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 Links and information may be outdated or incorrect.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 Lisbon Portugal

Transcript - GNSO Policies for contractual conditions, existing gTLDs

24 March 2007

Note: Although transcript 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.

>>AVRI DORIA: We're going to start this one now, even though we're very --

Is the -- are we on the line?

>>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Yes, we are on the line.

>>AVRI DORIA: Is anyone else on the line? Okay, I'll go through na in a second.

You're going to kick me out of here in a short amount of time, so I want to start this one.



So starting this one, we had originally scheduled three hours.

We've definitely been shortened now.

We're going to try and get through what we've got to get through in the time we've got before the new gTLD meeting comes and reestablishes itself.

For an agenda, basically, first thing was -- let me go back up to the agenda.

First thing was to do a roll call.

Is anyone on the phone at the moment?

Anyone on the phone who's set at mute?

No, I guess we don't have anyone on the phone. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Okay. So in doing the roll call, I just want to go around the room and have people give their name, their involvement with this group, whether they're a member of the group or an observer, and the constituency -- of the task force, and the constituency that they belong to.

And I guess we'll start down on that end.

Stuart, can you start with sort of --

Basically asking everyone to sort of introduce themselves, their constituency, just so --


>>STUART DUNCAN: (Inaudible).

>>CARY KARP: Cary Karp, registry constituency.

And I am a member of the task force and a member of council.

>>JON BING: Jon Bing, Nom Com appointee and observer.

>>RAYMOND KING: Ray King, ICANNWIKI and AboutUs. And I'm here as an observer also.

>>GREG RUTH: Greg Ruth, ISPCP, member of the task force.

>>MARILYN CADE: Marilyn Cade, business constituency, member of the task force.

>>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Glen de Saint Gery, the GNSO secretariat.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'm just here as an observer.

>>AVRI DORIA: Bruce Tonkin, observer.

Avri Doria, NomCom appointee to the council.

Task force member.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Sorry. Liz Williams, ICANN senior policy counselor and the lead staff person on the Feb 06 PDP.

>>DAVID MAHER: David Maher, registry constituency, task force member.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Philip Sheppard, business constituency, observer, and substituting for sleeping Alistair Dixon.

>>JON NEVETT: Jon Nevett, registrar constituency, member of the task force.

>>DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI: Dirk Krischenowski from dot Berlin, observer.

>>BOB CONNELLY: Bob Connelly, registrars constituency, and one attending a meeting that says it's GNSO policies for contractual conditions. So I'm not sure I'm in the right place.

>>AVRI DORIA: Yes, you are.

>>BOB CONNELLY: And I'm observing.

>>ELIZABETH CEDILLO: Elizabeth Cedillo from the Federal Commission Communications from Mexico, observer.

>>AVRI DORIA: Thank you.


The next thing I had there was, it says, "Update of statements of interest."

One of the things that we need to do and haven't really done, I think, on this task force completely is the thing that we've been doing on all the working groups, is having submitted statements of interest.

We just sort of presumed on our councillor statements of interest.

So -- yes, goodness.

So one thing that we're going to need to do in terms of completing this is for everyone to send the list, one of those updated statements of interest, and updated statements of interest in the new style that basically lists not only who you are and where you're from, but what your actual interest is in the work of the task force.


REM and the IDN working group came out with a very good little template for that.

So Liz will send that around to the people in the group.

And if you could just, as soon as possible, submit one.

Now, one of the things that's to be mentioned on the meeting is that we're missing at least -- representatives from at least two of the constituencies, I believe, NCUC is not in the room, as is not the IPC.


Basically, going through the agenda, the agenda I had was review draft final report.

And by that I wanted -- I mean not necessarily a walk-through, as we've done in the past, but to quickly make sure that what is in the report is what people expect to be in the report, that there are no open issues, that there are no pending issues.

Another thing I'm going to ask Liz to do is basically just explain the sections and content that has yet to be added to the report.

Second thing, or third item after all this opening, is discuss any public comments received to date.

At the moment, that's ended up a null item, as we have not received any public comments yet to date.

The public comment period is open until the 28th.

There's every chance that we might get some, especially because we will be having a discussion of this in the open meeting, and if we do, that might precipitate a comment.

Then, basically, need to talk somewhat about the process to finish the task force's work, which means the post-comment period, there will be a final report that comes out.

We're going to have an on-list review period.

Do we need another phone meeting? And we'll get to all these issues, to do the voting.

How do we do the voting?

Who's voting? Then a schedule for when the report is sent to the council, and, you know, we have to get that whole schedule put into place that we don't have in place yet.

And then a brief bit of discussion, if we need it, on what is going to actually be reported to the council meeting, any other issues that come up.

So does anybody see anything in this agenda that needs to be changed, that needs to be added?

Obviously, discuss public comments can essentially be removed, unless we want to talk about the absence of public comments.

So anyone have an issue on the agenda? Null.


So on the draft final report -- let me bring it up there in case people want to look at it.

So it's been out.

It's been reviewed, or it's being reviewed.

Hopefully, everybody in the group has read it.

Do people have issues with anything?

Are there any sections that don't meet the expectations? I mean -- yes, Jon.

And, oh, yes, please remember to introduce yourself when you start to speak, because we do have transcribers transcribing.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Jon, would you mind if I just went ahead of you just to explain what's happened between --

>>JON NEVETT: I'd appreciate that.


It's Liz Williams speaking.

This document is the result of the L.A. consultations.

You remember, we finished the work on the Saturday afternoon.

This report has been out now for public comment period, for public comment period since the 8th of March.

The expectation that I would have from this meeting is that the group agrees that the text stands.

There are some things that I need to add in which Dan Halloran, our deputy general counsel, has reminded me need to go in, which are part of the PDP guidelines.

And they include impact statements on the cost of implementing and time of implementing a policy.

And I referred to those in this morning's session.

I don't expect that there would be much more to add, because nobody has given me any comments since L.A., and we don't have any public comments.

But I'm happy to take text edits as and where you need it to clarify language.

There is not a lot -- I'm just looking around at who's here.

We've got registry, registrar --

>>AVRI DORIA: There is the IPC and then NCUC.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: That means that by the end of the afternoon, we should have a fairly tight draft.

And the next stage of the process is for Avri to give a report to the council on the progress of the work and then to send the report to the council to do with as they wish.


>>JON NEVETT: Thanks.

Jon Nevett.

My question, Liz, is, in the recommendation sections, and recommendation -- I guess section 2, "Recommendation Summary," and section 2, "Recommendation Discussion," on pages 6 through -- starting on page 6 and going on for a bit, there are certain terms of references that aren't included in there.

And what was the -- the thought behind not including those?

>>MARILYN CADE: Jon, I'm, would you say what page you're on?

>>JON NEVETT: At least the way printed on my printer, page 6.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Avri proposed an improvement which said, number the recommendations 1 to 10, like we do in the new TLDs report, but put the term of reference that it relates to in that column there.

And I'm absolutely happy to do that.

But there were some things that related to term of reference that did not have any recommendations or have majority support.

So, for example, with respect to term of reference 3, there was no recommendation that had majority support, so it doesn't appear on that chart.

>>JON NEVETT: In the discussion --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: And that's the only one.

>>JON NEVETT: It doesn't -- because it doesn't appear on the chart, it doesn't appear in the discussion?

>>AVRI DORIA: No, but it does appear in the discussion.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: It does appear in the discussion.

>>AVRI DORIA: Page 14 is term of reference through discussion.

There just doesn't happen to be any recommendation coming out of it.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Jon, if you would like an improvement that says terms of reference 3, no majority-supported recommendation, in that chart, I'm happy to do that.

If that makes it clear for you. >>MARILYN CADE: Avri, I'd like to follow on this point when you --

>>AVRI DORIA: Let me -- okay, yeah, Marilyn.

>>MARILYN CADE: I'd like to follow on this point with an objection to that approach that I may withdraw, but at this point, I would like to express a concern about this approach.

We are going back to the constituencies for -- to develop an impact statement.

And I think it is very possible that during the discussions that take place, that constituencies may find themselves aligning and perhaps creating a majority support for a particular recommendation.

To not have the recommendation here in a way that it can be -- that it can be easily understood what the -- what it would take to achieve majority support I think is a failing on our part.

Because in some cases, there are nuances in the difference in the options.

And I would look around the room and ask if that's not the case from Greg and from Jon and from Philip, who's been filling in for Alistair. And if it is a nuance and the constituencies, such as the ISPs, the registrars, the NCUC, and the BC, were to say, Ah, we've sat down and discussed the nuance, we've decided and consulted with our constituencies that we now support -- I'm not looking at one of the options -- that would give it majority support.


>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Marilyn, can I just clarify something in your question.

I think that's a good idea, but I was just trying to take Jon's point about the representation in the table, because I think his suggestion is a good one.

You don't have a problem with his suggestion, do you?

>>MARILYN CADE: I was trying to make sure that I was on the same --


Just checking.

Because I'll do that, no problem.

If -- Avri, may I just leap straight to address Marilyn's point about term of reference 3.

Is that what you want, Jon? Or do you want to go through it in an orderly way? How would you like to triage?

>>AVRI DORIA: I guess I'm trying to understand -- excuse me.

I'm trying to -- I guess I don't understand what's being looked for.

In other words, we've --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: A majority-supported recommendation.

>>AVRI DORIA: -- gone through all of the terms of references several times, all the constituencies have come back several times with their vote for or vote against.

I assume that if any constituency wanted to come and say it was changing its vote, certainly we have the lists in the back that lists the number of constituencies that supported or didn't support.

And if that changed over the next week, then we would change the recommendations, or the listed recommendations.

But I'm not sure I understand what more you're asking for.

Okay, thank you.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: No, basically, we've got a report which has some recommendations that are clear and others which are less clear.

And our objective is to say, can we think a bit more intelligently about this and make a greater set of consensus recommendations.

That's the objective, yeah? Sounds like --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: How long do you want to take with that, Philip?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Not very long at all.

Because we feel that now having seen the -- the granularity, if you like, of some of the very specific questions that were asked, that where a few of those are quite close to each other in flavor, there is easy ground to say, well, okay, let's agree broadly on that, because that's the right general direction.

It's not a perfect direction, but it's our second-best direction.

The objective being that we can then have a report which is much clearer in terms of its total recommendations.

And we think that can be done very quickly.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Just to be quick, there's only one, in that term of reference 3 which does not have a recommendation attached to it.

Term of reference 3 refers to price controls.

The registry constituency did not participate in that.

I'm not going to speak for them, David, but they've made their position clear.

The IPC did not have a vote.

And the NCUC did not take a vote on price controls, because they suggested that more information was needed.

Avri did not vote on that.

Maureen did not vote.

So if you're suggesting that as that is the only one that doesn't have a recommendation attached to, it I'd suggest that it's a rather hard ask for you to get from the position that it currently is in the report to something that is a majority-supported recommendation.

>>AVRI DORIA: Let me find out if we need to correct -- collect a set of names.

Does anyone else want to speak? Jon wanted to speak.

Anyone else?


>>JON NEVETT: Jon Nevett.

Liz, I'm just starting from the top and looking at term of reference 1. And there's no recommendation after you say, "There should be a policy guiding registry agreement renewal.

Registry agreement should be a commercially reasonable length."

And then we stop.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: That's the only thing that had majority support, Jon.

>>JON NEVETT: Exactly.

But you just raised the point that the only thing missing was term of reference 3.

So there is an example of a term of reference, maybe it's 1.B, I don't know what the exact number is.

But there certainly was a lot of discussion about registry renewal.

Certainly there was discussion about whether having a mandatory bid process or a discretionary bid process or no bid process, and that doesn't appear in the table.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: On the table, it doesn't appear. It's supposed to be a table that is a high-level view.

>>AVRI DORIA: All right.

>>JON NEVETT: But that is missing from the table, is my point.

>>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. The table is only the ones that achieved support status. So that is a table of recommendations that achieved support status.

I guess I'm sort of loathe to start going back through it.

This group has sort of been unable to reach any sort of recommendations on any of the other things for six months now. And to say that -- and even coming into this meeting, people aren't coming in sort of saying, "And we have reached agreement on another recommendation for 2, another recommendation for 4," but to sort of say, "We'll spend some more time and see if we can sort of come to it" is sort of worrisome to me.

Marilyn, you had something --

>>MARILYN CADE: Chair, might I associate myself with my esteemed colleagues from the GAC who, too, suffer from not being able to work 150% of their time on behalf of ICANN, and so sometimes cannot do as much intersessional work as needed.

>>AVRI DORIA: So that's our new benchmark.

>>MARILYN CADE: No, no, but I just want to be clear that I'd like to focus on, if not the path forward that Jon and Philip and I were proposing, then what is the path forward; okay?

And let me just ask the question.

People are face to face, and it is often more effective to be able to examine an issue and see if it is possible, particularly because they are in front of their constituencies, to refresh a decision. That's a reality.

So sometimes, because we are face to face, we can -- We're going to give a report to the council, and the council is going to either have to -- the council is going to have to vote on it.

>>AVRI DORIA: But that's what we did in Marina del Rey. We went through everything and took another poll again just two or three weeks ago, or a month ago.

>>MARILYN CADE: At the council meeting that is going to be forthcoming to vote on this, I think it is important for us to provide the council with the opportunity to see. The way that you propose doing this limits the chart to those that had majority support.

I think you're hearing from at least three people here that we have concerns about that and would like to see.

Any other identified low-hanging fruit where we could quickly see by a show of hands is it likely -- are you and your constituencies going to try to reach consensus on one of the non-agreed recommends to move --

>>AVRI DORIA: I would contend that there's no more low-hanging fruit.

I think it might be reasonable to include a chart of recommendations that did not reach the level of low-hanging fruit.

>>MARILYN CADE: Madam Chair, might I suggest it could be fruit that we could reach with a small stepladder.

[ Laughter ]

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: I'm so pleased it's Saturday. It's Liz here. I have a suggestion if this helps you. What I suggest we might do, if this is acceptable to the group, this piece, as we are on this page, which is page 7, are the recommendations that have majority support.

I am more than happy to put a second chart behind it that said these are the things that we considered, this was the text, these were the things that we did not get full agreement on, because I don't want to re-open the whole debate, but it references and shows that significant discussion did take place. No problem at all.

>>MARILYN CADE: And as a tool -- it's Marilyn speaking. As a tool, for those of us who might want to try to reach majority support, that would allow us to turn to that section and see if it is feasible. Is that....

>>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Now, in creating that, are those stepladder fruit --

[ Laughter ]

>>AVRI DORIA: Are they easily visible in the other -- I mean, can we quickly look at a page and sort of say 3 point whatever is one of those? Is that something --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: I can help with you that Avri.

>>AVRI DORIA: It would help to do it now while we're here.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: The stuff that relates to term of reference 3, and I can pull that out immediately, that's fine.

>>AVRI DORIA: Can we start walking through it, though? If we're going to do this by one.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: So -- Do you want may to do that while you are doing your bag there?

>>AVRI DORIA: I am just looking for a pen so I can start marking things.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: If you turn to page 10, which is term of reference 1A about registry agreements and renewals, there was majority support for this, so that's already in the top-level chart.

1B --

>>AVRI DORIA: Wait, before I go on. Was there anything else that people had on 1A that they thought should be brought out there?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: I see what you want to do.

>>AVRI DORIA: And I want to make sure we walk through it with those who had concern and say was there anything else in term of reference 1A discussion that people thought needed to be brought forward?

And if you could mention it by paragraph, that would be good.


>>LIZ WILLIAMS: If you look at section 3.4, four constituency supported a recommendation. So it's already majority support.

>>AVRI DORIA: Right. And there was no other -- some of the --

>>MARILYN CADE: I'm sorry. Avri?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: It's the pieces about resumption of renewal.

>>MARILYN CADE: It's Marilyn. Might I call -- I think it's 3.5 on page -- sorry -- 10, where two constituencies along with Sophia and Avri supported the recommendation that there should be a reasonable expectation of renewal with a mandatory rebid.

And then two constituencies, along with Alan Greenberg, supported a discretionary rebid.

It's that kind of example, and I would say that actually 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, I would ask Jon and Greg and Philip to comment on that.

3.5, 3.6, 3.7 shows presently two constituencies, in one case, two constituencies plus two Nominating Committee members, two constituencies plus one Nominating Committee member, and two constituencies.

It's that example between 3.5 and 3.6 where I would see the feasibility of trying to reach consolidation.

On 3.8, that just captures what we have captured already in 1A.1 and 1A.2.

So I think, I would ask for Philip and Greg and Jon and anyone else on the phone related to this topic, I think it's 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 that I would like to see put into a low-hanging fruit via a stepladder approach.

>>AVRI DORIA: I think that bringing those out to that second --


>>AVRI DORIA: -- column is a good idea.

I think beyond that, I think if the constituencies at this point can come among themselves to an agreement where they change from one to the other, then that becomes worth taking further. But I don't know that -- I mean --


>>AVRI DORIA: And that's why I wanted to go through it in term of reference by term of reference and mark the ones that need to be brought forward.

>>MARILYN CADE: So let me just conclude, then, on term of reference 1B which is not referenced.

>>AVRI DORIA: First of all, I want to make sure that was fine with 1A is that we were bringing 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 forward to that second table. Liz, you've got that; right?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Just a question of clarification.

Was Marilyn I missed ID.

I'm trying not to be difficult. This is the whole point about why we had measures of support, isn't it? That if it had two constituencies or that -- it just wasn't going to get out.

>>AVRI DORIA: Right. But what they are arguing is now that they see it and they see there's no support, there's a possibility that in discussions this week, they can bring it to -- in other words, two constituencies can -- they can move together so that four constituencies are on the same one.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: That's a good result as long as we bind this process to a point where at some point this work is completed. Because this revolves around another draft and another consideration and another posting, and I would urge you to --

>>AVRI DORIA: I suggest that period is the end of the open review period. That we currently have an open comment period until the 28th, and that would seem a reasonable time --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Yeah, okay.

>>AVRI DORIA: And also, there is every considered possibility that we will get comments during the open comment period that could help us close some of these issues.

It could happen.

So at least until the end of the open comment period.


>>AVRI DORIA: So 1B, was there any --

>>MARILYN CADE: Yeah, I had a question that -- and Liz may be able to refer me to the chart I should look at.

4.2 and 4.3, there were two recommendations that were discussed. And one of them had to do with standardizing the renewal -- the right of renewal across all gTLDs, and a second proposing it be standardized except when there's an exceptional situation, referencing a footnote. There's actually not a footnote. There's a link on here, which I think is -- so it's hard for me to -- I need to figure out what the footnote is supposed to reference.

But my question is, what chart do I look at that tells me whether it's the same two constituencies? We only have six constituencies. So I'm confused about two supported, two abstained, two supported, two abstained, and whether it was the same constituencies.

Is there a chart I can look at?

>>AVRI DORIA: It should be in the annex 1 chart, should it not?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Marilyn, also just to clarify, the footnote relates to the December '05 term of reference 4 on contractual conditions. Because this term of reference did not relate to existing conditions for existing registries. It related to terms and conditions for future ones.

>>AVRI DORIA: It is probably good, though. It probably would help in the writing for two constituencies, to indicate which ones.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Sure. I can just put it in. That's fine.

>>AVRI DORIA: But from 4.2. So this is 1B. 1B.1, 1B.2.

Yes, you can tell from the annex 1 chart. It's on page 20, and that's where you have -- I mean, it would be handy to have it in the text, but it is in the annex 1 chart.

>>MARILYN CADE: Liz, I just want to ask a question about the interpretation of that.

We're saying that this relates to -- actually, why does this not relate to the contract renewal issue on existing TLDs where today some contract renewal processes have been standardized, but others have not been?

I'm not -- I, by the way, was a constituency supporting some variation. But I'm just confused about the interpretation that this recommendation does not apply to existing contracts. Since at the time of contract renewal, we recently saw, and in fact, ICANN chose to change the date of contract renewal on some registries over the objection of some in the community, that they did exercise changing the renewal process for registries.

So why does this not apply to the existing registries at the time of renewal?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: I just read the term of reference which says, amongst other things, the condition should be standardized across all future registry agreements.

>>MARILYN CADE: But a renewal is a future registry agreement, is it not?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: In that case, if you want do it like that, then I want to amend that text.

>>MARILYN CADE: You know, I think we should actually ask Dan, but my understanding, and it's just -- I thought future registry agreement here, because it was about existing agreements, was about renewals. And others may have had a different opinion, but we should get clarification one way or the other.

>>AVRI DORIA: I've got David in the queue. Did anybody else want to be in the queue at this point?

Okay, David.

>>DAVID MAHER: Well, just very briefly. This raises a great number of legal issues that we've addressed in our comments. And again, I will repeat, we believe this is out of scope and beyond the competency of this PDP.

>>AVRI DORIA: Thank you.

Yes, we've got that very well recorded at the beginning of the report, and thank you for repeating. It's important to remember that.

However, I guess I don't quite understand where the difference between -- I had assumed the same thing you did, that a contract renewal is a contract renewal. But I'm not sure what doesn't say that.

>>MARILYN CADE: That's why I was questioning Liz saying that this doesn't apply to existing. That it's only about the new GDP -- blee blee blee. It's Marilyn speaking, PDP '05 which is about future new gTLDs.

I thought this was about renewals of existing TLDs.

>>AVRI DORIA: Oh, so basically referring to sentence one in 4.1.

>>MARILYN CADE: I'm referring to the term of reference.

>>AVRI DORIA: Right.

>>MARILYN CADE: Where it says "across all future registry agreements."

And I thought this was about the renewals, right? Which is a future registry agreement.

In which case this does apply to PDP '06, not just --

>>AVRI DORIA: Right. That had always been my assumption.

>>MARILYN CADE: But I think to Liz's -- to agree with Liz, but we always thought this would have implications for PDP '05.


>>MARILYN CADE: Which is different than saying it only applies. And I just wanted to clarify that.

>>AVRI DORIA: That had always been my understanding, too.

But you're right, in reading that first line of 4.1, it is difficult.

>>MARILYN CADE: So that makes it, (A) important to figure out two supported, two abstained and that may be another area where we need to assess whether another majority of support can be achieved.

>>AVRI DORIA: Right. And those two proposals will be brought out to the thing, and it's probably good to look at the language in 4.1 to make sure it reflects the reality that these could apply, would apply.

Okay. Any other discussion on 1B?


Discussion 2A. There was a recommendation. Were there any other issues that needed to be brought out? I don't believe so.

I need to go back to the table, but I don't believe so.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Because the rest of it is majority support.

>>AVRI DORIA: So it had majority.

So moving on to 2B. There was a recommendation that came out. Was there anything pending that was still divided? I don't believe so.

2B? No, it was a strong level of support there.

Okay. 3.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: That was the one that does not appeal (inaudible). It's unlikely that that would shift.


>>MARILYN CADE: Liz, I'm sorry, I didn't --

>>JON NEVETT: This is Jon. Maybe we shouldn't editorialize of what's likely and not likely.

>>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. So I'd like to ask.

>>JON NEVETT: The vote on this one seemed like it was three constituencies for, two against, and one abstain, so it's not like it's --

>>AVRI DORIA: It's fairly close, in other words.

>>JON NEVETT: It looks that way.

>>AVRI DORIA: Right. Now, which are the paragraphs which pertain to recommendations here?

Yes, it was this long one.

>>JON NEVETT: 7.6 is a summary.

>>AVRI DORIA: Mm-hmm.

So basically these proposals, 3A.1, 3B.1, 3B.2 needed to be brought out to that table at the beginning. It was the 3A.1, 3B.1.

Where are they? That's a good question.

Where would we find those in the report?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: It's page 14. Sorry, it's Liz speaking.

>>AVRI DORIA: With trying to correlate with what's listed in annex 1 which has who voted for one, there was specifically a 3A.1, 3B.1, 3B.2, and so I am looking for the text of those, and where in the report do we find the text of those?

>>MARILYN CADE: It may be in an earlier --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: It's in an earlier version. So if you want me to revert to the earlier text, then that's fine.

>>MARILYN CADE: If you can find --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Oh, I have all the versions, so it's no problem to do that.

>>MARILYN CADE: But is it -- it's Marilyn speaking. 7.3 --

>>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, basically is the text.


>>JON NEVETT: What's 3A.13B.1 three B two?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Those were the options.

>>JON NEVETT: What were the options?

>>AVRI DORIA: That's what we took the vote on or level of support on?

>>JON NEVETT: This is Jon again. Let's start from the top. What was 3A.1? I assume that from your answer, 3B.1, 3B.2 were the options, but what's 3A.1?

>>AVRI DORIA: That was the response to examine whether or not there should be --

>>JON NEVETT: And what was the answer to that?

>>MARILYN CADE: The answer to that was yes.

>>JON NEVETT: So it looks like there was a majority support for --

>>MARILYN CADE: There should be.

>>JON NEVETT: I see three yeses, one no.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Majority support is four.

>>JON NEVETT: Who did not vote on that?

>>AVRI DORIA: Registry did not vote.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: IPC did not vote and registries did not vote.

>>JON NEVETT: Three/two, so that's the same thing.

So the first recommendation there is should there be a policy, so we should add that. And the second one is if so, here are the two options of the policy.

>>AVRI DORIA: So, in other words, in the table of recommendations that did not get made or did not get made yet, would be two of them, basically. One is there should be, or whether there should be, and then the two options that were presented, if there were to be.

>>JON NEVETT:This is Jon again. It makes sense in the chart to indicate that the vote was three to one with two abstentions. But that didn't -- based on how we characterized majority support versus nonmajority support, I guess. That should be, I think, indicated in the chart; right?

>>AVRI DORIA: Mm-hmm.

And in fact, if I go back....

Okay. So that covers it for 3?

And for 4, we had two recommendations. Is there anything more to be said on 4? I don't think so.

Term of reference 4, I believe it's all covered.

Term of reference 5, we had the one recommendation that had support. So I think that one is covered, or is there something more to add on?

Did you want to go back to 4 or --

>>MARILYN CADE: I just wanted to ask a clarification on 4. And it relates to 4 and it also relates to 6, I think.

In two places, we made a recommendation suggesting that an existing body, but maybe a body that has not met in one case, should be tasked with something, and that is in 4; right? Where we suggested that the ICANN board should establish a task force and an advisory committee to examine budgeting issues.

Didn't we hear in L.A. a little bit of feedback about there is supposed to be a budget advisory committee but -- I may get the name wrong, but it hasn't met for two years or something of that nature? And I don't think that the business constituency necessarily made a comment at that point, but we've made the comment in the past that the budgeting process should include representation from the user communities who actually purchase the registrations.

I don't want to dwell on this, but I just want to come back to, if asked a question in a public forum, which I think is a fair question, what's this look like? Is it, in fact, an existing body that already exists that this task could be sent to, and you just, indeed, to augment it with representation of users? Or are we actually talking about creating a particular group which always takes time to set up?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Marilyn, would you like me to just go back and find out the status of the group? It's a simple question to Kurt. Because if it has a correct name and we could use that as a conduit, then the report could be improved by referring to an existing group, correctly identified group.

>>MARILYN CADE: I think that's possible. I think also in the public comments it might be feasible that user constituencies who are the people who pay for the registrations might comment as well on what the composition of such a group should be.

But we need to know both, I think.

>>DENISE MICHEL: So the group that is right now --

>>AVRI DORIA: You need to introduce -- your voice is probably not recognized at all.

>>DENISE MICHEL: This is Denise Michel with ICANN.

Years ago there was a budget committee and a finance committee, but they have combined those roles, and there is just a finance committee of the board. And the finance committee of the board does not have representation by registrants or users.

>>MARILYN CADE: That's right. And that wasn't who I meant.

>>DENISE MICHEL: Is that not?

>>MARILYN CADE: No. It's a different group.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: This is Susan Crawford. There was once a Budget Advisory Group that did meet frequently. I remember hearing from Chuck about those meetings. It's a group of constituency people that did meet, not on the board, not board level. And this is what Marilyn is talking about. And I have heard it hasn't met for a couple of years. I don't know why.

I think Liz's question to Kurt makes a lot of sense.

>>MARILYN CADE: Yes, yes.

>>JON NEVETT: I'd like to raise a point on that. The Budget Advisory Group, hasn't met, hasn't been constituted for a couple of years.

I don't think the ICANN staff found it an effectual body.

So when drafting this, as part of the rapporteur process, I don't think we were talking about recreating that group to provide input. I think it was more of a board-level analysis of the budgeting process and how to increase constituent input into the budgeting process.

>>DENISE MICHEL: That makes sense.

>>AVRI DORIA: This was the first time I had ever heard that other board being listed as a possibility. Up to today it had always been to ask the board to establish something new, a task force or advisory committee, to look into this.

So this was the first time I had heard of the other historical entity.

>>MARILYN CADE: Then my friendly amendment to this recommendation would be something like the following.

The ICANN board should establish a board convened or board level or --

>>AVRI DORIA: I think we had left it open. And at this point, I'm not sure that re-opening this and, therefore, going back to constituencies and getting another vote on it -- I mean, amending something that's already a recommendation is --

>>MARILYN CADE: Then I think we just need to somehow be clear.

Because right now, the primary use of the term "task force" is by the GNSO; right?

>>JON NEVETT: The sentence says ICANN board.


>>AVRI DORIA: And for them to do it as best they -- I mean, if the council wants to add some recommendations to how the board can better do it, perhaps. But I think at this point we're just saying board, please do something.

Be a board and do something.

Okay. Thanks. I mean about this. They do stuff about other stuff all the time.

>>MARILYN CADE: Just for the record.

>>AVRI DORIA: Just for the record.

[ Laughter ]

>>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Anything else on 4?

Okay. So we went to 5. We had a recommendation. It had a strong level of support.

Was there anything else that needed to be put in the optional fruit basket?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Just from --

>>AVRI DORIA: Introduce you're.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Philip Sheppard from the BC. I sent through two to the list just now a comment we'd like just included as a new paragraph 9.6. It's in BC comments that have been made in the past on the group that haven't been recorded and we just want them for the record to be recorded, which talks about the need for -- it refers in fact to the existing recommendation from the task force for the study, and it just helps emphasize a couple of areas of scope for the study.

So we're not asking that to be agreed upon. Merely asking for the BC comments to be recorded in the same way other comments are.

>>AVRI DORIA: And the comment is?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: The comment specifically was -- was use of (inaudible) data for commercial purposes and giving an example of where that has been the case. So that it helps inform the scope of the study.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: It's Liz here. Philip, would you like it put in the section on 9 point --

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I see it as a new 9.6.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: 9.6? Okay. Done.

>>AVRI DORIA: Any other issues with term of reference 5?

Okay. Term of reference 6, there was a recommendation that went in. Does anything more need to be said in the second -- the new table that's being inserted?

Was any of this in --

>>MARILYN CADE: I don't think --

>>AVRI DORIA: Yes, Jon.

>>JON NEVETT: Just one thing in term of reference 6. Looks like the term of reference asked whether there should be a policy guiding investment in development and infrastructure. And I think there was unanimity in the position that there shouldn't be. So we probably should list that as a recommendation, that the task force together agreed that there should not be such a policy.

>>MARILYN CADE: But did --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Doesn't 10.2 address that, Jon?

>>JON NEVETT: I'm still looking at the summary chart.

>>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, it's not --

>>JON NEVETT: I think people are going to focus on the summary chart.

>>AVRI DORIA: That's something --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: You want it brought up to the front?

>>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. It's a point, everyone agreed, so there was consensus on it, so it never actually became one of the specific statements we looked for a statement of support on, but it was a consensus of the group that that was the case, yeah.

>>MARILYN CADE: Avri, I need a question for us.

I thought in the back of my mind again that there -- this was the second question that I -- I thought there was some swirling-around question about whether the SSAC -- we're recommending that this be referred to the SESAC.



>>MARILYN CADE: Was there any feedback about whether that was going -- going to be -- we're just basically saying, "This is our recommendation."

If the SSAC says no, that's their prerogative, but this is our recommendation?

>>AVRI DORIA: This is our recommendation to the council, that the council ask the SSAC.

But we haven't actually made an advisory -- given any advice to the council what to do if the SSAC says no.


>>AVRI DORIA: Jon, you -- I'm sorry.

>>MARILYN CADE: I wanted to, one, offer one other comment that is merely for the record. I'm not suggesting we change this. But one of the things that increasingly concerns me is that we are proposing taking comments from a group of existing registries with particular characteristics. And we are about to -- that basically are going to have to do with baseline requirements for the security and stability of registries, broadly. Okay, that's a very broad term. To me, that means all registries in the gTLD space, including in the future.

So we're only taking comments -- we're asking the SSAC to consult with the gTLDs registry operators.

I think we just need to be very careful about the fact that this is -- the security and stability of the registries also affects the DNS and it affects the registrars and it affects the rest of the infrastructure providers who move and manage traffic.

So as the council considers this, I'd like to be sure that those concerns are kept in mind.

>>AVRI DORIA: It does say, "Also should solicit and consider public comments."

So it's not saying just go to the registries. It's saying specifically go there, and solicit comments from all.

>>MARILYN CADE: I understand.

>>AVRI DORIA: And pay attention to them.

>>MARILYN CADE: But we're making this recommendation to the council -- to the council.

>>AVRI DORIA: Mm-hmm.

>>MARILYN CADE: If the SSAC comes back and says, "Not us," I think the council needs to be careful about the wording of any changes it puts in place, to make sure that there is broad enough consultation taken about the security and stability issues.

That's come up time and time again in the discussion that this task force considered with input and comments from ISPs and from the business constituency.

So -- and the registrars as well.

I'm not suggesting it change.

>>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, I understand. And it's a recommendation for the council. It's something that would probably be good to have it show up as a comment in comment space so that there are some comments. But, yeah.

Okay. Anything else on 6?

Anyone else have something on 6?

Okay. So, then, I think we have probably some fairly substantive changes that will show up in a next draft, which would probably be immediately after the review period, or as soon immediately as the one person doing it can, that would include -- that would include -- just to go back over it, it includes one addition to the front table, which is the recommendation from 6 that there would be no policy guiding investments in development and infrastructure. Then it includes another table that lists those recommendations that did not reach the defined level of support for -- those proposed recommendations, so that's proposed recommendations that did not receive a sufficient level of support to be recommendations.


>>JON NEVETT: To be majority.

>>MARILYN CADE: To be majority.

>>AVRI DORIA: To be supported or majority. We'll call them level of support. So supported recommendations.

>>MARILYN CADE: But, Avri, keeping in mind that, actually, we would potentially be putting in minority recommendations, right, if -- because minority reports can be included.


>>MARILYN CADE: So I think what we're trying to do is say -- right now says "terms of reference, recommendations." On page 7 -- it's Marilyn speaking -- hypothetically, this would now says, "Term of reference recommendations with majority support," or something like that?

>>AVRI DORIA: Or strong support.

>>MARILYN CADE: Or strong support.

>>AVRI DORIA: Since we weren't talking in terms of majority, minority, we were talking about strong support.

>>MARILYN CADE: The second shot would be a heading that says "Term of Reference, Recommendations" lack -- or with --

>>AVRI DORIA: It's not even med- -- right, with -- with -- I think we better -- that did not reach strong support.

>>MARILYN CADE: Good. Good, good, good, good.

>>AVRI DORIA: In other words, without trying to say what level they were within that.


>>AVRI DORIA: Because each of them are different. Was it 2-2-2? Was it 3-2.

>>MARILYN CADE: Right. So that serves two purposes. That allows us between now and the 28th to see if we can move any of them.

Secondly, it also can serve as the minority reports to the council for those who aren't changed.


>>MARILYN CADE: Does that make sense?

>>AVRI DORIA: Does that work for you?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Just -- it's Liz here. Just a clarification.

I am not expecting minority reports from any constituency. You'll be satisfied that the way in which you've just described it will serve the purpose of a minority report. You're not going to write something separate.

>>AVRI DORIA: You're saying that --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Excuse me. Are you going to write something separate?

>>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I didn't understand --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: I didn't mean that. Let me rephrase the question.

Will the group be satisfied with the second table that indicates where there was minority positions that did not reach majority support for recommendations?

>>AVRI DORIA: Or do you expect to submit some other text?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Or do you expect to submit something else?

>>AVRI DORIA: David, please.

>>DAVID MAHER: David Maher. The registry constituency plans to submit public comments.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Thank you.

>>AVRI DORIA: So those would get included from the public comment period.

I would assume that if constituencies or anyone has minority support -- I mean, minority reports to submit, they'll submit them within a time frame. I don't know we need to decide on a time frame after the -- the comment period closes. When do those go in? Those go in at the very end.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Could I suggest a work-around for you? If you are going to do it, then they need to be ready for the report to go to the next meeting of the council, not the one this week, but the next one. So that means that there was a two-week period, I would say that would be reasonable, between this March council meeting and the April meeting, and that that ought to be done so that the report can go to the council in the April meeting.

>>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So I think that we've just moved to the how do we do the end process here.

As long as -- But before we start that, I want to make sure that we've closed any comments that people have about the report itself.

So did anyone else have any other comments about the report and changes that they felt were necessary?

Yes, Marilyn.

>>MARILYN CADE: It's a question, really. And I think, as I look around the room, that I don't see an ALAC representative. Is that right?

>>AVRI DORIA: I don't see one today. There has been one in the past.

>>MARILYN CADE: Right. And I don't hear them on the phone.

>>AVRI DORIA: That's because they're all in --


>>AVRI DORIA: There's a full day of ALAC meetings going on.

>>MARILYN CADE: So I just would ask, if you could, Liz, to call to their attention the -- this issue of by the 28th. Because they're here in meeting, and I don't know what their feedback is, but --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: There's a couple of things I have to do with the ALAC on the Pro working group. So I'll do it both at one.

So no problem.

>>AVRI DORIA: I'll also mention it to the ALAC leadership.

Any other issues on the report? We have a list of things that need to be done. And they'll basically come in at the end of the comment period.

Any other comments on the report at this point?

Obviously, people will need to see the revised report. And then we'll have another discussion on whether there's any more that needs to be done on it before it goes through.

Okay. Now, in terms of figuring out the end, there's sort of the -- there's post-comment period draft, in other words, assuming that sometime shortly after the 28th, after 28th -- and it's really --

>>:(Phone) Timothy Denton now joins.

>>AVRI DORIA: Excuse me. Who just joined?

>>TIMOTHY DENTON: Timothy Denton.

>>AVRI DORIA: Hi, Timothy.


>>AVRI DORIA: Welcome to the meeting. We've just walked through the recommendations and a large part of the report. And we're --

This is the -- the Feb 06. Is this one that you care about?

>>TIMOTHY DENTON: No. I just want to get into reserved names, and I didn't know when to join.

>>AVRI DORIA: Reserved names is starting up sometime between 4:30 our time and 5:00.


I'll call in then. Thanks.

>>AVRI DORIA: So half hour to 45 minutes, something like that. >>TIMOTHY DENTON: Okay, great.

>>AVRI DORIA: Thanks.

Okay. So sometime after the 28th, there's the post-comment period draft. I don't know, Liz, when you're actually able to turn that around, with the more substantive changes.

Do you have an idea?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Glen, could I just ask for your advice, please? When -- or, actually, Bruce is not there.

>>AVRI DORIA: Bruce stepped out.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Glen, could you just look at the schedule for April, about when we could expect the GNSO council meeting to happen in April, please? Because that will determine when I need to do it. And I think -- I'm guessing that it's the 26th of April.


>>LIZ WILLIAMS: I'm guessing that that is the case.

And, Avri, if it is the 26th of April, I'm going to work backwards, giving the council seven days to consider the report, which would take us to the 19th needs to be done, and then it needs to be released to the group on the 12th to give the group a chance to make, vote, finish, send it to the council.

>>AVRI DORIA: That's assuming that it doesn't -- it -- whenever I've seen, like -- any of the other task forces or work groups that I've been with, when the final report comes out, it takes about a week before people have read it, discussed it, and are ready to vote on it.

So waiting until the 12th of April does cut it close, because it doesn't give time --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Marilyn was very excited about something. Marilyn.

>>MARILYN CADE: I just want to call everyone's attention, we'll give you this, but Greg just caught -- there is an error, the chart -- there's a discrepancy between the chart and the narrative. And I'll just reference -- Liz, I'll come talk to you, but it's on page 12, 5.3, where it's correct on the chart but wrong on this. So I'm going to say to everyone, the reason I wanted to call everyone's attention to it, you should all, just to -- for editorial purposes, look at the chart and look at the narrative and just check again, because it's very hard to get the two accurate. And we can help the staff by doing that. And let me --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Good. Can I just see you later on that one?

>>MARILYN CADE: Let me thank the ISPs for catching that.

Greg, in particular.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Avri, if we just went back to those three dates, Glen, how did you go with thinking it was the 26th?

>>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: The 26th --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Would be the council call?

>>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Yes. (inaudible).

Our -- confirming the results of the --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: The board election. Sure.


>>LIZ WILLIAMS: So if we worked backwards from the 26th of April, --

>>AVRI DORIA: Then we would need to deliver the report to the council by the 19th.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: By the 19th, which means that the group needs to get it on the 12th.

>>AVRI DORIA: Well, that's the -- that's the one that I'm questioning, whether the seven days there is enough for a review with the set of changes that we've talked about, a discussion on whether the set of changes meets everybody's expectations, and then either a meeting or a two- to three-day e-mail vote on everyone that's a member of the working group -- of the task force saying, yes, they support the report, no, they don't support the report.

And I don't know that that all can happen in seven days. Every time I've seen us plan one of those in seven, it's taken 14.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: If you don't do it then, it's going to be held over to the May council meeting, and I don't think that's acceptable.

>>AVRI DORIA: Unless the report can come in not the 12th of April, but before.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: No, it can't.

>>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So, in other words, -- so the -- after March, you're saying is -- 12th of April is the earliest that we can see the next version --


>>AVRI DORIA: -- of the report.


>>AVRI DORIA: Now, one thing that aids in doing that is, I know that there's essentially a week when the report is being reviewed by -- by, I guess, staff before we get to see it again.

Is it possible for us to see it sort of while it's in progress as opposed to waiting until staff has re-reviewed it?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: I'd suggest that that's not a good idea at this point, because I have to give Dan and John time to review it and make sure that they are happy with it.

So, no, I don't want to run a parallel process here, I'm happy -- because we're now reaching the end of the PDP guidelines, and I want to make sure that we do it properly so that they are actually reading the final version that the group wants to send to the council.

>>AVRI DORIA: But we won't know it's the final version that the group wants to send to the council until the group has actually seen it with the changes we've talked about.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: I know it's awkward.

>>AVRI DORIA: We're putting ourselves in risk of a whole other loop if we wait.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Okay. Let's not try to conflate the two things, then. It is not possible for me to give the group a version of the updated report before the 12th of April. So, working from that, what I suggest we do is the group takes the -- takes how long? That weekend, and do you want to conduct a call on the 17th? So that it can go out on the 19th to the council. Just a teleconference, confirm everyone, I'm on the phone, last-minute changes, that's it, and it's done.

>>AVRI DORIA: What do the other people in the room here think?

>>MARILYN CADE: The date is?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Tuesday, 17 April, which would be our normal PDP Feb 06 Tuesday conference call.

>>AVRI DORIA: Really? How coincidental.


A bit of a shuffle around. And then we would just finalize that, take the vote, and then I would ship the report on the 19th to the council.

>>MARILYN CADE: (inaudible).

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Remember, we shifted to daylight saving time.

>>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So does that seem reasonable to others?

>>JON NEVETT: Still not available on Tuesday afternoons.

>>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Then we should find for this one -- and because the next thing I'm going to go through is figure out who's actually in this group.

>>MARILYN CADE: If we could use a different date, because I think our IDN calls are -- if they're still going.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Of course. And the WHOIS calls are done for the moment.

>>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: So we could use Monday.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: you could do Monday the 16th. Is that all right for you, Jon?

What we should do --

>>AVRI DORIA: Let's work out a date on the list. Okay. But, basically, what we're going to say is that week, sometime between the 16th and the 19th, we've had a phone call. Does that seem reasonable to people here?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: What I'll do is I'll work with Glen, because we generally just work out the scheduling. And we'll send it around.

>>AVRI DORIA: I just want to make sure that the idea is, that means people would receive this report on the 12th, maybe a little earlier would be wonderful. But at least on the 12th. And then they'd have time to review it by a meeting on the 16th.

Does that seem reasonable to people?

That you -- that you would be able to do it over the four days?

>>JON NEVETT: What's happening in the period before that?

>>AVRI DORIA: In the period before that, on the 28th, the comment period ends. People have gotten comments in. Also, any of the groups that are reworking their levels of support have worked it out on the list, have announced it on the list. I guess we discuss it there, and a change goes in on the report. We can do that on the list, that there's a change.

I guess the rest of that period is Liz reworking the two tables.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: And putting in -- sorry. And putting in the additional text which is required under the guidelines, which is the impact statement, the time that it will take to implement it, the financial impact of a new policy. And those are the elements that I have to work with Dan on.

>>AVRI DORIA: And there's also the -- I guess at least a week of ICANN vetting the report.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: There's also --

>>JON NEVETT: That I don't understand.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: There's also Easter, which is important for those of White House celebrate Easter.

>>AVRI DORIA: I've been told that anything that comes out needs to be approved by ICANN staff before it comes out. It's a legal review. So I've been told that that needs to happen before it comes out. So I have sort of accepted the truth of that, because it seemed like one of those rocks I couldn't do anything about.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Because it's true.

>>JON NEVETT: You might -- this is Jon again.

You might not want me to do this, but Greg raises an interesting point that I think maybe would be helpful to get clarification here.


>>JON NEVETT: Because I'm looking at 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4, and I'm reading 5.2, and it looks like 2.A.1 and 2.A.2 essentially says the same thing and 5.3 says three constituencies supported 2.A.2, but then it goes on to 5.4 saying the strongest support was for another one.

So I don't understand how there can be stronger support when three constituencies supported one if we are saying a majority is four, because there are only six constituencies.

So maybe you could just --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: No, but remembering we're counting the Nominating Committee members in the levels of support. Remember?

So if Avri supported it with three other constituencies, that was included.

If Sophia supported it with three other constituencies, that was included.


So, and remember, there was the amended text at the very beginning of the document which said, "Levels of support would include," and there was a specific modification there at Avri's suggestion that -- and I wrote it in --

>>JON NEVETT: So if Avri supports 3.A or 3.B.1, then that would move it from not majority support to majority support?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: That's right.

>>JON NEVETT: All right.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: So if you look at 2 point -- so, Avri, you're now under pressure here.

>>AVRI DORIA: My arm hurts.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Not that I wanted to do that to you.

[ Laughter ]

>>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I guess we'll be talking before the 28th of March.

[ Laughter ]

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Oh, really?

>>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So, now, going back to our schedule, so we've basically gotten to the point where -- where was I writing that down?

So the intention is for us to resolve this in a meeting, either the 16th or 17th or -- I guess 16th or 17th of April, schedule to be determined.

Okay. So that's taken care of those two items.

There's the review period we talked about.

There's the -- another phone meeting to vote. And the answer to that was yes.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Avri, just make sure that you clarify for the group, it's not a meeting to vote on the recommendations. It's a meeting to vote on the status of the report to send it to the council.

>>AVRI DORIA: I had said it before, but I'll say it several times again. And that will be a meeting -- now, getting to the vote, when we talk about the vote, it's basically everyone who's a member of this task force. It's not a constituency vote at that point, though, of course, there are constituencies. There's up to three representatives from each constituency. And then there's the -- the Nominating Committee appointees. And it is a vote for that.

Now, when I look at the membership, when I pull the membership back from this report, I sort of get -- I'm not quite sure that we've dealt with exactly who the membership is at the moment. Yes, Marilyn.

>>MARILYN CADE: Could I make a comment. It's Marilyn.

You know, Mike Roberts had agreed to be on the task force, but then was never able to participate. Philip was there as an observer.

I guess I'm just going to comment on a slightly different approach, which was the approach used in the original WHOIS task force, it was used in the transfers task force, it was used in the -- in its approach, it was used in the recent WHOIS task force. And that was to assign a similar number of votes to each constituency. So in the original WHOIS task force, there were three votes per constituency. And in the transfers task force, there were three votes per constituency.

In the WHOIS -- the most recent WHOIS task force, there were two votes, because the average attendance, or the average consistent participation, I think, was two. But -- and then the Nominating Committee member who was appointed by the council, Avri, with a vote, had one vote.

Maybe we ought to do something here which is similar to assigning three votes per constituency, one vote for -- because the Nominating Committee members all, I think, participated. They each would have one vote. That way --

>>AVRI DORIA: I think, actually, in this case, only -- because Maureen participated, but she's in the here anymore. So Sophia and I, so that would be two of us.

>>MARILYN CADE: I was thinking --

>>AVRI DORIA: Now, we also had fairly steady participation --


>>AVRI DORIA: -- by Bret, from ALAC, in the beginning.


>>AVRI DORIA: And Alan as his replacement.

And perhaps there's a vote in there, too, or not.

>>MARILYN CADE: We have not typically given votes.

>>AVRI DORIA: I know.

>>MARILYN CADE: But we do record their statements.

>>AVRI DORIA: So, in other words, the recommendation you're making is three per constituency plus one each for the NomCom participants?

>>MARILYN CADE: That's my recommendation.

Some constituencies have had more attendees. That hasn't actually changed the membership. You know, John -- I think the registries added in a legal advisor.

>>AVRI DORIA: We've had -- especially when we went into the rapporteur groups, we went to a very wide set of people from the various constituencies.

>>MARILYN CADE: If you did -- if you kind of scroll down, three.

>>AVRI DORIA: Three, then we have blank.

>>MARILYN CADE: So you've got four in the BC, four in the registry. But for the rest of us, rest of them, you have roughly three.

>>AVRI DORIA: Right. And sometimes we've had very little participation from one constituency or another.

But I think just to take it flat, I think that's a good --

>>MARILYN CADE: But I want to make one other point.


>>MARILYN CADE: I also would propose that constituencies cannot split their votes. They need to cast them as a bloc. Because --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: (inaudible).


>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Just have -- surely, each constituency could have one vote.

>>AVRI DORIA: But if you're going to give the NomCom appointees a vote, then you'd be giving us a third of a vote. So you might as well give them three votes and give us one.

>>MARILYN CADE: Right. I -- but I'm not sure you really ought to let a constituency split their vote, because they're showing their constituency's consensus support for something.

>>AVRI DORIA: Well, it's -- we're talking about, though, not the constituency support for kind of -- we're talking about the task force saying, "This report reflects our work."

So I don't expect a constituency to split, but I really think it's reasonable to have the people say, and for each constituency to identify who are the three people that they think --


>>AVRI DORIA: -- are the task force representatives.

So I would suggest that -- because it's the people in the task force that are saying, "This represents our work. Yeah, we did it. Yeah, we got our constituencies represented."

They probably won't split. But I see no reason to prohibit them from splitting.

Does anyone have another view?

So I'd like to ask that by that 12 -- no, certainly -- no, by 12 April, by the time we get the report, for every constituency to have -- I mean, if the three people that are there are the right three, then that's fine. But if you've got four people listed, please inform me which are the three people that will be voting. And if the three people that are listed are the wrong three people, then tell me who the right three people are.

Make sense?

Actually, we probably need it sooner than that, because it needs to be in the report, of who actually voted for the report.

>>JON NEVETT: Could we -- well, we've got to see it first; right?

>>AVRI DORIA: Well, how we voted won't be there, but we should have the list, the names of the people --

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Of who will be voting.

>>AVRI DORIA: -- of who will be voting in the report.

So I'd actually like to ask for that by the 28th also.

Is that okay?

That each of the constituencies -- just make sure that the list is correct.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Just do it before the end of the week. Everyone's here, just get them -- when they're in the constituency meeting.

>>AVRI DORIA: Right. But I'm using that same 28th date that we've used for everyone's.

>>JON NEVETT: I can tell you for the registrars, that is correct.

>>AVRI DORIA: For the registrars.


>>AVRI DORIA: For the ISPs, it's correct.

We're doing it now.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: For the BCs, it's not correct. It will be Marilyn, Alistair, and --

>>AVRI DORIA: Yourself?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: -- and myself, I suppose, yeah. Yeah.


So I've got three there. ISPs, that was correct. Registrars was correct.

We've got to check with --


>>AVRI DORIA: Right. So for registry?


>>AVRI DORIA: So, in other words, not Jeff?

>>:No. He's the alternate.

>>AVRI DORIA: Right. But on those voting, it's those three.

On IPC, we will need to check with them, because I don't think there's anyone here.

>>:Stephen is around.

>>AVRI DORIA: And on NCUC --


>>NORBERT KLEIN: I will clarify it.

>>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. That's right, because your name's not on here and you're the only one here.

Okay. Is there anything else that I needed to cover in the end game process?

Let me see.

So then the council will have it -- well, they won't necessarily --

Now, when do we want to get this to -- in the best case, when do we want to get this to the board?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: The council considers it as it wishes.

>>AVRI DORIA: Right.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: And sends it to the board when it's ready.

>>AVRI DORIA: Right. But just like in --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: And then the board considers it when it wishes.

>>AVRI DORIA: -- (inaudible) you basically posited, we would like it to get to the board by a certain time. Do we have a positing or are we just leaving it open, we'll give it to the council and then --


>>AVRI DORIA: -- as soon as they get it done is good enough?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Yeah. Because it has to be added to the agenda. We can add it to the May agenda. Yep.


Okay. Now, the other item I had on here, which is basically -- and this is something that I was basically going to go through a list of the recommendations. So I'll take the recommendations as amended by the extra one. And also, I was going to list, even though we -- before we got to it, I was going to list the recommendations that hadn't hit the level of support yet.

So I had planned on doing that. Now, what day do I do this? This is not Monday; right?

>>MARILYN CADE: No. This is in the public --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: It's in the public forum, Wednesday.

>>AVRI DORIA: Wednesday.

All right. I will write up my view of what it is that are in these recommendations that didn't make it yet and send it to our list by Monday so that if anybody thinks I've got it wrong they can tell me before I get up there on Wednesday. And then I'll also list in the report. So, basically, it'll have recommendations with strong support.

>>JON NEVETT: Is there anybody, either Liz or Avri, it sounds like you guys are working on a similar chart or list of what is missing from this chart.

>>AVRI DORIA: Mm-hmm.

>>JON NEVETT: If we could get that chart or list by Monday, that would be incredibly helpful, because Tuesday's constituency day. And that would be very --


>>JON NEVETT: -- helpful in highlighting those areas where --

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Just the two charts? Just the one that has majority support and the secondary one?

>>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, yeah, Liz, these are the two that I'm planning to do in the report, so maybe if you and I sit down together and we make sure that we've got one report that is both what would be in the report and what I'll report on.

And then I'll send it out on Monday, and you guys can both use it for constituency and can correct me where I've got it -- or where we've got it wrong, or not quite right.

And then the other thing I'll put in is just a list of sort of the dates and process that we're going to go through.

Anything else that -- I mean, trying to get this done by 4:30.

>>JON NEVETT: We're there.

>>AVRI DORIA: Almost. It's 4:35.

Before closing this, is there anything else that anybody wanted to say about all this at the moment? Any other issues that we need to cover?

No other issues that we need to cover.

So I guess we're done.

Thank you.


>>AVRI DORIA: And of course he's not here to bug me to finish.

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy