, WE HAVE TO CHALLENGE, I MEAN, THIS IDN, AND SHOW TO PEOPLE THAT WE WILL BE VERY CAREFUL IN MOVING AHEAD, BUT WE HAVE TO MOVE AHEAD. SO THAT'S THE MESSAGE.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MOUHAMET.

PAUL.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT. I'M SORRY, MILTON, I'M GOING TO COMMENT ON THIS DISCUSSION FIRST BEFORE I COME BACK TO YOU.

THIS IS CLEARLY -- THE IDN WORKSHOP HAS CLEARLY BEEN A POSITIVE THING TO HAVE AND TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION, AND THE BOARD WILL KEEP DISCUSSING. I THINK FROM MY OWN PERSPECTIVE, MY ONLY COMMENTS AS WE CONSIDER THIS, IN LIKE MOST OF THE WORK WE DO, WE WORK IN COLLABORATION WITH OTHERS. AND IN ICANN'S WORK, A LOT OF ITS WORK IS ABOUT THE WORK WE DO AS PART OF A COMMUNITY. SO THAT WAS JUST THE ONLY OBSERVATION I WISHED TO MAKE.

>>VINT CERF: DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO MR. MUELLER'S QUESTION?

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: EXCUSE ME, I JUST WANT TO ADD A COMMENT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE BUDGET, WE FEEL REALLY COMFORTABLE WHEN WE SAY THE LINE CONCERNING THE IDN. IT MEANS THAT ICANN COMMUNITY ITSELF ALSO -- I MEAN TO PUT THE MONEY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE HAVE, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE DETAILS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS IDN IN THE BUDGET. BUT IT JUST SHOW THAT WE GET SOME RESOURCES IN ORDER TO SOLVE, IF ANYTHING IS NEEDED LIKE AN OUTREACH OR STUDY OR ANYTHING THAT COULD HAVE FIGURE OUT THE PROBLEM.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. PAUL.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT. BEFORE ONE MOVES FORWARD ON GTLD ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND THAT REQUIRES THE TIMING TO DO SO.

WHAT I WANTED TO DO IS GO BACK TO THE EXACT WORDING OF THE MOU BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'RE INCONSISTENT WITH THAT WORDING, BECAUSE WE ARE REQUIRED BY THIS TO DEVELOP A STRATEGY FOR HOW WE GO FORWARD BY SEPTEMBER 30TH. I THINK TO KEY PART OF THAT STRATEGY IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE WHAT ARE THE RIGHT PARTS OF THE CONSTITUENCIES, THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND THE OTHERS, WHAT IS THEIR ROLE GOING TO BE IN DEVELOPING UP THE POLICY, BECAUSE IT'S BECOME CLEAR, I THINK N BOARD DISCUSSIONS, AND JUST PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SAYING THINGS TO US, THAT THE GNSO CLEARLY HAS A MAJOR ROLE, THE CCNSO CLEARLY IS GOING TO HAVE A PERSPECTIVE AND OUR COMMITTEES ARE GOING TO HAVE A PERSPECTIVE. IT'S A PROBLEM. SO WE THINK ONE OF THE THINGS BY SEPTEMBER 30TH IS ACTUALLY THINKING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT. AND I THINK WE HOPE TO HAVE THAT SORT OF PROCESS OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERED UP BY THE END OF THE YEAR. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE RAISED AND DISCUSSED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, RECENTLY POINTING OUT THIS -- WHERE WE ARE AT THE MOMENT.

>>VINT CERF: ALEX.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: PAUL, I FULLY AGREE WITH YOUR VIEWS HERE. I WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT WORRIED OF POSSIBLE IMPLICATION OF MILTON'S QUESTION WHICH IS WHETHER IT COULD HAPPEN THAT A CITIZEN OF THE U.S. WOULD USE SOME LEVERAGE OF THE MEDIA, OF THE LEGISLATIVE OR ATTENTION TO SOME OF THE OVERSIGHT ORGANIZATION IN THAT SPECIFIC GOVERNMENT TO HOLD ICANN TO SOMETHING THAT'S BEYOND THE LIMITS HERE.

IN THE SENSE THAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RESENTS VERY MUCH THE ACTIONS THAT ATTEMPT TO MAKE ICANN TRIP OVER TECHNICALITIES OR OVER VERY SPECIFIC -- I WOULD CALL THEM MINUTIA COMPLIANCE ISSUES IN THE UNITED STATES SPECIFICALLY. THOSE ARE THE STEPS THAT ARE AGAINST THE VIEW THAT ICANN IS BECOMING PROGRESSIVELY MORE INDEPENDENT AND ON ITS WAY TO ACHIEVE THE AUTONOMY THAT WE ALL ASPIRE TO. WE ARE ALL ON THIS BOARD COMMITTED TO MAKE ICANN MORE AND MORE AUTONOMOUS, AND THESE KINDS OF THINGS, IF THERE WERE THAT IMPLICATION, WOULD REALLY BE STRONGLY RESENTED.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: CAN I JUST OBSERVE -- I'M SORRY, MIKE. CAN I JUST OBSERVE THAT, FOR INSTANCE, ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO, AND MANY PEOPLE HAVE APPLAUDED THAT WE'RE SEEKING A REPORT FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION ON THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASPECT OF GTLDS. THAT'S A REPORT WHOSE TIMING IS BEYOND OUR CONTROL. SO IT'S PART OF THAT INPUT INTO HOW DO WE CONSIDER INPUT BY SEPTEMBER, AS WE THINK THROUGH THE PROCESS INTERNALLY, HOW THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS SHOULD WORK THROUGH THE ICANN COMMUNITY.

>>VINT CERF: MIKE, LET'S KEEP IT BRIEF BECAUSE WE'RE NOW IN OVERTIME.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I DO CONCUR WITH ALEX AND PAUL'S COMMENTS THAT WE DO NEED TO PROCEED CAUTIOUSLY. HOWEVER, IN ADDITION TO THE MOU, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT BOARD RESOLUTION 03168 WHICH WAS PASSED IN TUNIS WHICH STATES THE BOARD HAS REQUESTED THAT A REPORT ON NEW GTLD POLICY SHOULD BE COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2004, AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW GTLD POLICY SHALL COMMENCE BEFORE DECEMBER 31ST, 2004. AGAIN, THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS AND GUIDANCE IN THE MOU, AND I JUST WOULD LIKE TO BRING THAT TO OUR ATTENTION.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MIKE.

PAUL.

>>PAUL WILSON: THANKS VERY MUCH, VINT. PAUL WILSON FROM APNIC SPEAKING FOR THE NRO.

I HAD A FEW POINTS TO MAKE. HOPEFULLY I'LL MAKE IT IN FOUR MINUTES. JUST FOLLOWING UP FROM THE AFRINIC REPORT, THE RIRS, AS YOU HAVE HEARD, ARE CURRENTLY AND HAVE BEEN FOR SOME TIME SUPPORTING AFRINIC STRONGLY, AND ACTUALLY QUITE SUBSTANTIALLY IN ALL ASPECTS OF THE STARTUP PHASE, WHEREVER WE CAN ASSIST. WE'RE ACTUALLY VERY PLEASED WITH THE PROGRESS OF AFRINIC TO DATE. WE WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND THE WORK OF THE AFRINIC BOARD AND AFRINIC SUPPORTERS, AND PARTICULARLY OF OUR FRIEND ADIEL AKPLOGAN WHO IS THE FIRST CEO OF AFRINIC. I'D SAY ACTUALLY IF THERE IS A ROCKET UNDERNEATH AFRINIC, AS VINT CERF SUGGESTED, THAN ADIEL IS THAT ROCKET. HE'S DOING A GREAT JOB.

THE RIRS ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH AFRINIC IN THE FUTURE, TO THE RECOGNITION OF AFRINIC AS A FULLY FLEDGED RIR, AND TO THE DAY, VERY SOON WE HOPE, THAT WHEN THE AFRICAN INTERNET COMMUNITY IS ABLE TO JOIN US AND BE FULLY REPRESENTED IN THEIR OWN RIGHT IN THE WORK WE DO. SECONDLY, FOLLOWING UP FROM THE COMMENTS ON THE ASO MOU, I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY FIRSTLY THE ROLE OF THE NRO AT THIS POINT. THE NRO IS A STRUCTURE WHICH IS NOW WELL ESTABLISHED WHICH IS INTENDED TO ALLOW THE COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES OF RIRS TO BE CONDUCTED IN A MORE FORMAL FRAMEWORK THAN PREVIOUSLY. WE'VE COLLABORATED FOR MANY YEARS, AS MOST WOULD KNOW, ON VARIOUS JOINTLY MANAGED SERVICES, SUCH AS THE HISTORICAL ADDRESS POST MANAGEMENT AND REVERSE DNS TO NAME A COUPLE. THESE REQUIRE RIR COORDINATION, AND THE NRO IS NOW A FORMAL VEHICLE TO ALLOW THOSE THINGS TO HAPPEN MORE FORMALLY. WHEN THE NRO WAS FORMED LAST OCTOBER, IT WAS EXPLICITLY ESTABLISHED FOR THIS GENERAL PURPOSE, BUT IT WAS ALSO SPECIFICALLY SAID AT THAT TIME THAT THE NRO WOULD PROVIDE A VEHICLE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NEW ASO BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NRO AND ICANN. THAT IS BEING REGARDED AS AN IMPORTANT COOPERATIVE ACTIVITY OF THE RIRS. I SAY THAT BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH FROM THE NRO FROM THE ASOS IN LOOKING AT THESE ISSUES. WITH REGARD FROM THE COMMENTS FROM INTA, THESE WERE (INAUDIBLE) RIR BOARDS. THERE WAS A SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO THAT COMMENT ON THE ROLE OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WHICH CAME FROM GRODE GREISEN WHO IS ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, AND HE SAID DECISIONS BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ON GLOBAL POLICY WOULD ONLY TAKE PLACE IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT THERE IS NO MOU WITH ICANN. IN THIS CASE THEY TAKE THE PROPOSED ROLE OF ICANN WHICH IS ONLY TO PERFORM A FORMAL EVALUATION WHETHER THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE POLICY. IF THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE, AND SOME PEOPLE MAY BELIEVE IT IS, THEN THAT'S AN ISSUE TO BE RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH THE NRO STRUCTURE ITSELF, AND ACTUALLY NOT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ASO MOU. THE NRO MOU WAS SIGNED LAST OCTOBER BUT IT'S CERTAINLY OPEN TO REVIEW IN RESPONSE TO FUTURE INPUTS. REGARDING THE SPECIFIC ASO STRUCTURE, I'D STRESS THAT THE NRO DOES NOT HAVE A ROLE IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. IT DOES HAVE A ROLE IN ACCEPTING THE PROPOSED WORKING METHODS OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL, AND THAT'S REGARDED AS A MATTER OF DUE DILIGENCE BY THOSE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NRO; NAMELY, THE EC. JUST A FINAL POINT ON THE ASO MOU. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE GAC IS CONCERNED THAT COMPREHENSIVE LIAISONS BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE ASO AND OTHER BODIES AND I CAN CONFIRM THIS IS ENTIRELY OUR INTENTION. AS INTA THEMSELVES ACKNOWLEDGE, THE RIRS DO INTEND TO SINCERELY ENFORCE OUR COLLABORATIONS AND I WOULD LIKE TO CONFIRM AS SOON AS THE ASO MOU IS ESTABLISHED WE'LL BE MOVING ACTIVELY TOWARD THAT END. OKAY. AS A FINAL GENERAL COMMENT, HOPEFULLY ON A POSITIVE NOTE, I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE RIRS ARE AND PLAN TO REMAIN ACTIVE AND GENUINE PARTICIPANTS IN THE ICANN PROCESSES. WE'RE OLD FRIENDS OF THE INTERNET. WE'RE FRIENDS OF THE ICANN MODEL, WHICH IS A TERM I USE FOR THE SORT OF IDEAL ICANN, WHICH I THINK WE'RE ALL WORKING TOWARDS. AND WE'RE ALSO FRIENDS OF ICANN ITSELF. WE DO HOPE THE ASO MOU WILL BE APPROVED BY THE ICANN BOARD, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU, BOTH THROUGH THAT AND MORE GENERALLY IN THE FUTURE. THANKS VERY MUCH.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PAUL.

VITTORIO, ARE YOU THE LAST PERSON IN THE LINE?

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: LOOKS LIKE.

>>VINT CERF: WONDERFUL.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: THANK YOU. VITTORIO BERTOLA, CHAIRMAN OF THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BUT SPEAKING PERSONALLY.

SO I JUST HAVE A VERY QUICK REMARK ABOUT THE IDN, AND THEN SOMETHING MORE ABOUT WHOIS. ABOUT THE IDNS, WHILE LISTENING TO THE DISCUSSION BEFORE, I'M STARTING TO THINK THAT PERHAPS ICANN SHOULD DEFINITELY TAKE THE LEAD, BECAUSE I REALIZED THAT ALL THE PIECES ARE NOT GOING TO FIT TOGETHER ONE WITH THE OTHER. SO MAYBE WE SHOULD CONSIDER CREATING AN IDN STEERING COMMITTEE, MAYBE TALKING WITH ORGANIZATIONS THAT MIGHT BE INVOLVED SUCH AS THE IETF, ASO OR WHOEVER BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT CAN REALLY GET INTO A HUGE MESS AND IT WILL BE HARD TO FIX IT IN A FEW YEARS FROM NOW. ABOUT WHOIS, THE REASON I WANTED TO STEP TO THE MICROPHONE WAS TO PROVIDE A CONVINCING CASE FOR HAVING TO CHANGE THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF ANONYMOUS ACCESS TO WHOIS DATA. THERE ARE MANY OF THEM AND MANY POSSIBLE EXAMPLES, BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THE PRESENT SYSTEM IS PLAINLY ILLEGAL IN MANY COUNTIES OF THIS PLANET. AND I AM ASTONISHED THAT ICANN THROUGH ITS POLICY MAKING PROCESS IS STILL CONSIDERING ALL THE NEW POLICIES THAT ARE CLEARLY ILLEGAL UNDER A NUMBER OF LEGISLATIONS. IN ROME, WE HAVE BEEN HAVING THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF ONE OF THE EUROPEAN PRIVACY COMMISSIONS SAYING THIS IS ILLEGAL AND I COULD SHUT THE POLICE TO THE REGISTRARS AND SHUT WHOIS SERVICE DOWN. I JUST WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE ANY POLICY THAT COMES OUT OF THE GNSO IN TERMS OF WHO COMPLIES WITH THE LEGISLATION THAT ARE IN PLACE IN THE WORLD BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GOING TO SUBSTITUTE OURSELVES TO INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATORS SO THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, VITTORIO. WE HAVE ONE DANGLING PARTICIPLE THAT I DIDN'T REMEMBER. I WONDER IF -- I'M REALLY TIRED NOW. THERE WAS A QUESTION -- THERE WAS A QUESTION RAISED EARLIER ABOUT THE NATURE OF CONSENSUS. CHUCK GOMES ASKED THAT QUESTION. I WONDER IF BRUCE TONKIN IS STILL HERE. I DON'T SEE HIM. OH, THERE HE IS. BRUCE, CAN YOU POSSIBLY RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE CONSENSUS REACHED?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK IN REGARD TO HIS DIRECT QUESTION, WHICH WAS THE STATEMENT OF DID ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE DOT NET SUBCOMMITTEE AGREE WITH EVERY SINGLE WORD AND EXCLAMATION POINT IN THE REPORT, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT BECAUSE I WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE AND I WILL TAKE THAT ON NOTICE AND I'M SURE WE'LL RESPOND TO THAT.

IN THE MORE GENERAL STATEMENT ABOUT CONSENSUS, I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS PRODUCED A REPORT.

THAT REPORT WILL BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL WILL THEN VOTE ON IT AND AT THAT POINT WE'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION REGARDING CONSENSUS GENERALLY.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BRUCE.

>>CARY KARP: I WAS ON THE COMMITTEE. I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION IF ANYBODY IS INTERESTED.

>>VINT CERF: WHAT'S THE ANSWER?

>>CARY KARP: THE ANSWER IS PRETTY MUCH UNEQUIVOCALLY NO. THE SUBCOMMITTEE SPLIT HAIRS, DISCUSSED AS FAR AS IT FELT PURPOSEFUL, NUMEROUS VIEWPOINTS, HARMONIZED THEM TO THE BEST OF ITS ABILITY AND THE UNANIMITY WAS THIS IS AS GOOD AS IT'S GOING TO GET. WE ARE PUTTING IT FORWARD IN THE PROCESS. IT WAS NOT A UNANIMOUS PROCESS BY EVERYBODY THERE OF EVERY POINT THAT WAS ADDRESSED SUBSTANTIVELY.

>>VINT CERF: WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED?

OKAY. IS THIS ON THE SAME SUBJECT? I HAVE A DIFFERENT MATTER, THEN. PAUL, YOU HAVE A RESPONSE, I THINK, OR A QUESTION FOR MILTON, AND THEN ALEX, AND THAT'S IT. OKAY.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: MILTON, I WONDER IF I CAN ASK YOU A QUESTION.

MILTON.

>>MILTON MUELLER: RIGHT.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: STOP TALKING TO A JOURNALIST AND COME TO THE MICROPHONE.

>>MILTON MUELLER: JUST --

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I WONDER IF I CAN ASK YOU A QUESTION WITH, OF ALL YOUR MANY HATS, THE HAT OF THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY --

>>MILTON MUELLER: OH, YES.

OKAY. I ONLY HAVE ONE HAT.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: -- HOW WOULD YOU ADVISE -- HOW HAVE YOU THOUGHT THROUGH AND HOW WOULD YOU ADVISE THE BOARD IN THE THINKING THROUGH OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES THAT ARE RELATED TO THEIR TRYING TO DEVELOP THE NEW GTLD?

THAT WAS WE THINK ABOUT THE PROCESS, THE NEW GTLD POLICY DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION, HAVE YOU OR YOUR CONSTITUENCY GIVEN THOUGHT TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE APPROACH TO THAT?

>>MILTON MUELLER: YES.

WE DID ADOPT A STATEMENT ABOUT THAT BACK I THINK IN THE TIME PERIOD IN WHICH STUART LYNN WAS PROPOSING WHAT WE CONSIDERED TO BE A COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE IDEA OF WE'RE GOING TO FIX AN ARBITRARY NUMBER, AND IT'LL BE AN AD HOC PROCESS AND WE'LL MAKE UP THE RULES AS WE GO ALONG AND ANNOUNCE THEM ONE DAY BEFORE THE MONTREAL MEETING. WHAT WE BELIEVE IS A GOOD PROCEDURE IS TO HAVE A FIXED AND REGULAR SCHEDULE. YOU'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO ADD "X" NUMBER OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS EVERY SIX MONTHS OR EVERY YEAR OR EVERY 18 MONTHS. YOU CONSULT WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PEOPLE ABOUT THAT WHAT "X" IS. AND YOU HAVE A DEFINED PROCEDURE FOR DOING THAT. NOW, MUCH MORE CONTROVERSIAL AND POSSIBLY A POINT OF CONSENSUS WITHIN OUR CONSTITUENCY, POSSIBLY NOT, IS, HAVE AN OBJECTIVE PROCEDURE FOR MAKING THE DECISIONS ABOUT WHO GETS THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS THAT PEOPLE APPLY FOR, WHICH COULD EITHER BE AN AUCTION OR A LOTTERY OR, WHICH IS WHAT I PROPOSE IN A PAPER, SOME COMBINATION OF BOTH, SO THAT NOT ONLY WOULD YOU HAVE A FIXED PROCEDURE SO THAT IF SOMEBODY WANTED A TLD, THEY COULD SAY, OH, WE HAVE TO GET OUR APPLICATION IN BY JANUARY 27TH, AND THEN WE WILL KNOW BY APRIL 14TH, YOU KNOW, WHAT ITS STATUS IS. BUT YOU WILL ALSO HAVE A FAIRLY RAPID AND OBJECTIVE PROCEDURE FOR DECIDING WHO GETS THEM AND WHO DOESN'T.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: OKAY.

WELL, THAT'S -- THAT'S USEFUL. I MEAN, THAT'S YOUR, TO A DEGREE, A CONSIDERED POSITION ON WHAT THE ANSWER IS. HAVE YOU GIVEN SOME THOUGHT TO THE COMPLEXITY WHICH WE NEED TO THINK THROUGH ABOUT HOW WE ACTUALLY GO THROUGH A PROCESS TO GET TO WHATEVER ANSWER? PARTICULARLY, I SUPPOSE, I'M THINKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE GNSO HAS A PROCESS THAT'S A PROCESS, THE CCNSO IS CLEARLY GOING TO HAVE A CONCERN WHAT TO BE INVOLVED AS WELL. OTHER PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT TO BE INVOLVED. AND HOW DO YOU ENSURE THAT YOU ARE DOING A PROCESS WHICH DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE POACHER IS THE GAMEKEEPER?

>>MILTON MUELLER: I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT WE HAVE NOT GIVEN THOUGHT TO THE PROCEDURE, BECAUSE OUR ASSUMPTION HAS BEEN THAT IT WOULD BE A DNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE -- THESE ARE BY DEFINITION NOT CCTLDS. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CREATING NEW COUNTRIES OR NEW COUNTRY CODES. SO IT WOULD BE, IN MY MIND, EXCLUSIVELY A CC -- A GNSO PROCESS.

>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY, GENTLEMEN.

THIS IS -- THE HOUR IS GROWING LATE. AND YOU -- NO, MILTON, YOU WERE ASKED TO DO THIS. BUT I SUGGEST TO PAUL THAT THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT TIME TO HAVE A COMPLETE DISCUSSION.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: MY APOLOGIES.

>>VINT CERF: SO I THINK -- I HAVE ONE LAST THING FROM ALEX, AND I HOPE IT'S COMIC RELIEF.

AND THEN WE CAN CLOSE FOR THE EVENING.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: FIRST, AN ANNOUNCEMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO ME THAT THE ALAC HAS APPOINTED A LIAISON TO THE CCNSO.

AND SECOND, THESE SAME PEOPLE ARE TELLING ME OVER THE NET THAT THEY ARE ALREADY ORGANIZING A FOOTBALL, WHICH SOME PEOPLE WILL CALL SOCCER -- FOOTBALL TOURNAMENT FOR THE MEETING IN ARGENTINA IF A VENUE IS ASSIGNED.

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers