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 Links and information may be outdated or incorrect.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 Luxembourg

GNSO Public Forum

Tuesday, 12 July 2005

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the GNSO Public Forum held on 12 July, 2005 in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg. Although the captioning output is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: MY NAME IS BRUCE TONKIN.
I'M CHAIR OF THE GNSO COUNCIL.
THIS AFTERNOON WE START WITH A PUBLIC FORUM COMPONENT OF THE GNSO MEETING.
THE AGENDA FOR THIS PUBLIC FORUM WILL BE FIRST AN OVERVIEW FROM THE CHAIR OF THE WHOIS TASK FORCE, JORDYN BUCHANAN, ON WHAT'S CHANGED SINCE THE LAST MEETING, AND ALSO WHAT ISSUES THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY LOOKING FOR INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC FROM.
AND WE'LL HAVE A SHORT PERIOD OF OPEN MIKE TO ACCEPT ANY INPUT THAT ANYONE WANTS TO MAKE VERBALLY.
WE ALSO HAVE AN E-MAIL ADDRESS THAT WE'LL HAVE OPERATIONAL DURING THIS MEETING THAT IF ANYONE WANTS TO SEND A COMMENT ON ANYTHING THAT'S SAID, THEY CAN SEND IT TO THAT E-MAIL ADDRESS.
FOLLOWING THAT, WE WILL HAVE PRESENTATIONS FROM THE CHAIR OF EACH OF THE CONSTITUENCIES OF THE GNSO, SUCH AS THE BUSINESS USERS, THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS, THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY, THE REGISTRIES, REGISTRARS, NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCIES.
WE'LL HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION FROM EACH OF THOSE CONSTITUENCIES.
AND THEN WE'LL JUST HAVE -- THE MIKE WILL BE OPEN FOR ANY ISSUE OR COMMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT YOU WISH THE GNSO TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
SO AT THAT POINT, I'LL HAND ACROSS TO JORDYN TO GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN WHOIS.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: WHERE DO I PLUG IN?
OKAY, THANKS, BRUCE, AND APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY THAT THE COUNCIL HAS GIVEN THE TASK FORCE TODAY TO PROVIDE A BRIEF UPDATE ON OUR WORK, AND ALSO TO ASK FOR SOME INPUT FROM THE ICANN COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE WORK ITEMS THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN.
START OFF WITH A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.
THE CURRENT WHOIS TASK FORCE BEGAN WORK IN OCTOBER 2003.
ACTUALLY, THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT TASK FORCES AT THE TIME.
THEY'VE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN MERGED INTO ONE.
SO THE ORIGINAL CHARTERS OF THOSE TASK FORCES INCLUDED WORK ON THE -- ON TOPICS -- A BROAD RANGE OF TOPICS RELATING TO BASICALLY HOW REGISTRARS ARE TOLD ABOUT WHAT INFORMATION IS PUT IN WHOIS, HOW DO THEY AGREE TO THAT, HOW THEY -- WHAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE IN THE WHOIS DISPLAY, WHAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE COLLECTED, WHETHER ALL OF THAT SHOULD BE PUBLICLY DISPLAYED, AND, SIMILARLY, THERE WERE SOME EFFORTS IN PLACE TO LOOK AT WHETHER THERE ARE WAYS TO LIMIT DATA MINING OF THE WHOIS DATABASE, AS WELL AS TO LIMIT SORT OF MARKETING USES OF WHOIS DATA.
AND, FINALLY, ONE OF THE TASKS OF THE INITIAL -- THAT THE INITIAL TASK FORCES HAD, AN OBJECTIVE OF IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF WHOIS DATA.
SO THAT -- WORK IN ALL OF THESE AREAS BEGAN IN OCTOBER 2003 AND HAS BEEN ONGOING FOR QUITE A WHILE.
WE LAST GAVE AN UPDATE BACK IN MAR DEL PLATA A FEW MONTHS BACK.
SINCE THEN, THE SORT OF KEY RECENT DEVELOPMENTS ARE, THE TASK FORCE COMPLETED A REPORT, SO FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH ICANN POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, AFTER THE TASK FORCE DEVELOPS RECOMMENDATIONS, WE PUT TOGETHER A REPORT.
IT'S PUT OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY, WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENTS INCORPORATED, IT'S SENT TO THE COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION.
SO WE ACTUALLY PREPARED A SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND A REPORT WITH THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS SINCE THE MAR DEL PLATA MEETING, AND WE HAVE -- THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS RELATE TO IMPROVING NOTICE TO REGISTRANTS THAT THEIR INFORMATION WILL BE BASICALLY DISPLAYED IN THE WHOIS SYSTEM, WHICH IS PUBLIC AND AVAILABLE TO ANYONE THAT HAS INTERNET ACCESS.
SO THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE GNSO COUNCIL HERE.
THE COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING THEM, AND I IMAGINE IF YOU STAY THROUGH THE COUNCIL MEETING, YOU'LL PROBABLY HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT LATER TODAY.
WE -- THE SECOND -- THE TASK FORCES ALSO DEVELOPED A SECOND -- A DRAFT SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS INTERNALLY RELATING TO SITUATIONS WHERE EITHER REGISTRIES OR REGISTRARS HAVE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THEIR ICANN CONTRACTS TO PROVIDE WHOIS SERVICES, ESSENTIALLY.
AND ALL REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS DO HAVE OBLIGATIONS TO PROVIDE WHOIS SERVICES.
BUT SITUATIONS MAY ARISE IN WHICH THOSE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH LOCAL OR NATIONAL PRIVACY LAWS, FOR EXAMPLE.
AND THE TASK FORCES RECOMMENDED IN THOSE SITUATIONS THAT IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THOSE SITUATIONS, THAT ICANN DEVELOP A PROCEDURE FOR RESOLVING THOSE CONFLICTS.
AND THE TASK FORCES ALSO DRAFTED A MODEL OR A RECOMMENDED, ACTUALLY, PROCEDURE THAT THE STAFF MIGHT USE.
BUT THE STAFF -- THE POLICY WOULD SIMPLY BE THAT ICANN DEVELOP AND DOCUMENT A PROCEDURE.
THAT -- THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE CURRENTLY IN DRAFT FORM.
THEY'VE BEEN SENT TO EACH OF THE GNSO CONSTITUENCIES, AND WE'RE WAITING FOR INPUT FROM THE CONSTITUENCIES BEFORE WE TURN THAT INTO A FINAL REPORT AND ALSO FORWARD THAT, HOPEFULLY, TO THE GNSO COUNCIL.
THE OTHER AND I THINK MOST SIGNIFICANT, DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE MAR DEL PLATA MEETING AND TODAY IS THAT IN RECOGNITION OF THE EXCEEDINGLY LONG LIST OF TASKS THAT THE TASK FORCE HAD ON ITS AGENDA AS THE RESULT OF THE MERGE OF THE VARIOUS TASK FORCES, THE COUNCIL HAS CREATED A NEW TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE TASK FORCE OR A NEW SET OF OBJECTIVES THAT FOCUS OUR WORK SOMEWHAT MORE TIGHTLY, AND I THINK HAVE ENABLED US TO SORT OF REENERGIZE THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ON THE WHOIS TOPIC.
SO THE NEW TERMS OF REFERENCE BASICALLY FALL INTO FIVE -- THERE'S BASICALLY FIVE TASKS THAT HAVE BEEN LAID OUT FOR THE TASK FORCE.
THE FIRST TWO ARE BASICALLY FOUNDATIONAL AND DEFINITIONAL IN NATURE.
THEY ARE TO DEFINE THE PURPOSE OF THE WHOIS SERVICE, AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT BROADER -- A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT, IN THE CONTEXT OF ICANN'S MISSION IS WHAT IT SAYS.
AND I'M GOING TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THAT SHORTLY.
SECONDLY, TO DEFINE THE PURPOSE OF THE REGISTERED NAME HOLDER, THE TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACTS THAT ARE DISPLAYED IN WHOIS, AND THIS IS ANOTHER TOPIC I'M GOING TO SPEND SOME TIME TALKING ABOUT MOMENTARILY.
THE THIRD AREA IN THE TERMS OF REFERENCE IS TO DETERMINE WHAT DATA SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND DETERMINE HOW TO ACCESS THE DATA THAT'S NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
SO, ESSENTIALLY, IT MAY BE THAT DUE TO PRIVACY CONCERNS OR IT'S JUST NOT NEEDED FOR SOME REASON, SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT REGISTRIES OR REGISTRARS DISPLAY IN THE WHOIS SYSTEM TODAY, IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO REMOVE THAT FROM PUBLIC DISPLAY.
AND IF THAT WERE THE CASE, WE WOULD ALSO LOOK AT HOW -- NOW THAT THAT INFORMATION IS NO LONGER DISPLAYED PUBLICLY, WHAT WE MIGHT DO TO PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TO IT FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED ACCESS.
THE FOURTH AREA OF -- THE FOURTH AREA OF WORK AND THE FOURTH TASK IS TO DETERMINE HOW TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS OF NOTIFYING REGISTRANTS OF INACCURATE DATA AND OF INVESTIGATING AND CORRECTING INACCURATE WHOIS DATA.
AND THE OBJECTIVE THERE IS, WE'VE IDENTIFIED THERE ARE MANY SITUATIONS THAT OCCUR WHERE WHOIS DATA IS INACCURATE FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.
AND WHEN THAT -- WHEN WE DISCOVER THAT THAT'S THE CASE, WHICH HAPPENS ON A FAIRLY REGULAR BASIS, WE NEED TO HAVE BETTER WAYS TO MAKE SURE THE REGISTRANTS KNOWS ABOUT IT AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE A WAY OF CORRECTING IT ONCE THAT HAPPENS.
AND, FINALLY -- I WILL NOTE THERE'S A SLIGHT CHANGE HERE.
PREVIOUSLY, YOU'LL NOTE THAT THE PREVIOUS WHOIS TASK FORCE, THE LIST OF WORK ITEMS THAT I HAD SHOWN WAS BASICALLY IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF THE DATABASE.
THIS IS A SOMEWHAT MORE NARROW DEFINITION OF THE WORK IN THAT HERE WE'RE ONLY FOCUSING ON ONCE WE'VE IDENTIFIED INACCURATE DATA, HOW DO WE MAKE IT CORRECT, AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO IMPROVE ACCURACY IN A MORE GENERAL SENSE.
AND THE LAST TOPIC IS ONE THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY -- WE'RE ALREADY WORKING ON AND I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, AND IT'S HOW TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS BETWEEN WHOIS OBLIGATIONS IN THE CONTRACTS AND LOCAL AND NATIONAL PRIVACY LAWS.
SO AS I MENTIONED, THAT WORK IS ALREADY WELL UNDER WAY.
THE OTHER AREAS ARE RELATIVELY NEWER.
LIKE I SAID -- THEY -- OR RELATIVELY LESS MATURE IN TERMS OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE, PARTICULARLY TASKS 3 AND 4, THERE'S BEEN WORK DONE IN THE PAST, BUT WE STILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK STILL TO RESOLVE IN THE TASK FORCE.
SO TODAY I'D LIKE TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT OUR FIRST TWO TASKS, BECAUSE THEY'RE RELATIVELY NEW TO THE TASK FORCE.
WE THINK THAT THEY'RE VERY IMPORTANT.
AND BECAUSE THEY'RE DEFINITIONAL IN NATURE, BASICALLY, WE'RE ASKING -- WE'RE TRYING TO DEFINE THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS AND THE CONTACT INFORMATION IN WHOIS.
AND THIS IS AN AREA WHERE I THINK A LOT OF INPUT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
AND SO TO THE EXTENT PEOPLE HERE IN THE ROOM TODAY FEEL THAT THEY HAVE VIEW THAT IS THEY CAN CONTRIBUTE TO EITHER OF THESE QUESTIONS, IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.
AND I'LL SORT OF TALK THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE UNDERTAKING AND GIVE SOME EXAMPLES OF SOME OF THE ISSUES PERHAPS TO FRAME THE QUESTION A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
BUT THE FIRST TASK I'VE QUOTED HERE ON THIS SLIDE THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THIS TASK.
AND I'LL READ IT OUT SO IT MAKES IT INTO THE TRANSCRIPT AS WELL IN CASE SOMEONE'S NOT LOOKING AT THIS POWERPOINT.
BUT THAT'S TO DEFINE THE PURPOSE OF THE WHOIS SERVICE IN THE CONTEXT OF ICANN'S MISSION AND RELEVANT CORE VALUES, INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LAWS PROTECTING PRIVACY OF NATURAL PERSONS, INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LAWS THAT RELATE SPECIFICALLY TO THE WHOIS SERVICE, AND THE CHANGING NATURE OF REGISTERED NAME HOLDERS.
SO THAT'S A FAIRLY BROAD RANGE OF CONCERNS.
BUT, ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE TRYING TO, WITHIN THOSE AREAS, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE -- WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THOSE AREAS, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS.
AND SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH, THERE'S NOT VERY MANY DEFINITIONS OF THE -- IF YOU WERE TO TRY TO GO OUT INTO, YOU KNOW -- DO A GOOGLE SEARCH OR LOOK BACK IN VARIOUS HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS, VERY FEW -- A LOT OF THEM REFER TO THE WHOIS SERVICE.
VERY FEW OF THEM TRY TO TELL YOU WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FOR.
SO YOU GET A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT HOW PEOPLE USE IT OR HOW THEY MIGHT USE IT OR HOW THEY DON'T USE IT.
BUT VERY -- OR HOW TO USE IT.
BUT NO REAL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FOR.
AND THAT'S ONE OF OUR FIRST OBJECTIVES, IS TO DEFINE THAT.
SO IN ORDER TO GET TO THAT DEFINITION, WE'RE DOING A FEW THINGS.
THE FIRST THING IS, WE'VE ASKED EACH OF THE GNSO CONSTITUENCIES TO PROVIDE US WITH CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS WITH EACH CONSTITUENCY'S VIEW ON WHAT THE DEFINITION OF THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS MIGHT BE.
AND WE'RE EXPECTING TO HEAR BACK SHORTLY FROM EACH OF THE CONSTITUENCIES.
THE OTHER THING WE'RE DOING IS, AT VARIOUS POINTS -- WHOIS HAS BEEN A TOPIC WITHIN ICANN FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW.
AND AT VARIOUS POINTS ALONG THE WAY, A GREAT DEAL OF WORK HAS BEEN DONE TO IDENTIFY NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WHOIS IS -- WHAT ITS PURPOSE IS, BUT WHAT IT'S USED FOR.
AND THOSE ARE TWO SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.
I'LL STEAL ANALOGY FROM OUR GNSO CHAIR, WHO SAID -- WHO POINTED OUT EARLIER TODAY, THE PURPOSE OF A HAMMER IS BASICALLY TO -- YOU KNOW, YOU TAKE A NAIL AND YOU PUT IT INTO A PIECE OF WOOD OR A WALL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF A HAMMER.
BUT THAT DOESN'T STOP ME, I COULD USE A HAMMER -- I COULD USE IT AS A PAPERWEIGHT, I COULD USE IT TO ATTACK SOMEONE.
AND THOSE THINGS ARE ALL POSSIBLE USES OF A HAMMER.
BUT THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE HAMMER IS.
AND SO WE ARE GOING BACK AND WE'RE LOOKING AT A HISTORICAL LIST OF CURRENT AND HISTORICAL USES OF THE WHOIS IN ORDER TO INFORM US WHILE WE'RE EVALUATING -- WHILE WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT THE PURPOSE IS.
AND SOME OF THE USES WE SEE, MANY OF THEM MAY BE VERY TIGHTLY RELATED TO WHAT WE THINK THE PURPOSE IS AND SOME OF THEM WE MAY FIND PEOPLE ARE USING WHOIS IN WAYS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY PART OF THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS.
IT'S POSSIBLE.
OR WE MAY FIND THAT EVERY -- THAT, ACTUALLY, THE PURPOSE IS MUCH BROADER THAN HOW PEOPLE ARE USING IT TODAY.
WE DON'T KNOW YET.
BUT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT.
I'M GOING TO GO BACK.
SO THIS IS ONE TOPIC.
I DON'T HAVE A LOT MORE TO ADD HERE.
BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT PEOPLE HERE USE WHOIS OR HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS MIGHT BE, I WOULD CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE -- I CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE COMMENTS.
I'D LOVE PEOPLE TO GATHER AT THE MIKE AND OPINE ABOUT WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE WHOIS MIGHT BE.
SECONDLY, AND THIS IS WHERE I THINK, ACTUALLY, PUBLIC INPUT WILL BE EVEN MORE USEFUL, BECAUSE PERHAPS A LOT OF YOU HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS IS, BUT I THINK WE CAN ALL -- ANYONE WHO'S A DOMAIN REGISTRANT CAN HELP US OUT WITH THIS ONE.
THE SECOND TOPIC IS, WE'RE TRYING TO DEFINE -- IF YOU GO AND YOU LOOK IN EITHER THE ICANN CONTRACTS OR A WHOIS OUTPUT, AND WE'LL DO IT IN JUST A MOMENT, BUT THERE'S CERTAIN CON- -- YOU'LL SEE CERTAIN TITLES GIVEN TO INFORMATION.
SO THERE'S A REGISTERED NAME HOLDER OR A REGISTRANT, THERE'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT, THERE'S A TECHNICAL CONTACT.
AND PRETTY MUCH EVERY WHOIS DISPLAY HAS IT.
EACH -- ALL REGISTRARS ARE BASICALLY REQUIRED TO GATHER THAT INFORMATION FOR EVERY DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION.
BUT WE'RE NOT 100% SURE WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE DEFINITION OF THOSE THINGS ARE.
THERE IS, ACTUALLY -- AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT IN JUST A MOMENT -- A PREVIOUS TASK FORCE, THE TRANSFERS TASK FORCE ACTUALLY DID ATTEMPT TO DEFINE THESE TERMS.
BUT THEY WERE DOING IT IN THE CONTEXT OF TRANSFERS AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE DISPLAY IN THE WHOIS.
SO WE'RE TAKING A LOOK AT THIS TOPIC AGAIN AND SAYING, LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THESE WORDS MEAN, OR THESE TITLES MEAN IN THE CONCEPT OF WHOIS.
THAT WAY, WHEN YOU GO AND REGISTER A DOMAIN AND IT SAYS ENTER YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT INFORMATION, YOU'LL KNOW SORT OF WHO TO PUT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ALWAYS CLEAR TODAY.
SO IN ORDER TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION, THE TASK FORCE HAS DONE TWO THINGS.
BASICALLY, WE'VE ASKED THE CONSTITUENCIES ONCE AGAIN FOR THEIR VIEW ON WHAT THE DEFINITION OF THE PURPOSE OF EACH OF THESE CONTACTS IS.
SO, ONCE AGAIN, WE EXPECT THAT EACH OF THE CONSTITUENCIES WILL PROVIDE US WITH, HOPEFULLY, VERY USEFUL STATEMENTS ABOUT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS.
THE OTHER THING, MORE OF A FACT-FINDING MISSION, IS, WE'VE ASKED THE USER CONSTITUENCIES, SO THAT'S THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY, THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY, THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY, AND THE ISPS, WE'VE ASKED THEM FOR INPUT ON HOW -- WHAT TYPES OF INFORMATION THEY PUT IN EACH OF THESE CONTACTS TODAY.
SO IN ORDER TO TRY TO DEFINE THEM, IT MAY BE INFORMATIVE TO LOOK AT WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING TODAY AND TO SEE IF IT MAKES SENSE AND WE CAN -- AND TAKE A GOOD LEAD FROM HOW PEOPLE ARE USING IT TODAY.
AND, AS I INDICATED BEFORE, WE'RE -- WE HAVE THE STARTING POINT OF THE PREVIOUS WORK THAT WAS PERFORMED BY THE TRANSFERS TASK FORCE AND SOME DEFINITIONS THAT THEY PUT TOGETHER.
SO I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE DEFINITIONS BRIEFLY.
SO THE TRANSFERS TASK FORCE DEFINED THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT IS AN INDIVIDUAL, ROLE OR ORGANIZATION, SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A PERSON, THAT'S AUTHORIZED TO INTERACT WITH THE REGISTRY OR REGISTRAR ON BEHALF OF THE DOMAIN HOLDER.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER NON-TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DOMAIN NAME'S REGISTRATION AND THE DOMAIN HOLDER.
IN ALL CASES, THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT IS VIEWED AS THE AUTHORITATIVE POINT OF CONTACT FOR THE DOMAIN NAME, SECOND ONLY TO THE DOMAIN HOLDER.
SO SOMEONE YOU CAN GO, YOU CAN TALK TO ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN TECHNICAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE DOMAIN.
AND, BASICALLY, YOU CAN TRUST THIS PERSON EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY THE DOMAIN HOLDER WHO CAN OVERRIDE WHAT THEY SAY.
PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE STARTED WITH DOMAIN HOLDER.
I'M GOING TO SKIP TO THAT, ACTUALLY.
SO THE DOMAIN HOLDER OR THE REGISTRANT, AS WE MORE OFTEN CALL THEM IN ICANN MEETINGS IS THE INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION -- WELL, THIS IS HOW THE TRANSFERS TASK FORCE DEFINED IT ONCE AGAIN, NOT -- IT'S A USEFUL STARTING POINT FOR OUR TASK FORCE, BUT IT'S NOTHING THAT WE'VE AGREED UPON.
THE DOMAIN HOLDER IS THE INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION THAT REGISTERS A SPECIFIC DOMAIN NAME.
THIS IS THE INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION -- THIS INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION HOLDS THE RIGHT TO USE THAT SPECIFIC DOMAIN NAME FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME, PROVIDED CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET AND THE REGISTRATION FEES ARE PAID.
THIS PERSON OR ORGANIZATION IS THE "LEGAL ENTITY," BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE RELEVANT SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE REGISTRY OPERATOR FOR THE TLD IN QUESTION.
SO THIS IS THE PERSON THAT GOES, SIGNS UP FOR THE NAME, AND AS WE JUST TALKED ABOUT IN THE SSAC MEETING, YOU MIGHT NOT OWN THE NAME, WHICH IS SORT OF A STICKY LEGAL POINT, BUT YOU HAVE THE RIGHTS TO THE DOMAIN, THEY'RE YOURS, AND YOU CONTROL -- ULTIMATELY, YOU'RE THE ONE THAT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT IN ORDER TO REGISTER THE DOMAIN.
SO THAT'S THE DOMAIN HOLDER.
AND THEN THE FINAL SORT OF EXISTING DEFINITION THAT WE HAVE FROM THE TRANSFERS TASK FORCE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE TECHNICAL CONTACT.
AND SO THIS IS -- THE TECHNICAL CONTACT IS THE INDIVIDUAL, ROLE, OR ORGANIZATION THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TECHNICAL OPERATIONS OF THE DELEGATED ZONE.
THIS CONTACT LIKELY MAINTAINS THE DOMAIN NAME SERVERS FOR THE DOMAIN.
THE TECHNICAL CONTACT SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DOMAIN NAME, THE DELEGATED ZONE, AND WORK WITH TECHNICALLY-ORIENTED PEOPLE IN OTHER ZONES TO SOLVE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS THAT AFFECT THE DOMAIN NAME AND/OR ZONE.
SO, HOPEFULLY, SPEAKING, IF THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE DOMAIN NAME AND IT'S TECHNICAL IN NATURE AND YOU HAVE TO FIX IT REAL QUICK, THIS IS THE PERSON THAT YOU WOULD CALL IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THAT PROBLEM.
OR JUST GENERALLY IF YOU HAD TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT A DOMAIN NAME, THE TECHNICAL CONTACT WOULD BE THE PERSON THAT YOU WOULD -- THAT YOU WOULD SPEAK TO ABOUT THOSE ISSUES.
SO DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS OR DIFFERENT DOMAIN NAME HOLDERS AND DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANTS BASICALLY TAKE DIFFERENT VIEWS AS TO HOW TO POPULATE -- OR THEY HAVE, REALLY, JUST DIFFERENT STRATEGIES AS TO HOW TO POPULATE THIS DATA.
AND I'M GOING TO SHOW A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES.
THE FIRST EXAMPLE I'M GOING TO SHOW ACTUAL WHOIS OUTPUT FOR IBM.COM.
SO I THINK MOST OF US HAVE HEARD OF IBM.
THEY'RE A FAIRLY LARGE COMPANY.
AND SO HERE AT THE TOP, YOU SEE THE REGISTRANT IS IBM CORPORATION.
IT'S THE -- THEIR MAIN HEADQUARTERS OR SOME ADDRESS FOR IBM CORPORATION.
SO THAT'S WHO IS THE DOMAIN NAME HOLDER AND THE PERSON OR THE COMPANY, IN THIS CASE, THAT'S ENTERED INTO THE CONTRACT TO -- TO REGISTER THE DOMAIN.
AND HERE BOTH THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT AND THE TECHNICAL CONTACT ARE THE SAME PERSON.
AND THIS PERSON IS NICHOLAS R. TRIO.
AND HE WORKS SOMEWHERE IN NEW YORK STATE.
AND HE'S GOT HIS PHONE NUMBER HERE, SO IT'S PROBABLY HIS WORK PHONE NUMBER.
YOU CAN CALL HIM PROBABLY DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS AND GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM EITHER IF YOU HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE DOMAIN NAME, EITHER TECHNICAL OR NONTECHNICAL IN NATURE.
SO THIS IS -- I WOULD GUESS HE'S -- LOOKS LIKE HE HAS AN IBM E-MAIL ADDRESS.
HE'S PROBABLY JUST AN EMPLOYEE OF IBM THAT WORKS ON THEIR DOMAIN NAME-RELATED ISSUES.
THAT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IF YOU'RE A BIG COMPANY, YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHOSE JOBS ARE TO LOOK AFTER YOUR DOMAINS.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, YOU'RE GOING TO LIST THEM AS THE CONTACTS IN YOUR WHOIS INFORMATION.
SO I HAVE A SECOND EXAMPLE.
BECOMING A FAMOUS EXAMPLE.
MCADE.NET.
AND HERE MCADE.NET.
THIS IS A PERSON THAT'S REGISTERED THIS DOMAIN NAME.
AND SO YOU SEE AT THE TOP IT'S A LITTLE BIT SMALL, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION HERE.
BUT MARILYN CADE, SO WE KNOW THE REGISTRANT LISTED IS A PERSON HERE.
THE ADDRESS LISTED IS ACTUALLY NOT HER ADDRESS.
I THINK IT'S THE ADDRESS OF HER REGISTRAR, ACTUALLY.
BUT IT COULD BE FOR OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT REGISTERED, THIS MAY VERY WELL BE YOUR HOME ADDRESS LISTED HERE.
OR YOU MIGHT PUT A WORK ADDRESS.
BUT, IN ANY CASE, THERE WOULD BE -- YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME SORT OF ADDRESS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL THAT WOULD OWN IT HERE.
AND THEN THE ADMIN CONTACT AND THE TECHNICAL CONTACT HERE BOTH ARE THE NAME -- ARE DOMAIN-DIRECT.
ONE'S DOT NET AND ONE'S DOT COM.
INTERESTING.
OKAY.
THEY HAVE ONE E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE QUERIES AND ANOTHER E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR TECHNICAL QUERIES, WHICH MAKES SENSE.
AND SO THIS PERSON, THE OWNER, THE HOLDER OF MCADE.NET HAS, BASICALLY, SAID OKAY, ANY PROBLEMS COME UP WITH THIS DOMAIN, I HAVE THIS COMPANY THAT I THINK I -- THAT SHE REGISTERED THE DOMAIN THROUGH, AND THEY'LL TAKE CARE OF THOSE PROBLEMS.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TALK WITH ME DIRECTLY IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES.
SO THAT'S ANOTHER APPROACH.
MANY INDIVIDUAL REGISTRANTS, ESPECIALLY FOR THE TECHNICAL CONTACT, YOU'LL FIND IS THEY'VE LISTED AN ISP OR A REGISTRAR, SOME SORT OF SERVICE PROVIDER, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO MOST OF THE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS THAT WOULD BE POSED TO THEM IF THEY CAME UP.
SO AM I AT THE END?
SO.
WE'RE ESSENTIALLY -- WE'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOU DO.
IF YOU HAVE A DOMAIN, WE'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOU DO.
WHAT INFORMATION -- YOU KNOW, ARE YOU LISTED AS THE REGISTERED NAME HOLDER?
IF YOU'RE AN INDIVIDUAL, IS IT YOUR HOME ADDRESS THERE?
WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU PUT IN THERE?
IF YOU'RE AN ORGANIZATION, WHO -- WHAT KINDS OF PEOPLE DO YOU LIST AS THE ADMIN CONTACT AND THE TECHNICAL CONTACT?
THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL TO THE TASK FORCE IN MOVING FORWARD IN OUR WORK ON WHOIS.
AND SO THERE'S TWO WAYS TO PROVIDE US INPUT.
THE FIRST WAY IS, THERE'S THIS MICROPHONE RIGHT OVER HERE.
AND ANYONE CAN WALK UP THERE AND CAN TELL US ABOUT THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES.
OR THERE'S THIS E-MAIL ADDRESS UP HERE.
IF YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT OR MAYBE CHECK BACK WITH THE HOME OFFICE BECAUSE YOU WORK FOR A BIG COMPANY; YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DO.
THEN YOU CAN E-MAIL US AT -- OH. I DIDN'T MEAN TO DO THAT.
YOU CAN E-MAIL US AT GNSO-LUX@GNSO.ICANN.ORG.
AND ALL YOUR COMMENTS WILL MAKE IT TO THE TASK FORCE AND WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
SO THAT'S THE END OF WHAT I HAVE TO SAY.
AND, HOPEFULLY, IF PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS, I'M GLAD TO ANSWER THEM.
OR IF PEOPLE HAVE COMMENTS ON ANY OF THESE TOPICS.
OH, THIS ADDRESS IS WRONG.
I'M GOING TO CHANGE IT SO YOU KNOW -- THE ACTUAL ADDRESS IS -- I'M GOING TO MAKE SURE I HAVE THIS RIGHT.
JUST GNSO-LUX@ICANN.ORG.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO E-MAIL, THAT'S THE ADDRESS TO USE.
PLEASE DON'T E-MAIL THE OTHER ADDRESS; IT WON'T WORK.
LIKE I SAID, I'M DONE TALKING NOW UNLESS PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS. AND WE WELCOME AND ENCOURAGE YOUR INPUT.
OKAY, BRUCE.
NO ONE'S INPUTTING, SO I THINK THAT TURNS IT BACK TO YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I THANK YOU FOR THAT, JORDYN.
SO AT THIS POINT, LET'S MOVE ON TO GETTING SOME REPORTS FROM THE CONSTITUENCY CHAIRS ON THE DISCUSSIONS AND THE ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS.
I SEE MILTON SITTING THERE IN THE FRONT.
YOU HAVE SOMETHING FROM THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY?
GO AHEAD, THEN.
ALL RIGHT, AT LEAST TWO MINUTES.
GRANT IS READY FROM THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS USER'S CONSTITUENCY.
>>GRANT FORSYTH: ANY OPPORTUNITY TO JUST SLIP AHEAD OF MILTON.
MY NAME IS GRANT FORSYTH, AND I'M ONE OF THE THREE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.
BEFORE I JUST GIVE YOU A QUICK UPDATE ON SOME OF THE MATTERS WHICH WE'VE DISCUSSED HERE AT LUXEMBOURG AND THE OUTCOME OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS, I JUST HAVE A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT.
I LOST MY BLACKBERRY ON THE BUS OR AT THE DINNER LAST NIGHT.
AND I JUST HOPE THE STRONGEST MAN IN THE WORLD HASN'T FOUND IT.
IF ANYONE ELSE HAS, THEY CAN APPROACH ME OR THE PEOPLE AT THE FRONT.
THAT WOULD BE MUCH APPRECIATED.
AND IF YOU DO FIND IT, DON'T TRY AND USE IT, BECAUSE IT WILL BE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE TO USE SEEING ALL CALLS GO VIA NEW ZEALAND.
MOVING ON TO THE MATTERS OF THE BC, JUST FOUR THINGS I THINK WOULD BE WORTH BRINGING TO YOUR ATTENTION.
THE FIRST ONE, WITH REGARDS TO THE STRAT PLAN, THE BC, AND IN PARTICULAR THE ROOTS, ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE WORK THAT THE BOARD AND THE STAFF HAVE DONE TO LAUNCH A STRAT PLAN FOR ICANN.
AND WE'VE WORKED VERY CLOSELY PARTICULARLY WITH KURT AND HIS TEAM TO REFINE THAT.
IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THAT PLAN IS NOT YET A CONSENSUS DOCUMENT.
THERE ARE SOME KEY ITEMS IN THERE WHICH THE COMMUNITY, AND PARTICULARLY OURSELVES, STILL HAVE SOME CONCERNS OVER, AND THEREFORE OUR RECOMMENDATION -- AND WE'LL PUT THIS THROUGH THE COUNCIL PROCESS -- OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE BOARD NOT ADOPT THE PLAN AT THE MOMENT, BUT, RATHER, CONTINUE THE GOOD WORK AND CONSULTATION TO CONTINUE TO REFINE THAT PLAN TO THE POINT WHERE IT IS A CONSENSUS DOCUMENT.
SO THAT'S THE STRAT PLAN.
THE OTHER ONE, THE NEXT POINT CONCERNS THE OPERATIONAL PLAN.
AND THE OPERATIONAL PLAN REALLY CAME ABOUT THROUGH WORK THAT WAS DONE PRIMARILY -- OR KICKED OFF IN THE FEBRUARY MEETING IN AMSTERDAM WHERE CONSULTATION WAS TAKEN ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
AND IT WAS NOTED THERE THAT THE -- IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO SPLIT OUT OF THE DRAFT AT THAT TIME THOSE MATTERS WHICH WERE TRULY STRATEGIC AND THOSE MATTERS WHICH DEALT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OPERATION TYPICALLY WITHIN A ONE-YEAR BUDGET CYCLE.
AND, AGAIN, THANKS TO THE STAFF AND, IN PARTICULAR, KURT IN DOING THAT.
AND, THEREFORE, GREATLY IMPROVING WHAT USED TO BE A RATHER DRY AND NOT PARTICULARLY HELPFUL BUDGET PLAN.
WE HAVE PROVIDED SOME COMMENT ALREADY BACK TO THE STAFF ON THAT, BOTH OF SUBSTANTIVE NATURE, THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT WE HAVE OR SOME CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE WITH SOME OF THE ITEMS IN THAT OPERATIONAL PLAN.
AND, AGAIN, THOSE MATTERS HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED BY WAY OF A PAPER TO THE COUNCIL.
AND ALSO, WE'VE PROVIDED SOME SUGGESTIONS AS TO THE WAY THAT THE PLAN CAN BE REFINED TO BETTER TIE IT BACK, FIRSTLY, INTO THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
AND ALSO, WITHIN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN, JUST SIMPLY ORGANIZING IT THROUGH NUMBERING AND TYING BACK TO THE BUDGET, TYING THE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN SPECIFICALLY BACK TO THE BUDGET.
SO WE'VE MADE SOME, HOPEFULLY, USEFUL COMMENTS IN THAT REGARD.
THE THIRD AREA I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON CONCERNS THE ROLE OF THE SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS IN POLICY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN ICANN.
THE BC HAS SOME CONCERN THAT IN THE LAST WHILE, THE ROLE OF THE SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS -- AND HERE I'M REFERRING TO BOTH THE GNSO, THE CCNSO, AND THE ASO -- THOSE BODIES ARE TASKED PRIMARILY TO DEVELOP POLICY WITHIN ICANN IN THEIR PARTICULAR AREAS OF INTEREST AND EXPERTISE.
AND WE'VE SEEN BY A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES WHERE WE THINK THAT THAT ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE SOS HAS BEEN UNDERMINED OR CIRCUMVENTED, AND IT'S OUR HOPE THAT IN -- AND WE'VE INITIATED THIS IN DISCUSSIONS IN SUPPORT OF OTHERS IN THE COUNCIL, DISCUSSIONS WITH THE BOARD AND STAFF TO FIRSTLY ENSURE THAT THERE'S, I GUESS, A BETTER FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SO AND THE BOARD.
THE BOARD BEING DEPENDENT ON THE SOS FOR ITS POLICY ADVICE, IT'S OUR VIEW THAT WE NEED TO -- THE SOS NEED TO HAVE A MORE CONSTRUCTIVE, MORE ENGAGING RELATIONSHIP AND WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BOARD.
ALSO, WE RECOGNIZE THAT NOW THAT WE HAVE A CCNSO UP AND RUNNING, THAT WE NEED TO, AS A COUNCIL, HAVE, AND WORK ON HAVING, A MORE CONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THAT ORGANIZATION, CERTAINLY WITH THE ASO, AND ALSO WITH THE STAFF.
AND WE'VE EXPRESSED OUR CONCERN THAT IN THE DEPARTURE OF PAUL VERHOEF, THAT THERE IS NOT AN IMMEDIATE MOVE OR DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE AN IMMEDIATE MOVE BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO REPLACE PAUL.
AND WE'RE, AGAIN, WORKING -- WE'LL BE WORKING WITH OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE CCNSO TO HAVE SOME MEETINGS WITH PAUL TWOMEY TO ADVANCE THE APPOINTMENT OF A V.P. FOR POLICY.
THE TWO EXAMPLES I JUST WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU WHICH GIVE RISE TO OUR CONCERN WITH REGARDS THE PLACE OF THE SOS, THE FIRST ONE IS IN THE DOT NET.
IT'S OUR CONCERN THAT THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN, WHETHER INADVERTENTLY OR OTHERWISE, POLICY-MAKING THROUGH CONTRACTING.
WE'VE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD ON THAT.
AND, OF COURSE, THESE ARE MATTERS OF OPINION.
AND WE'RE LOOKING TO WORK WITH THE BOARD TO ENSURE THAT THAT ACTIVITY OR THAT DIRECTION ISN'T PURSUED AGAIN.
AND THE OTHER EXAMPLE I'D BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION IS THE DEBATE, THE QUESTIONING THAT'S GOING ON AT THE MOMENT WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF NEW TLDS.
AND WHERE I THINK WE GOT TO IN OUR DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD, WHICH I THINK IS VERY CONSTRUCTIVE, IS THAT THE GNSO WILL GO AWAY AND DETERMINE A PATH FORWARD, AGAIN, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CCNSO, AND IN THAT, DETERMINE WHAT RESOURCES WE COLLECTIVELY NEED IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE POLICY AND BRING THAT BACK TO THE BOARD.
SO I THINK I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
AND HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS, BRUCE.
BUT, OTHERWISE, PASS ON TO MILTON, I BELIEVE.
THANKS.

>>MILTON MUELLER: YES.
THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY MET YESTERDAY, AND WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME READING GRANT'S E-MAIL.
YOU DEVIL, YOU.
ANYWAY, AS SOON AS WE'RE DONE, WE'LL GIVE THAT BLACKBERRY BACK TO YOU
(LAUGHTER.)
>>MILTON MUELLER: A LOT OF OUR TIME WAS SPENT ON ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS. WE HAVE A CHARTER PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE CHAIR CAN ONLY SERVE TWO TERMS AND OUR OUTGOING CHAIR IS AT THE END OF HIS SECOND TERM. THAT'S ME.
AND SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRANSITION ISSUES.
AS FOR THE WHOIS, THAT WAS WHAT WE SPENT MOST OF OUR TIME ON IN DISCUSSION OF POLICY ISSUES.
WE HAD DRAFTED -- WE ADOPTED A DRAFT WHOIS PURPOSE STATEMENT, WHICH WILL BE CIRCULATED TO OUR LIST SOON AND IS ALSO BEING CIRCULATED TO OTHER PEOPLE IN OTHER CONSTITUENCIES TO SEE WHAT THEY THINK OF IT. AND WE'LL CERTAINLY HAVE SOMETHING INTO THE GNSO BY THE JULY 21ST DEADLINE.
WE ALSO GAVE OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTING DIRECTIONS ON THE NOTIFICATION, RECOMMENDATION AND THE NATIONAL EXCEPTIONS RECOMMENDATION.
THE GNSO COUNCIL REPORT FROM OUR GNSO COUNCILLORS DISCUSS THE PROCESS ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE GNSO AND THE ICANN BOARD, I GUESS IN CONNECTION WITH THE DOT NET PROCEEDING.
WE DID NOT TAKE A SPECIFIC POSITION ON THIS; HOWEVER, WE DID POINT OUT THAT THIS IS NOT UNUSUAL. THAT THIS IS NOT A DEPARTURE. IT'S MORE LIKE BUSINESS AS USUAL. AND THAT'S SORT OF THE ATTITUDE WITH WHICH WE APPROACH IT. SIMILAR THINGS HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE. WE CONSIDER IT A FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURAL PROBLEM WITHIN ICANN AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING HAPPEN ABOUT THAT, BUT WE'RE NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT TO DO. SO WE'RE VERY EAGER TO DISCUSS THAT WITH THE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES.
WE DECIDED THAT IN TERMS OF NEW INITIATIVES ON POLICY ISSUES, ONE AREA WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT CLOSELY, ALTHOUGH WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS YET, IS CONSUMER PROTECTION, CONSUMER RIGHTS. THE CONSTITUENCY UNDERSTANDS ICANN'S MISSION IS LIMITED, BUT IT ALSO UNDERSTANDS THAT ICANN FREQUENTLY PASSES POLICIES THAT AFFECT CONSUMERS IN IMPORTANT WAYS, THAT AFFECT DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANTS, AT THE SAME TIME THAT THESE REGISTRANTS ARE NOT REALLY DIRECTLY END IN ICANN'S STRUCTURE, SO WE THINK THAT LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE ISSUES FROM THE STANDPOINT OF CONSUMER PROTECTION MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA AND WE NEED TO EXPLORE THAT.
WE THEN HAD A JOINT MEETING WITH THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND MOST OF THAT WAS SPENT DISCUSSING THE NEW TLDS ISSUE. BOTH OF US HAVE POSITION PAPERS STEMMING FROM THE EARLIER ROUND OF DEBATE WHICH WE BELIEVE CAN BE UPDATED AND MANY OF THE PRINCIPLES CAN BE APPLIED TO THE CURRENT DEBATE.
IN GENERAL, WE HAVE SUPPORTED APPLICATION-DRIVEN PROCESSES THAT ARE SCHEDULED, NONDISCRETIONARY OBJECTIVE PROCEDURES SUCH AS LOTTERIES FOR NONCOMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS AND AUCTIONS FOR COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS.
WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE SEPARATE OR COMBINED TRACKS FOR INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES. AND WE CAME TO AN AGREEMENT THAT WE PROBABLY WILL SUPPORT SEPARATE TRACKS BUT WITH A VERY STRONG PROVISO THAT THE SEPARATION OF THE TRACKS NOT BE IN ANY WAY USED TO DELAY THE INTRODUCTION OF IDNS. AND WE ARE WORKING ON THE WORDING OF THAT, SO I WON'T SAY ANYMORE. WE STILL HAVE SOME DRAFTING ISSUES TO RESOLVE ON THAT.
WE CREATED OFFICIAL LIAISONS BETWEEN NCUC AND THE ALAC.
WE HAD THE UBIQUITOUS .MOBI PRESENTATION AND WE CREATED AN AWARD FOR TASK FORCE WORK.
WE DIDN'T COME UP WITH A NAME FOR THIS WORK BUT WE ALL AGREED IT WAS COMPLETELY THANKLESS AND UNPAID WORK AND ABOUT ALL WE COULD DO TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO DO IT WAS TO GIVE THEM SOME KIND OF AN AWARD. I DO HAVE AN IDEA THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE REACTION IS. FOR THOSE OF HOW ARE ROY ORBISON FANS, THERE'S A SONG CALLED WORKING FOR THE MAN, AND IF YOU REPLACE "THE MAN" WITH "ICANN," I THINK IT WORKS. IT'S GOT A RING TO IT. SO WE'RE THINKING OF CUTTING A CD AND GIVING IT TO OUR MEMBERS WHO WORK ON TASK FORCES THAT GO ON FOR THREE YEARS AND TAKE ABOUT 20 HOURS A WEEK.
THANK YOU.
>>KEN STUBBS: MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD WE CALL IT THE MILTY?

(LAUGHTER.)
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'LL GIVE THAT CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU, KEN.
WELL, I CAN SEE WE HAVE ANOTHER PRESENTER HERE FROM THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP, IF YOU'RE READY, JUST TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON THE LAST FEW DAYS.
>>BHAVIN TURAKHIA: I JUST WANTED TO GIVE AN UPDATE. BY THE WAY, MY NAME IS BHAVIN TURAKHIA, AND I'M THE CHAIR OF THE REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THE SUMMARY IN TERMS OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE LAST FEW DAYS. WE HAD A JAM-PACKED SCHEDULE AT THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY MEETINGS. THREE SPECIFIC AREAS THAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE GNSO CONTEXT. THE FIRST ONE IS THE DISCUSSION OF THE ADD GRACE ABUSE PERIOD. IT'S NO LONGER BEING CALLED ABUSE BECAUSE THERE IS SOME DISAGREEMENT AS TO WHETHER THERE EXISTS AN ISSUE AT ALL OR NOT.
THE CURRENT BEHAVIOR PATTERN WE'RE SEEING LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, THERE'S A SET OF ALLEGED NUMBER OF REGISTRARS WHO ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF REGISTERING A BUNCH OF DOMAIN NAMES AND DELETING THEM WITHIN THE ADD GRACE PERIOD, TESTING A COUPLE FOR TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND KEEPING THE ONES THAT MONETIZE. THERE HAS BEEN NO CONSENSUS ON THAT PARTICULAR DISCUSSION. REGISTRIES ARE WAITING FOR -- THEY DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A -- WELL, THEY DO BELIEVE IT'S AN ISSUE BUT THEY DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A PRESSING ISSUE THAT NEEDS IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, AND THEY'RE WAITING FOR THE REGISTRARS TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF FEEDBACK IN TERMS OF HOW THE REGISTRARS WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT BEING HANDLED.
REGISTRARS HAVE HAD ONE PRESENTATION AND ARE INTENDING TO HAVE A COUPLE MORE PRESENTATIONS ON VARIOUS OPTIONS THAT WE COULD USE TO SORT OF ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, OR ADDRESS PORTIONS OF THIS ISSUE THAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH. I THINK THE SPECIFIC OVERRIDING CONCERN THAT'S MOSTLY BEEN PERVASIVE ACROSS THE REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY BEING IF THIS PRACTICE WOULD IN SOME WAY AFFECT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE REGISTRY FOR REGISTRARS AND CAUSE ANY SORT OF DEGRADATION IN THE REGISTRY'S PERFORMANCE, AND THAT WOULD BE A DEFINITE CONCERN FOR REGISTRARS. THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO TRADEMARK RIGHTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONCERNS, ET CETERA, BUT IN ESSENCE THAT'S THE SUMMARY OF THE ADD GRACE DISCUSSION.
THERE WERE MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS IN THE NEW TRANSFERS POLICY. AND I THINK THERE WERE A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT POINTS THAT CAME OUT FROM THERE. ONE OF THE GOOD NEWS THAT CAME OUT IS THAT, AS CHUCK GOMES SAID IN THE MEETING, A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE REGISTRAR DISPUTES ARE SORT OF BEING RESOLVED DIRECTLY AMONGST THE REGISTRARS. SO THAT'S SORT OF GOOD NEWS, AND THE FACT THAT VERISIGN MADE ONLY $765 OUT OF IT. BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT POINTS OF FEEDBACK THAT ALSO CAME APART OF THIS, AND ONE IS THAT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CONCERNS STATED OUT THERE IS THERE SEEMS TO BE LACK OF CLARITY IN TERMS OF THE ROLE OF THE REGISTRY AS AN ARBITRATOR. THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE THERE'S NO SPECIFIC PROCESS THAT DESCRIBES OR DEFINES HOW A REGISTRY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT TAKE A DECISION IN TERMS OF A CASE -- OR TRDP DISPUTE THAT'S PRESENTED TO THEM.
THERE'S ALSO CERTAIN CONCERNS THAT CAME UP WITH REGARDS TO THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO ACCURATE WAY FOR A REGISTRY TO IDENTIFY THE WHOIS INFORMATION OF A DOMAIN NAME AT THE TIME A TRDP DISPUTE IS FILED BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE -- 30 DAYS OR MORE FROM THE DATE WHEN THE TRANSFER PROCESS ACTUALLY BEGAN.
SO CONCERNS SIMILAR TO THESE WHICH CREATE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE REGISTRIES EITHER HAVE TO TAKE AN ARBITRARY POSITION OR CANNOT TAKE A POSITION IN AN TRDP DISPUTE. THAT'S ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WAS DISCUSSED OUT THERE.
AND THERE WERE POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS WITH REGARDS TO MODIFICATION TO THE CURRENT POLICY IN TERMS OF RECORDING THE WHOIS INFORMATION AT THE TIME A TRANSFER REQUEST IS PLACED AND PROBABLY PASSING IT TO THE REGISTRY AS A PART OF THE PROTOCOL. A COUPLE OTHER OPTIONS WERE DISCUSSED BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND IS A CLEAR DEMONSTRATION THERE'S NEED TO MAKE CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS TO THE CURRENT PROCESS TO SORT OF TAKE CARE OF THESE CONCERNS.
THE MOST IMPORTANT TOPIC THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY HAS BEEN IN REFERENCE TO THE DOT NET CONTRACT. EXTREME DISPLEASURE HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY ALL REGISTRARS WITH REGARDS TO CHANGING THE DOT NET CONTRACT, WHICH WE BELIEVE OCCURRED WITHOUT FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS.
REGISTRARS -- THE REGISTRARS HAVE DRAFTED A STATEMENT THAT WE'RE INTENDING TO SUBMIT TO THE ICANN BOARD, WHICH I'LL ALSO BE READING OUT HERE. THE STATEMENT IS BEING -- FOR THE FIRST TIME. I WOULD -- AT LEAST IN THE HISTORY THAT I'VE BEEN AT THE REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY HAS BEEN UNANIMOUSLY AGREED UPON BY ALL THE 32 REGISTRARS, 32 REGISTRARS WHO WERE PRESENT IN THE REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY MEETING THE LAST TWO DAYS. THE STATEMENT BASICALLY STATES THAT REGISTRARS TRUSTED THE ICANN BOARD AND THE ICANN STAFF TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY IN NEGOTIATING A NEW CONTRACT WITH VERISIGN FOR DOT NET.
REGISTRARS CONSIDER THERE TO BE A BREACH OF TRUST BY THE ICANN BOARD AND THE ICANN STAFF IN APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH VERISIGN REGARDING DOT NET THAT CONTAINS SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM THE ORIGINAL DRAFT DOT NET AGREEMENT POSTED ON THE ICANN WEB SITE WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC CONSULTATION.
WE CONSIDER THIS NOT ONLY A BREACH OF TRUST BUT ALSO BREACH OF THE TRANSPARENCY PROVISION WHICH IS THE ARTICLE III OF THE ICANN BYLAWS WHICH STATES THAT ICANN SHALL OPERATE IN AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT MANNER AND CONSISTENT WITH PROCEDURES DESIGNED TO ENSURE FAIRNESS; SPECIFICALLY, THAT ICANN WOULD HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IN CASE OF CHANGES THAT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THIRD PARTIES AND/OR INVOLVE ANY IMPOSITION OF CHARGES OR CHANGES TO PRICING.
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED. WHEN THE NEW TRANSFERS POLICY WAS IMPLEMENTED, VERISIGN NEGOTIATED A CHANGE IN THE REGISTRY/REGISTRAR AGREEMENT WITH THE ICANN STAFF WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE ICANN BOARD TO ACCOMMODATE THE TRANSFERS POLICY THAT CONTAINED CHANGES BEYOND PURELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TRANSFERS POLICY WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC CONSULTATION WITH ANY PARTY, INCLUDING PARTIES SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED BY THAT CHANGE.
ICANN STAFF AT THAT POINT IN TIME GAVE AN UNDERTAKING, ORAL UNDERTAKING, I BELIEVE, TO THE REGISTRARS THAT THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. IT IS THE REGISTRARS' VIEW THAT THIS VERBAL UNDERTAKING WAS ALSO BREACHED.
THE CHANGES TO THE DOT NET AGREEMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CONCERN REGISTRARS ARE THE MAXIMUM PRICE, DOLLAR FOUR POINT TWO FIVE INCLUDING THE ICANN REGISTRY FEE PUT FORWARD BY VERISIGN IN THE DOT NET APPLICATION ONLY APPLIES FOR THE FIRST 18 MONTHS OF THE NEW AGREEMENT.
AFTER THAT, VERISIGN IS FREE TO SET ANY PRICE THAT THEY WANT TO.
REGISTRARS WANT THE MAXIMUM PRICE FIXED FOR THE DURATION OF THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT. THE SECOND POINT IS VERISIGN IS EXCLUDED FROM THE NEW CONSENSUS POLICIES THAT RELATE TO THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW REGISTRY SERVICES OTHER THAN WHAT IS IN THE NEW DOT NET AGREEMENT. REGISTRARS WANT VERISIGN TO CONTINUE TO BE SUBJECT TO CONSENSUS POLICIES IN THIS AREA. IN FACT, I BELIEVE THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT LIMITATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED IN CONSENSUS POLICIES IN THE NEW DOT NET AGREEMENT AND THE REGISTRARS BELIEVE THAT THOSE CLAUSES SHOULD NOT EXIST OUT THERE.
THE THIRD POINT IS ICANN MAY NOT CHANGE THE ABOUT TERMS IN A RENEWAL OF THE DOT NET AGREEMENT AND REGISTRARS WANT ICANN TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE A LOWER MAXIMUM PRICE AT THE TIME OF CONTRACT RENEWAL, AND PROBABLY THERE ARE SPECIFIC CHANGES THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO HAVE RIGHTS TO NEGOTIATE AT THE TIME OF RENEWAL OF SUCH AGREEMENT.
WE THEREFORE WISH FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF THE DOT NET CONTRACT AS PER THE PROCESS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE FIRST PLACE. WE WOULD ALSO WISH FOR ASSURANCES THAT DUE PROCESS WILL BE FOLLOWED IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE FUTURE AND THE MAJORITY OF REGISTRARS SPECIFICALLY EXPRESSED CONCERN WITH REGARDS TO DOT COM.
REGISTRAR LIST THAT IS ACTUALLY -- THAT WAS PRESENT OUT HERE AND HAS UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO THIS, THERE IS ANYTIME SITES, AUS REGISTRY, TUCOWS, CORE, DEUTCHTELKOM, DOMAIN BANK, GO DADDY, WILD WEST DOMAINS, BLUE RAZOR, NAME.COM, NAME BAY, NETWORK SOLUTIONS, NAME SECURE (STATING LIST) REGISTER.COM, DOTSTER, STAR GATE. PRETTY MUCH EVERY REGISTRAR THAT ATTENDED THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY MEETINGS.
THAT SORT OF SUMMARIZES THE ENTIRE SET OF COMMENTS THAT I HAD ON THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY MEETING.
THANK YOU.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU. CLEARLY A GREAT DEGREE OF SUPPORT FOR THOSE COMMENTS.
DO WE HAVE SOMEONE FROM THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY THAT COULD SUMMARIZE THE REGISTRY MEETING? WE DO IN MARIA. WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP HERE? THANK YOU.
>>MARIA ZITKOVA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
HELLO, THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MARIA ZITKOVA, THE CHAIR OF THE GTLD CONSTITUENCY.
I WILL NOT HAVE A LONG SPEECH, JUST A COUPLE OF SLIDES FOR THE UPDATE OF THE DISCUSSIONS FROM THE GTLD REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY.
I MIGHT START A LITTLE BIT UNTRADITIONALLY, BUT I THINK THAT IT IS ALWAYS GOOD TO GIVE A LITTLE UPDATE AS TO WHAT OUR CONSTITUENCY ACTUALLY IS, BECAUSE OUR CONSTITUENCY CURRENTLY HAS 12 FULL MEMBERS, INCLUDING 7 UNSPONSORED AND 5 SPONSORED TLDS. AND IT IS A VERY DIVERSE GROUP. IT IS NOT ONLY ONE REGISTRY. IT DOES INCLUDE ALL REGISTRY OPERATORS CURRENTLY UNDER CONTRACT WITH ICANN, AND IT DOES ALSO INCLUDE ALSO SPONSORS OR SPONSORED REGISTRIES UNDER THE CONTRACT WITH ICANN.
WE HAVE COMMERCIAL AND NOT FOR PROFIT MEMBERS, AS WELL AS LARGE AND SMALL ENTITIES.
WE DO ALSO HAVE OPEN OBSERVER MEMBERSHIP FOR ANY ENTITY THAT HAS BEEN SELECTED BY ICANN TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT FOR A NEW TLD. THUS, WE HAVE ALSO FIVE NEW OBSERVER MEMBERS THAT ARE ALL THE TLDS THAT ARE CURRENTLY NEGOTIATING CONTRACT OR HAVE JUST AGREED TO ONE.
WE HAD A NUMBER OF MEETINGS HERE IN LUXEMBOURG. WE RECENTLY SPENT ONE FULL DAY IN CONSTITUENCY MEETINGS. WE HAD A WORKING LUNCHEON WITH ICANN BOARD WHICH WAS VERY PRODUCTIVE, AND WE HAVE HAD TODAY TWO SESSIONS JOINTLY WITH REGISTRARS TO DISCUSS ISSUES THAT ARE CONCERNS FOR BOTH CONSTITUENCIES.
ALSO, NUMBER OF OUR MEMBERS PARTICIPATED IN STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION ORGANIZED BY ICANN.
WHEN IT COMES TO ISSUES THAT ARE OF MOST CONCERN TO OUR CONSTITUENCY, PROBABLY RIGHT NOW ON THE FIRST SPOT IS IDN, INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES. WE HAVE WORKED VERY, VERY MUCH ON PREPARATION OF THE IDN WORKSHOP IN COOPERATION WITH ICANN, WE HAD IN TERMS OF DISCUSSION IN THE CONSTITUENCY, AND OUR CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS ARE PARTICIPATING ALSO IN OTHER ACTIVITIES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE RELATING TO IND.
WE ARE VERY PLEASED TO SEE CONVERGENCE FROM ALL INTERESTED PARTIES TOWARD WHAT IS LIKELY TO BE A PRODUCTIVE SOLUTION. AND IF YOU ARE INTERESTED MORE IN IDNS, WE WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO COME TO THE IDN WORKSHOP TOMORROW WHERE THE DETAILS WILL BE DISCUSSED.
ONE SUBJECT THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED QUITE A LOT DURING OUR SESSION WAS THE PROPOSED BUDGET AND OPERATING PLAN. I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE CONSTITUENCY HAS ACTUALLY SUBMITTED FORMAL STATEMENT ON JUNE 22ND. FOR TECHNICAL REASONS, IT'S NOT PUBLISHED ON THE ICANN WEB SITE BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS FIND IT ON OUR OWN WEB SITE WHICH IS GTLDREGISTRIES.ORG.
THIS MEETING IN LUXEMBOURG HAS PROVIDED US WITH A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS OUR CONCERNS WITH ICANN STAFF AND ICANN BOARD MEMBERS. SOME OF THE KEY ISSUES THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED WAS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE FUNDS AS THEY ARE ALLOCATED IN BETWEEN THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND INITIATIVES THAT ARE IMPORTANT FOR OUR MEMBERS. THE PRIMARILY ONE OF CONCERN WAS THE SECURITY AND STABILITY AND DNSSEC AND IDNS.
WE DO ENCOURAGE ICANN TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP FUNDING SOURCES FROM NON- GTLD SOURCES BECAUSE WE ARE FOREVER -- THE CURRENT BUDGET HAS OVER 92 PERCENT OF THE FUNDING FROM GTLD REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS DEVELOP INTO A MORE BALANCED BUDGET.
WHILE WE CAN DISCUSS, AND I THINK MANY OF YOU DID, LOTS OF CONCERNS ABOUT BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONSULTATIVE PROCESS, ONE OF THE ISSUES AND CONCERNS WE HAVE CONCERNING THE BUDGET DOESN'T REALLY CONCERN STAFF OR BOARD, BUT DOES CONCERN EVERYONE IN THE ROOM AND PERHAPS ALSO OUTSIDE. WE DID NOTICE VERY LITTLE COMMENTS TO THE BUDGET ON THE ICANN WEB SITE. WE DIDN'T NOTICE COMMENTS FROM OTHER CONSTITUENCIES BEING POSTED THERE, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO SHARE THEIR VIEWS, BECAUSE THIS IS THE MOST PRODUCTIVE WAY HOW WE CAN ACTUALLY GET TO THE BUDGET.
NOW, WHEN IT COMES TO WHOIS, WHICH IS OF VAST CONCERN TO THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE SUBJECT OF IMPROVING NOTIFICATION TO REGISTERED NAME HOLDERS, AND WE REALIZED THAT THERE IS A NEED TO BALANCE THE NEEDS TO INFORM THE REGISTRANT. BUT IT MUST BE BALANCED WITH SOLUTIONS THAT ARE PRACTICAL, THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE EFFECTIVELY DONE BY REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES IN WHATEVER COUNTRIES THEY OPERATE.
AND WE HOPE THAT THE TASK FORCE IS ACTUALLY GOING TO AGREE ON SOME PRAGMATIC SOLUTION.
THE SECOND AREA OF CONCERN FROM THE WHOIS TO REGISTRIES IS THE PROCEDURE FOR CONFLICTS WITH NATIONAL LAW. THE KEY REASON THERE IS THAT WE DO HAVE MEMBERS IN OUR CONSTITUENCY THAT ARE BASED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES IN COUNTRIES WHICH DO HAVE PRIVACY LAWS, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS ISSUE IN PROGRESS AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT ADDRESSED.
WE HAD A JOINT MEETING WITH REGISTRARS BUT I BELIEVE YOU HAD MOST OF IT FROM BHAVIN, SO I WILL NOT REPEAT THE DETAILS. WE JUST DISCUSSED WHOIS, TRANSFER POLICY, ADD GRACE PERIODS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DNSSEC. AND I THINK WE FOUND THIS MEETING VERY USEFUL FOR EXCHANGE OF VIEWS.
THANK YOU.
ONE MORE LITTLE DETAIL. IF YOU NEED TO FIND SOME PAST STATEMENTS FROM THE CONSTITUENCY YOU CAN ALWAYS SURF TO OUR WEB SITE WHICH WE HAVE REVISED DURING THIS YEAR.
THANKS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MARIE. LET'S JUST ENCOURAGE THOSE WHO HAVE MADE PRESENTATIONS SO FAR TODAY TO E-MAIL WHAT PRESENTATION MATERIAL THEY HAVE TO THE COUNCIL. I'VE JUST DONE IT FOR THE REGISTRARS BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO HAVE A COPY OF THE PUBLIC REGISTRARS LIST, BUT IF MILTON WOULDN'T MIND, IF HE IS WORKING OFF EMAIL AND NOT OFF PC NOTES, JUST MANAGING TO CONVEY IT TO SOMEONE HERE SO THEY CAN PUT IT ON THE COUNCIL LIST, AND THE SAME FOR MARIE.
I'LL INTRODUCE THE NEXT SPEAKER, WHICH IS TONY HOLMES, TO GIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS CONSTITUENCY.
>>TONY HOLMES: THANK YOU, BRUCE. TONY HOLMES FOR THE ISP AND CONNECTIVITY PROVIDERS.
WE MET YESTERDAY AND THE AGENDA WE HAD FOLLOWED MANY OF THE ISSUES WHICH YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT PREVIOUSLY. THE FIRST THING WE DID WAS LOOK AT WHOIS AND GAVE THE CONSTITUENCY AN UPDATE OF WHERE THAT CURRENTLY SITS.
AND IN DOING THAT, WE STEPPED THROUGH AND ENDORSED THE VIEWS OF THE CONSTITUENCY TOWARDS WHOIS. AND I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE JUST RUNNING OVER WHAT THEY ARE.
THE KEY -- THERE ARE FOUR KEY ELEMENTS FOR THE ISPCP.
THE FIRST IS ALL ELEMENTS CONTINUE TO BE COLLECTED AND DISPLAYED FOR THOSE AUTHORIZED TO OBTAIN ACCESS.
THE SECOND POINT BEING THAT ADEQUATE AND FULL DISCLOSURE MUST BE PROVIDED REGARDING THE USES OF DATA.
THE THIRD POINT, ANONYMOUS GTLD REGISTRATIONS CONTINUE TO BE MADE, ALLOWED FOR INDIVIDUALS THROUGH CURRENT PROCEDURES.
AND THE ISPCP ALSO SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT OF TIERED ACCESS AS A PRINCIPLE, ALTHOUGH IN SAYING THAT WE DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH COST ENFORCEMENT AND RECOGNIZE SOME OF THE PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS AND SOME OF THE ISSUES AROUND IMPLEMENTATION THAT WOULD OCCUR WITH THAT, RECOGNIZING THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND WORK TO MAKE IT OPERATE IN AN EFFECTIVE MANNER.
THE SECOND ISSUE AND AN ISSUE THAT CAUSED QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION WAS THE STRATEGIC PLAN. THE VIEWS OF THE ISPCP TOWARDS THE STRATEGY PLAN HAVE BEEN WELL AIRED AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS AND I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD USE OF OUR TIME TO STEP THROUGH THAT. HOWEVER, THERE IS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR THIS MEETING, AND THAT IS THE POSSIBLE ENDORSEMENT OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN BY THE BOARD.
IT'S THE VIEW OF THE ISPCP THAT THE CURRENT DOCUMENT HAS NO CONSENSUS ACROSS THE COMMUNITY, AND THE ISPCP WILL BE LOOKING TO MAKE A STATEMENT DURING THE OPEN FORUMS OF THIS MEETING EXPLAINING SOME OF THE RATIONALE BEHIND THAT, AND THE WAY WE WOULD LIKE THINGS TO PROGRESS.
WITH REGARDS TO GTLDS AND THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW TLDS, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AS TO WHERE WE GO FROM HERE. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH A PROCESS THAT IS SEEING A NUMBER OF SPONSORED TLDS MOVE TOWARDS IMPLEMENTATION. BUT BEYOND THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE ALMOST A VACUUM IN HOW WE MOVE FORWARD ON THAT ISSUE.
THERE WAS A REVIEW OF THE WHITE PAPER THAT'S BEEN PRODUCED BY BOTH THE ISPCP, THE BC, AND THE IP CONSTITUENCIES THAT'S NOW BEEN FORWARDED TO THE COUNCIL AND THE BOARD AND CERTAINLY SUPPORT FOR THAT PAPER, AGAIN, WAS ENDORSED.
ONE OF THE ISSUES WHICH CAME UP DURING THAT DEBATE, OF COURSE, WAS THE ISSUE OF DOT NET AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY WITHIN THE ISPCP, WE SHARE ALL THE CONCERNS WHICH HAVE BEEN AIRED DURING THIS DISCUSSION FROM BOTH THE BC AND THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY.
THERE'S CERTAINLY A VIEW THAT DUE PROCESS WAS NOT FOLLOWED. AND THIS, AGAIN, IT'S WORTH SAYING, WAS CONVEYED TO THE ICANN BOARD DURING A JOINT SESSION THAT THE ISPCP AND THE BC AND THE IP CONSTITUENCY HAD EARLIER DURING THE MEETING.
WSIS AND WGIG ARE EVENTS WHICH EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF, AND WE DID DISCUSS THIS ONCE AGAIN DURING OUR SESSION, STRESSING THE NEED TO ENGAGE IN ALL LEVELS OF THIS PROCESS WHERE POSSIBLE, AND ALSO RAISING THE PROFILE OF THE EVENT THAT'S GOING TO TAKE PLACE TOMORROW AND URGING CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT, AS WELL AS OTHER FORUMS WHERE YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY GET THE VIEWS AIRED AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THE VIEWS FROM ALL CONSTITUENT PARTS ON THIS DISCUSSION.
IN TERMS OF PRESENTATIONS, WE DID HAVE A PRESENTATION ON DOT XXX AND WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO PLAY CATCHUP AND ARRANGE A PRESENTATION ON DOT MOBI DURING THE REST OF THIS WEEK. TIME LIMITATION PREVENTED US FROM DOING THAT YESTERDAY, BUT THERE WAS SOME BIG ISSUES TO DISCUSS, AND I'M GOING TO END THERE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S AS IMPORTANT AS ANYTHING THAT WE GET FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS TELLING YOU WHAT WE'VE DONE.
SO THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, TONY.
I THINK THE NEXT PRESENTER, HOPEFULLY, IS ABOUT TO WALK IN THIS DIRECTION, WHICH IS STEVE METALITZ FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY.
>>STEVE METALITZ: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'M STEVE METALITZ, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE IPC.
MY REPORT WILL BE VERY BRIEF, UNLIKE THE MEETING ON MONDAY, WHICH WAS NOT SO BRIEF.
I'VE TRIED TO SUMMARIZE IT, AND I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO E-MAIL IT.
SO I'LL TRY TO GIVE YOU THE HIGH POINTS HERE.
BESIDES SOME HOUSEKEEPING ISSUES, I THINK THERE WERE THREE AREAS OF DISCUSSION THAT STOOD OUT IN THE IPC MEETING.
THE FIRST ONE HAD TO TO WITH THE WHOIS TASK FORCE CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS.
WE'RE NOW AT A POINT, AS JORDYN EXPLAINED, IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WHERE WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT IP -- THREE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS THAT ARE DEMANDED FROM EACH OF THE CONSTITUENCIES ON WHOIS ISSUES.
SINCE THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE IPC, WE ARE DEVOTING A LOT OF TIME TO THE PREPARATION OF THESE STATEMENTS.
WE REVIEWED DRAFTS OF THEM AT OUR MEETING, AND WE WILL ENDEAVOR TO MEET THE JULY 21ST DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING ALL THREE OF THOSE DRAFTS.
THEN WE DEVOTED A GOOD DEAL OF TIME IN OUR MEETING TO BRIEFINGS FROM THREE OF THE STLD OR IMPENDING STLD REGISTRIES.
A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS AROSE.
AND I THINK WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION AND ALSO IDENTIFIED CONTACTS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSIONS.
IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME FROM EXPERIENCE WITH THE LAST GO ROUND OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS AS WELL AS THIS ONE THAT THAT KIND OF ONGOING CONTACT IS VERY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE A LOT OF ISSUES DO ARISE DURING IMPLEMENTATION.
AND WE DID HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BROADER QUESTION OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
WE CERTAINLY SUPPORT THE THREE-CONSTITUENCY PAPER THAT I THINK TONY REFERRED TO EARLIER.
AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CONCERNS ABOUT HOW CLEARLY OR NOT THE COMMUNITY INVOLVED IN A PARTICULAR SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN IS DEFINED.
AND THIS IS AN AREA OF CONSIDERABLE CONCERN TO THE IPC.
SO WE WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THAT.
THE THIRD AREA I WOULD MENTION BRIEFLY, BECAUSE IT WAS DISCUSSED, BUT RATHER BRIEFLY, AT OUR MEETING IS THE DOT NET AGREEMENT.
I THINK WHAT WE TAKE AWAY FROM WHAT HAS HAPPENED ON THAT IS THAT MEANINGFUL -- A MEANINGFUL PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD ON A CONTRACT SUCH AS THIS IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL, AND WE BELIEVE THAT HAS BEEN THE LONGSTANDING ICANN PRACTICE.
IT OBVIOUSLY HASN'T BEEN FOLLOWED IN EVERY CASE, AND IT CERTAINLY WASN'T FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE, WHICH WE THINK WAS QUITE REGRETTABLE.
WE DON'T HAVE A POSITION ON THE PARTICULAR -- ON THE MERITS OF THE PARTICULAR PROVISIONS OF THAT AGREEMENT, BUT WE DO HAVE A SENSE OF DISAPPOINTMENT THAT THE AGREEMENT ONCE IT HAD BEEN NEGOTIATED WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE THINK THAT WE WOULD ENCOURAGE ICANN TO RETURN TO THAT PRINCIPLE AND TO REAFFIRM THAT PRINCIPLE AS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF TRANSPARENCY.
AND I THINK WE'VE ENCOUNTERED THAT JUST AGAIN IN THE STLDS.
A NUMBER OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE WENT THROUGH WITH SOME OF THE STLD REGISTRIES IN OUR MEETING AROSE FROM READING THE CONTRACTS WHEN THEY WERE PUBLISHED ONLINE.
THERE WAS A VERY -- VERY BRIEF PERIOD FOR PUBLIC REVIEW, BUT AT LEAST WE HAD SOME OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IT, TO IDENTIFY QUESTIONS THAT WE'LL NOW BE PURSUING WITH THE REGISTRIES.
WE DIDN'T ADOPT A RESOLUTION ON THIS, BUT I THINK IT WAS THE SENSE OF OUR GROUP TO ENCOURAGE ICANN TO RETURN TO THE HISTORICAL PRACTICE OF POSTING ALL REGISTRY AND -- CONTRACTS AND SIMILAR AGREEMENTS FOR A SUITABLE PERIOD OF PUBLIC COMMENT.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, STEVE.
NOW, HOPEFULLY, I'VE COVERED ALL THE CONSTITUENCIES.
IF THERE IS ANY, LET ME KNOW.
AT THIS POINT, WE REALLY JUST THROW IT OPEN FOR OPEN MIKE.
IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT WANTS TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT ANYTHING RELATING TO THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING ON WHOIS AND REGISTRY SERVICES, FEEL FREE TO DO SO.
OR IF ANYONE WANTS TO ASK A QUESTION OF ANY OF THE CONSTITUENCY REPRESENTATIVES OR HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR WORK, YOU'RE FREE TO DO SO.
SO I'LL WAIT A FEW MOMENTS, IF ANYONE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD.
OKAY.
IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT.
YES, WE HAVE JORDYN.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: HELLO.
JORDYN BUCHANAN WITH REGISTER.COM.
CAN NO ONE HEAR ME?
HELLO!
OKAY.
I JUST HAVE TO BE CLOSE TO THE MIKE, APPARENTLY.
JORDYN BUCHANAN FROM REGISTER.COM STILL.
I'M GOING TO COME TO THE OPEN MIKE AT THIS PUBLIC FORUM OFTEN, I THINK, AND REPEAT THE SAME THING.
I'M GOING TO ENCOURAGE THE GNSO TO TAKE UP A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN ORDER TO CREATE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS IN ITS -- IN ICANN'S CONTRACTS SO THAT THE NEW, WONDERFUL ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE THAT ICANN IS HIRING WILL HAVE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO THEM OTHER THAN SIMPLY TERMINATING CONTRACTS IF A BREACH OCCURS FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
I THINK THAT'S NOT A VERY USEFUL ENFORCEMENT TOOL.
IT'S SOMETHING ICANN WILL RARELY BE ABLE TO USE.
AND I THINK THAT IF THE -- IF A PDP PROCESS WERE TO BE INITIATED, I THINK WE COULD HAVE A VARIETY OF SANCTIONS THAT MIGHT ENCOURAGE REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS TO MORE FULLY ABIDE BY THEIR CONTRACTS.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, JORDYN.
YEAH, I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL HAS DISCUSSED FOR SOME TIME.
AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE WANTING TO DO IS HAVE THE COUNCIL WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH THE OPERATIONAL STAFF AT ICANN TO, ONE, SEE THAT THEY CAN RESOURCE A POLICY EFFORT IN THAT REGARD; AND, TWO, PROVIDE SOME SUGGESTIONS TO START THAT PROCESS, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ULTIMATELY WILL HAVE TO ADMINISTER IT.
SO I THINK WE WOULD SEEK INPUT ON WHAT SANCTIONS THEY WOULD FIND SOMETHING THEY COULD MANAGE.
AND THEN THE COUNCIL WOULD THEN GO THROUGH THE NORMAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND GET INPUT FROM ALL THEIR CONSTITUENCIES.
SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
THOMAS.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: HELLO. THOMAS ROESSLER HERE, SPEAKING AS A LONG-TERM PARTICIPANT IN FAR TOO MANY GNSO, DNSO, AND WHATEVER GROUPS IN ICANN.
AND I'VE BEEN MISSING A BUNCH OF ICANN MEETINGS, AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE SEEN THE GNSO FORUM.
AND I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT I'M RATHER GLAD THAT THE GNSO IS ACTUALLY TAKING THE APPROACH OF HAVING AN OPEN DISCUSSION FORUM AGAIN THAT COULD MAYBE TAKE SOME OF THE FUNCTIONS THAT THE GA IN THE VERY DISTANT PAST COULD HAVE HAD.
AND EVEN WHEN THERE ARE NO COMMENTS TODAY, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE WITH THIS STEP.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING THAT YOU'RE DOING THIS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, THOMAS.
AND CERTAINLY COMMENTS THAT PEOPLE DO MAKE HERE, WE WOULD CERTAINLY BE TRYING TO SEEK TO SUMMARIZE AND PRESENT TO THE BOARD AT THE RELEVANT FORUMS AS WELL.
SO SOME PEOPLE THINK THERE'S NO POINT IN SAYING ANYTHING TO US BECAUSE WE DON'T MAKE ANY DECISIONS, AND APPARENTLY THAT'S THE CASE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE DO HOPE TO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF THE WHOLE GNSO COMMUNITY TOWARDS THE ICANN BOARD.
GO AHEAD.
>>BHAVIN TURAKHIA: I DON'T MEAN TO KEEP HOGGING THE MIKE, BUT I ALSO -- ONE OF THE OBSERVATIONS THAT I DIDN'T STATE AS MY ROLE IN THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY -- RIGHT NOW I'M STANDING HERE AS AN ICANN ACCREDITED REGISTRAR, AND I WANT TO FURTHER ADD TO THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE AS A REGISTRAR IN THE DOT NET AGREEMENT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ALSO LEARNED IS THAT IN THE DOT NET AGREEMENT, THE PROCESS FOR INTRODUCING NEW REGISTRY SERVICES HAS BEEN SORT OF PUT IN BETWEEN ICANN AND DOT NET IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCESS THAT'S BEING WORKED UPON IN THE GNSO.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CULMINATION TO THAT PROCESS YET.
BUT THERE'S ALSO A PROVISION IN THERE THAT PREVENTS ICANN FROM APPLYING ANY PROCESS THE GNSO COMES UP WITH TO THE DOT NET CONTRACT FOR, I THINK, A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS.
AND I'M HOPING AS A REGISTRAR THAT, ONE, WE CAN TAKE SOME STEPS TO, IF WE CAN, REOPEN THAT TOPIC AND MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO THAT; AND, TWO, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THAT THE PROCESS THAT THE GNSO IS FOLLOWING IS NOT UNDERMINED WITH REGARDS TO THE OTHER REGISTRIES, ESPECIALLY DOT COM AND THE OTHER BUNCH OF REGISTRIES TO WHICH THE PROCESS OF THE GNSO'S WORKING SHOULD BE APPLIED.
SO THAT'S BASICALLY MY COMMENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, BHAVIN.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO MAKE A COMMENT?
YEAH, GO AHEAD.
>>KEN FOCKLER: MY NAME IS KEN FOCKLER, I'M A SEMIRETIRED CONSULTANT FROM CANADA. SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW ME.
I'M SEEKING A LITTLE GUIDANCE ON A SMALL ISSUE, ON WHETHER THIS IS THE PLACE TO DO IT.
IT'S COME UP A FEW TIMES IN THE PAST.
IT'S WHAT I CALL THE STRING LENGTH PROBLEM FOR TLDS THAT ARE LONGER THAN THREE LETTERS, SAY, INFO AND MUSEUM.
AND WHETHER IT STILL EXISTS, HAS BEEN SOLVED, I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE'S REALLY NOT A SPECIFIC FIX, BUT THERE'S OLD SOFTWARE THAT JUST ASSUMED THAT ALL TLDS WOULD BE AT LEAST THREE LETTERS OR LESS, AND THEREFORE SOME PEOPLE IN TRYING TO GET ACCESS TO NEW SPACE, WE'RE NOT GETTING IT.
AT ONE TIME, I THOUGHT MAYBE ICANN WAS GOING TO TAKE ON A BIT OF AN EDUCATION AND AWARENESS OUTREACH TO PEOPLE TO SAY ISPS OR OTHERS, TO BETTER SERVE YOUR CLIENTS, YOU MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT YOUR OLD SOFTWARE.
IS THIS A CONCERN AT THE GNSO LEVEL?
WHERE SHOULD I RAISE IT AGAIN?
IS IT STILL A PROBLEM?
ANY COMMENTS WOULD BE APPRECIATED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY, I WILL MAKE A COMMENT THAT'S PROBABLY PARTLY SIMILAR TO A COMMENT THAT I MADE IN THE SESSION WITH THE SECURITY AND STABILITY COMMITTEE.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE BOARD -- AND I THINK OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE POINTED OUT THAT ICANN'S BUDGET IS NOW GETTING CONSIDERABLY BIGGER.
AND IN RETURN FOR THAT, I THINK WE WANT TO SEE MORE SERVICE.
AND ONE OF THOSE IS DOING THAT SORT OF THING, IS IMPROVING EDUCATION AND OUTREACH ON THINGS LIKE THE EXISTENCE OF LONGER THAN THREE-LETTER NAMES.
THE OTHER CLASSIC ONE IS INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, WHICH THERE IS A STANDARD AVAILABLE FOR INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES.
IT IS IN USE BY SEVERAL OF THE REGISTRIES.
BUT THERE IS A LACK OF SUPPORT FOR THOSE IN APPLICATION SOFTWARE AT THIS STAGE, JUST AS THERE IS A LACK OF SUPPORT FOR, IN SOME CASES, LONGER DOMAIN NAMES.
SO AS WE'RE MAKING CHANGES, IT'S POINTLESS MAKING CHANGES IF WE DON'T COMMUNICATE WHAT THOSE CHANGES ARE.
AND SO I THINK, HOPEFULLY, WE CAN CREATE PERHAPS A BEST PRACTICES AREA ON OUR WEB SITE, ON THE ICANN WEB SITE, TO INDICATE -- PERHAPS FOCUSED IN DIFFERENT AREAS, BEST PRACTICE FOR APPLICATION DEVELOPERS, SO AS WE DO NEW THINGS, THERE'S A PLACE TO FIND INFORMATION.
>>KEN FOCKLER: OKAY.
STILL AN APPROPRIATE FORUM TO BRING THIS TO FUTURE, TO KEEP --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M SORRY?
>>KEN FOCKLER: THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE FORUM TO BRING IT UP AND --
>>BRUCE TONKIN:ABSOLUTELY.
THOSE ARE VERY GOOD POINTS.
AND THEY HAVE BEEN RAISED BEFORE THE COUNCIL IN THE PAST.
>>KEN FOCKLER: OKAY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THE ISSUE IS THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY HAD A MEASURABLE OUTCOME FROM THOSE.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT.
AND THE INTELLECTUAL -- SO THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER CONSTITUENCY DID ANALYZE THAT ISSUE TO SOME DEGREE.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER ANY OF THEM -- PERHAPS TONY WOULD WANT TO COMMENT FURTHER.
BUT....
>>TONY HOLMES: THANK YOU, BRUCE.
JUST TO MAKE A COMMENT, I DID HAVE A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH KEN EARLIER.
MY UNDERSTANDING WAS, AND CERTAINLY THE ISPS TOOK PART IN THE DIALOGUE THAT TRIED TO RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
IT IS A DIFFICULT ONE, BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A PARTICULAR BODY OR A TRADE ASSOCIATION THAT WE COULD REACH OUT TO IN THE SOFTWARE WORLD THAT WAS GETTING THIS MESSAGE OUT THERE.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN REDUCED, BUT IT'S BEEN REDUCED THROUGH OSMOSIS RATHER THAN ANY PARTICULAR ACTION.
AND I THINK THE REMARKS THAT BRUCE MADE UNDERLINE THE NEED THAT WE DO NEED TO HAVE AND PROBABLY SHOULD BE EXPECTING NOW SOME ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN TERMS OF GETTING THESE KEY MESSAGES OUT THERE, PARTICULARLY IN AREAS LIKE THIS, WHERE THERE ARE CLEARLY DIFFICULTIES IN REACHING THE INTENDED AUDIENCE.
SO AS FAR AS THE ISPS GO, WE'RE STILL ENDEAVORING TO GET THE WORD OUT THERE.
BUT IT'S A VERY LONG AND DIFFICULT PROCESS.
AND WE DO NEED HELP WITH THIS.
AND I WOULD SUGGEST, BRUCE, THAT IT MAY BE A GOOD TIME TO PICK THIS ISSUE UP AGAIN AND FLAG IT BACK TO ICANN STAFF TO SEE IF WE CAN START GOING DOWN THE PATH OF PREPARING SOME LINKS ON THE SITE WHERE WE CAN POST THIS INFORMATION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I THINK -- YEAH, THIS IS A THING THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO WORK WITH THE STAFF AND TRY TO PRIORITIZE THE USE OF TIME.
IN THE OPERATING PLAN, THERE'S MENTION OF IMPROVING THE WEB SITE.
AND THAT'S A VERY VAGUE TERM.
AND WHAT WE NEED TO SAY IS WHAT IMPROVEMENTS DO WE ACTUALLY WANT.
SO PROBABLY THE RIGHT PLACE TO PUT THIS IS UNDER THAT CATEGORY, UNDER THE OPERATING PLAN, AND SAY WE WANT THAT IMPROVEMENT.
THERE'S ALSO THE ISSUE WITH THE GNSO COUNCIL, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A GNSO WEB SITE.
AND MAYBE WE NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF THAT SITE THAT ARE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT, WHICH COULD INCLUDE THIS TYPE OF THING.
BRET.
>>BRET FAUSETT: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION FOR SOMETHING, I THINK, VERY SIMPLE TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM.
I HAVE A DISTINCT RECOLLECTION THAT ICANN ISSUED AN ADVISORY SEVERAL YEARS AGO WHEN DOT MUSEUM AND THINGS CAME OUT.
NOW THAT, I THINK, DOT JOBS AND DOT TRAVEL HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND BOTH OF THOSE EXCEED THREE LETTERS, I WONDER WHEN THE ANNOUNCEMENTS ARE MADE THAT THOSE GO INTO THE ROOT THAT WE LINK THAT INITIAL ADVISORY TO IT AND JUST CONTINUE EVERY TIME WE HAVE MORE THAN A THREE-LETTER TLD THAT IS APPROVED, WE LINK THAT ADVISORY AND KEEP GETTING THAT OUT INTO THE PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
KEN.
>>KEN STUBBS: I KNOW THIS MAY SOUND SOMEWHAT RUDIMENTARY, BUT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WRITING CODE AND WRITING SOFTWARE FOR VARIOUS APPLICATIONS ARE PRODUCTS OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, AND IN THE FUTURE, I THINK ICANN NEEDS TO WORK MUCH CLOSER WITH THE EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY IN PROVIDING SEMINARS FOR EDUCATORS AS WELL AS MATERIAL IN THAT AREA.
ALSO, I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE CONSORTIUMS AND TRADE ASSOCIATIONS THAT HAVE -- THAT SOFTWARE WRITERS AND SOFTWARE COMPANIES ARE TIED IN WITH.
AND MAYBE WE COULD DEVELOP SOME SORT OF -- MAYBE IT'S A MATTER OF IDENTIFYING THEM AND HAVING A POINT OF CONTACT AT ICANN WHERE THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC PROGRAM THAT THEY CAN ROLL OUT AS THESE PEOPLE ARE REFERRED OR THESE ORGANIZATIONS ARE REFERRED TO THEM.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, TONY.
>>TONY HARRIS: YES, BUILDING ON WHAT KEN JUST SAID, A GOOD EXAMPLE OF SUCH AN ASSOCIATION WOULD BE COMPTIA.ORG.
THEY'RE IN THE UNITED STATES.
THEY HAVE COME TO SOME ICANN MEETINGS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE HERE TODAY.
BUT THEY HAVE 13,000 SOFTWARE PROFESSIONALS.
AND THEY DO A CERTIFICATION FOR SOFTWARE PROFESSIONALS.
THEY WILL BE A GOOD STARTING POINT IN THE UNITED STATES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.
>>KEN FOCKLER: THANK YOU.
GOOD DISCUSSION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND I THINK MARIA ALSO HAD A BIT OF INFORMATION.
>>MARIA ZITKOVA: I HAD JUST A PRACTICAL COMMENT.
I AM FROM THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY, DOT TLD, I AM ONE OF THOSE AFFECTED.
AND I WAS QUITE INVOLVED IN THE ACTIONS THAT MIGHT BE TAKEN FOR THE ISSUE.
AND WHAT I JUST WANTED TO REMIND THE PARTICIPANTS, FOLLOWING THE LAST ICANN MEETING I BELIEVE IN MAR DEL PLATA, ICANN -- IANA HAS PUBLISHED A LIST OF ALL EXISTING TLDS ON THE IANA WEB SITE.
AND IT IS PUBLISHED IN A SIMPLE TEXT FORMAT, SO IT'S DOWNLOADABLE BY APPLICATIONS.
IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT PERHAPS IN THOSE ANNOUNCEMENTS COULD BE SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO SHARE THIS INFORMATION.
IT'S NOT A COMPLETE SOLUTION, BUT IT IS A PART OF IT THAT HAS BEEN DONE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
THANK YOU.
AND I THINK THAT'S -- PROBABLY LEADS ON TO WHAT BRET WAS SAYING, THAT, YOU KNOW, A LINK TO THAT INFORMATION IN THE ANNOUNCEMENTS WOULD BE USEFUL, TOO.
BRUCE -- SORRY, TONY.
>>TONY HOLMES: IF I COULD JUST OFFER A FINAL COMMENT ON THAT.
THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A FAIR WHILE NOW.
IT WAS FIRST RAISED -- I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH MEETING IT WAS, BUT IT'S A FAIR NUMBER OF ICANN MEETINGS AGO.
AND IT WAS CERTAINLY BEFORE MOST OF THESE LONGER STRINGS WERE LOOKING TOWARDS IMPLEMENTATION.
AND I THINK THE FACT THAT KEN'S RAISED THIS TODAY WOULD SUGGEST TO ME THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US TO RAISE THIS UP A STACK AND PUT SOME URGENCY AROUND IT.
I DON'T THINK IT FALLS NECESSARILY INTO THE SAME CATEGORY AS UPDATING THE WEB SITE AND POSTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
I BELIEVE WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING CONCRETE ON THIS FAIRLY QUICKLY.
>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK WE HAVE -- IS IT BECKY AND THEN MARK AND THEN MARILYN.
>>BECKY BURR: THIS MAY BE A VERY SHORT QUESTION.
WHEN YOU READ OUT THE LIST OF TOPICS FOR QUESTIONS, THE DOT NET REBID WASN'T ON IT.
BUT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IT NOW OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IT LATER?
BECAUSE IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT LATER, I'LL SIT DOWN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SORRY, SAY THAT AGAIN.
>>BECKY BURR: IS THERE A SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE DOT NET REBID ON THE AGENDA?
WHEN YOU ITEMIZED THE LIST OF QUESTIONS, THAT WASN'T IN IT.
BUT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT.
SO I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT IT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT IF --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I THINK THIS IS CERTAINLY -- AND THIS IS AN OPEN MIKE.
>>BECKY BURR: OKAY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO, ACTUALLY, YOU CAN SAY ANYTHING YOU LIKE.
>>BECKY BURR: OKAY.
MY NAME IS BECKY BURR.
AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW ME, YOU'LL KNOW THAT I HAVE NO REASON TO CARRY VERISIGN'S WATER AND HAVE NEVER DONE SO.
SO WHEN I SAY SOMETHING THAT SOUNDS SUPPORTIVE OF VERISIGN, IT MIGHT BE SURPRISING TO YOU.
BUT I ALSO REPRESENT TWO STLDS APPLICANTS, INCLUDING THE DOT MOBI CONTRACT THAT JUST WENT THROUGH.
AND WHEN I GOT THE FINAL DOT NET AGREEMENT, I WAS VERY INTERESTED IN IT AND RAN A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE DOT MOBI CONTRACT AND THE DOT NET CONTRACT, BECAUSE I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DIDN'T GET ANY CONCESSIONS THAT I WANTED AND DIDN'T GET.
SO I WAS COMING TO THIS FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE AND FROM A VERY, YOU KNOW -- LOOKING CAREFULLY AT IT.
I WANT TO SAY, FRANKLY, I THINK PUTTING ASIDE THE PRICE CAP ISSUE, WHICH I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT, ALL OF THE MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE IN THE LANGUAGE REGARDING CONSENSUS POLICY ARE INHERENT IN THE CONTRACT ITSELF AND DO NOTHING TO CHANGE IT.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT VERISIGN GOT ANYTHING THAT MOBI OR JOBS OR NET DIDN'T GET.
AND I'D BE HAPPY TO GO THROUGH IT IN LENGTH.
BUT, FRANKLY, THE LIMITATIONS THAT ARE IN THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON SORT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL BARGAIN, WHICH IS WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A CONSENSUS POLICY.
THAT DEFINITION IS IN THE CONTRACT.
NOW, IF BY "CONSENSUS POLICY," YOU CAN CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF A CONSENSUS POLICY, I WOULD HAVE TO THINK LONG AND HARD ABOUT ADVISING A CLIENT TO SIGN A CONTRACT AND PUT UP A LOT OF DOLLARS.
SORRY.
AM I SCREAMING?
OKAY.
SO, YOU KNOW, AND I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THIS IN MORE DETAIL.
BUT, YOU KNOW, MODIFYING THE STANDARDS FOR CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED REGISTRY SERVICES IS NOT WITHIN THE ITEMIZED LIST OF TOPICS WHICH MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF CONSENSUS POLICY-MAKING.
GOING DOWN THE LIST, MODIFYING THE PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED REGISTRY SERVICES IS NOT WITHIN THE LIST OF TOPICS THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR -- THROUGH CONSENSUS POLICY DEVELOPMENT.
MODIFY THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS FOR THE RENEWAL OR TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT.
AGAIN, UNLESS IT GOES TO THE STABILITY AND THE SECURITY OF THE INTERNET, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF CONSENSUS POLICIES.
SO WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS SURPRISING TO SEE THIS NEW LANGUAGE HERE AND IT WASN'T LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN THE DRAFT THAT WAS PROPOSED, I CAN TELL YOU FROM SOMEBODY WHO LOOKED AT THIS FROM A VERY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T THINK THEY GOT ANYTHING.
IF I THOUGHT -- I WOULD BE VERY UPSET WITH MYSELF IF WHAT IS IN HERE -- AGAIN, PUTTING ASIDE THE PRICE CAP ISSUE -- FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, TO ME, DOES NOT CHANGE ANY OF THE WORDS IN THE CONTRACT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I THINK CERTAINLY, YEAH, THERE CAN BE DIFFERENCES ABOUT THE MERITS OF PARTICULAR CHANGES.
I THINK THE POINT THAT MANY HAVE BEEN MAKING IS THAT THERE WERE CHANGES THAT SURPRISED PEOPLE, AND FOR SOME PEOPLE, SOME OF THOSE CHANGES WERE MATERIAL, NOT NECESSARILY ALL OF THEM.
THAT WAS KIND OF THE POINT OF SOME OF THE EARLIER SPEAKERS TODAY, THAT THE CHANGES WERE SURPRISING TO THEM, AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE CHANCE TO HEAR YOUR INPUT, FOR EXAMPLE.
OKAY.
>>MARK MCFADDEN: MY NAME IS MARK MCFADDEN, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
I HAVE A QUESTION AND A COMMENT.
BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU THAT I CAN ACTUALLY BEND A LAPTOP IN HALF WITH MY BARE HANDS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE.)
>>MARK MCFADDEN: FIRST, MY COMMENT.
AND THAT IS A COMMENT TO THE CHAIR.
I THINK THE -- I'M GOING TO SECOND SOMEBODY ELSE'S COMMENT THAT HAVING AN OPEN MIKE SECTION, HAVING A SESSION THAT IS RELATIVELY FREE FORM IS A NICE ADDITION TO THIS PARTICULAR MEETING.
AND I HOPE THAT WE CONTINUE IT IN VANCOUVER.
MY QUESTION IS ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC, AND THAT'S STRATEGIC PLANNING, WHICH SEEMS TO BE WHAT I STAND UP AND TALK ABOUT MOST OF THE WEEK HERE.
AND THIS IS A QUESTION TO SEVERAL OF THE COUNCILLORS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S HAPPENED IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE STAFF ON STRATEGIC PLANNING. AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I MEAN THE FUTURE OF STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL PLANNING FOR ICANN.
BUT IN RECENT WEEKS, I'VE SEEN THAT PARTNERSHIP BREAK DOWN.
THERE IS, SAY -- THAT PARTNERSHIP HAS BEEN EXTREMELY POSITIVE IN THAT IT'S HELPED STAFF, IT'S HELPED THE COMMUNITY, IT'S HELPED US FOCUS ON HOW THE OPERATIONAL PLAN SHOULD BE SEPARATED FROM THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
AND, INDEED, THE OPERATIONAL PLAN FROM THE BUDGET.
BUT WHAT I'VE SEEN AS AN INDEPENDENT PERSON, AN INDEPENDENT OBSERVER FROM THE OUTSIDE, IS THAT THERE'S BEEN A REAL SORT OF BREAKDOWN IN THAT PARTNERSHIP IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO ASK THE COUNCIL IS TO RESPOND TO THAT BREAKDOWN AND TO TALK ABOUT HOW THAT WILL BE REPAIRED IN THE COMING WEEKS AND COMING MONTHS.
BECAUSE THE SCHEDULE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN IS SO AGGRESSIVE THAT I THINK THE VALUE THAT WE GOT OUT OF THAT PARTNERSHIP IS SO IMPORTANT THAT IT'S UNACCEPTABLE TO CONTINUE IN THE SITUATION WE'RE CURRENTLY IN.
AND I WOULD ASK THE COUNCILLORS -- NOT ONLY THE COUNCILLOR WHO ARE SO INVOLVED IN THAT PARTNERSHIP, BUT OTHER COUNCILLORS AS WELL, TO SPEAK TO THAT PROBLEM.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I THINK MARILYN IS NEXT IN THE QUEUE AND I THINK SHE HAS A COMMENT ON THAT IN ANY CASE.
SO GO AHEAD, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I ACTUALLY HAVE A COMMENT NOW ON TWO TOPICS.
I WAS GOING TO HAVE A COMMENT BEFORE ON DOT NET.
SO I'LL MAKE THAT COMMENT FIRST.
I NOTE THAT ALL OF THE REPORTS INCLUDED A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PROCESS RELATED TO DOT NET.
AND I NOTE THAT, IN FACT, THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE AWARD; WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PROCESS.
AND I WOULD WELCOME ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR, BECAUSE DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING, THE COUNCILLORS WILL BE DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE FURTHER.
AND WOULD BE MOST HELPFUL TO ME TO HEAR FROM FOLKS IN THE ROOM ON THEIR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE PROCESS RELATED TO DOT NET.
SO THAT WAS ONE COMMENT.
THE SECOND COMMENT I WOULD MAKE WOULD BE TO ECHO MARK'S COMMENT AND TO NOTE THAT THE COUNCIL TOOK VERY SERIOUSLY THE NEED TO PARTNER WITH STAFF, AND TOOK IT SO SERIOUSLY THAT THEY TOOK FROM THEIR -- THEIR LIMITED AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO CREATE A FORUM IN AMSTERDAM, AND OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY PARTNERED WITH US, AND WE CREATED A VERY PRODUCTIVE INTERACTION FOR THE COMMUNITY, CROSS-SO, INCLUDING THE ALAC, THAT RESULTED IN IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PROCESS.
THAT CONTINUED IN A VARIETY OF LEVELS UP UNTIL A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE REESTABLISH THAT.
AND I THINK THAT I SUPPORT MARK COMPLETELY IN THIS SUGGESTION AND THINK THE COUNCIL SHOULD SORT OF RETURN TO ITS THINKING THAT LED IT TO GENERATE THE AMSTERDAM FORUM ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND PROPOSE TO REESTABLISH THAT LEADERSHIP ROLE WITH THE CROSS-SO WORK AND WORK WITH THE STAFF.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, GO AHEAD, BECKY.
>>BECKY BURR: USUALLY I'M VERY QUIET AT THESE MEETINGS.
BUT I'M NOT BEING QUIET.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YOU CAN'T BE HEARD, UNFORTUNATELY.
YOU HAVE TO STAND CLOSE TO THE MIKE.
>>BECKY BURR: OKAY.
TODAY I'M BEING QUIET.
WELL, THEY KEPT MOVING IT AWAY FROM ME.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ACTUALLY, COME UP HERE.
USE THIS MIKE, I THINK.
HERE, IT'S A BETTER MIKE.
YEAH, YOU'RE VERY HARD TO HEAR FROM DOWN THERE.
>>BECKY BURR: IT'S VERY NOISY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: EXACTLY.
>>BECKY BURR: I'M SORRY.
I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS ABOUT PROCESS, AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS IN THE RIGHT -- IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE.
ICANN POSTED THE STLD MODEL, AND IT POSTED A MODEL WITH DOT NET.
AND THERE WAS A COMMENT PERIOD ON IT.
NOW, THE CONTRACT CHANGED A LITTLE BIT FOR EACH ONE OF THE AWARDEES IN THE PROCESS.
BUT THAT PROCESS OF NEGOTIATING THE CONTRACT IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL.
YOU CAN'T REACH DEALS, AND IF YOU ARE SAYING BY BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT THE CHANGES -- AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO BEAR WITH ME, PUTTING ASIDE WHAT I THINK IS A MORE COMPLICATED DISCUSSION ON PRICING -- THAT THE OTHER CHANGES, IF YOU AGREE THAT THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW -- EVEN -- I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHETHER YOU AGREE IF THEY'RE PROFOUND OR NOT.
BUT IF THE -- ICANN HAS TO PUBLISH A CONTRACT BEFOREHAND, GET COMMENTS ON IT, AND AWARD THAT CONTRACT AND ONLY THAT CONTRACT, YOU ARE COMPLETELY TYING THEIR HANDS IN A NEGOTIATING SENSE.
SO BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT IT IS ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT IS -- THAT WAS UNATTRACTIVE HERE.
IT DOES CONCERN ME, AS SOMEBODY WHO NOW NEGOTIATES REGISTRY AGREEMENTS, THAT I MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF MY FOR A CHANGE.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? I WANT TO RESPOND TO TWO POINTS BECKY MADE, ONE WITH REGARD TO PROCESS AND ONE WITH REGARD TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CHANGES.
FIRST WITH REGARD TO PROCESS IS I DO THINK IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY IN ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS WITH REGISTRY OPERATORS. LIKE BECKY, I HAVE BEEN THROUGH THAT PROCESS BEFORE AND I AGREE THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT. THAT'S SEPARATE, THOUGH, FROM POSTING MATERIAL CHANGES FOR REVIEW BY THE COMMUNITY PRIOR TO THEIR SIGNATURE AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE BOARD. AND I THINK IT SEEMS TO ME PERFECTLY REASONABLE THAT FINAL COPIES OF CONTRACTS COULD BE POSTED FOR COMMUNITY REVIEW PRIOR TO THEIR SIGNATURE AS OPPOSED TO JUST POSTING A DRAFT AGREEMENT THAT MAY BE SUBJECT TO, IN THIS CASE, I THINK FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES BEFORE SIGNATURE.
SO I THINK THAT'S A PROCESS THAT WE COULD ALL LIVE WITH AS OPPOSED TO A PROCESS BY WHICH THE COMMUNITY IS ACTIVELY INVOLVED SOMEHOW WITH THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS.
SECOND, WITH REGARDS TO SUBSTANCE, I AGREE THAT MANY OF THE CHANGES MADE ULTIMATELY WE DECIDE ARE NOT THAT SIGNIFICANT, BUT CERTAINLY ONE OF THEM, I THINK A SUGGESTION THAT A LIMITATION ON THE ABILITY TO APPLY A CONSENSUS POLICY TO REGISTRY SERVICES APPROVAL PROCESS, IT SEEMS CRAZY TO ME TO SUGGEST THAT'S NOT A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE BECAUSE CURRENTLY, THE GNSO COUNCIL IS UNDER -- HAS A PDP UNDERWAY IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THAT VERY ISSUE.
SO IF THAT'S NOT A POLICY ISSUE, EITHER YOU GUYS ARE CRAZY AND YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WHICH YOU SHOULDN'T BE DOING, WHICH IS POSSIBLE, I GUESS, AND MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE HAD THAT DISCUSSION SIX MONTHS AGO, OR IT SHOULD BE A POLICY THAT IS IN THE GAMUT OF THE CONSENSUS POLICY PROCESS BECAUSE IT IS TODAY.
SO THAT ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE AT THE VERY LEAST I THINK IS ONE THAT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW ON A POLICY BASIS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IF I CAN JUST COMMENT ON THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION THAT WAS RAISED BY BECKY, AND IS THAT IN THE COUNCIL MEETING WE WILL HAVE LATER THIS AFTERNOON I HAVE ASKED THE GENERAL COUNSEL TO BE HERE AND WE CAN ASK FOR COUNSEL ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT, AND THAT POINT BEING WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A CONSENSUS POLICY OR NOT.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: CAN I JUST ALSO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THAT CONSENSUS POLICY PROCESS WAS INITIATED AT THE REQUEST OF THE STAFF. SO ICANN REQUESTED THAT YOU CREATE THIS CONSENSUS POLICY, AND NOW MAINTAINS, I GUESS, THAT SOMEHOW THAT'S NOT A POLICY ISSUE.
SO IT'S BIZARRE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I JUST WANT TO BE WARY OF HAVING A DEBATE HERE. I THINK MARILYN WAS NEXT. I'M TRYING TO MAINTAIN A QUEUE. I THINK I HAVE MARILYN, BRET,.
>>BRET FAUSETT: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR BECKY I'D LIKE HER TO RESPOND TO.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WE'LL TAKE MARILYN FIRST.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M STILL IN THE DATA GATHERING FROM THE PARTICIPANT STAGE AT THIS POINT AND I WILL SAVE I'M NOT STATEMENT FOR THE COUNCIL, BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION AS WELL, AND I SUFFER, PERHAPS, FROM A MEMORY AND PERHAPS IT'S FAULTY. I SUFFER FROM AN EXTENSIVE PERIOD OF EXPERIENCES IN THE EARLY DAYS OF TURNING NEWCO INTO ICANN, AND I SUFFER FROM REMEMBERED UNDERSTANDINGS OF NEGOTIATED AGREEMENTS THAT WERE UNDERTAKEN, THEY MAY NOT BE LEGALLY BINDING, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE INSTANTIATED IN PEOPLE'S MINDS ABOUT EXPECTATIONS.
LATER I SUFFER FROM A MEMORY THAT IN FACT CONSENSUS POLICY WAS -- A REQUIREMENT OF CONSENSUS POLICY IN ORDER TO CHANGE CONTRACTS WAS -- I'M NOT GOING TO SAY IT WAS FORCED ON THE COUNCIL. I'M GOING TO SAY IT DEVELOPED IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE BEAR -- OR BURDENSOME POLICIES COULD BE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACTED PARTIES WITHOUT CONSENSUS POLICY.
SO CHANGE, TO ME, THAT MEANT IN REPRESENTING USERS, ALBEIT BUSINESS USERS, TO ME THAT MEANT THAT THERE WERE SAFEGUARDS AS WELL IN MY ABILITY TO TRUST THAT NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WOULD HAPPEN AND THAT CONSENSUS POLICY WAS THERE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE USERS AS WELL AS TO PROTECT THE AFFECTED PARTIES.
IF THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE ROLE AND THE CAPABILITY OF CONSENSUS POLICY, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE, AND I AM AT A MINIMUM EXTREMELY TROUBLED BY IT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I'LL LET BECKY RESPOND TO ALL OF THEM, I THINK IT PROBABLY GOING TO BE EASIEST.
SO IF I HAVE ROSS NEXT.
BRET.
>>BRET FAUSETT: I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT THAT THE WORDS CHANGED BUT THE MEANING DIDN'T, BUT I WONDER WHETHER THERE'S ANY POINT IN HAVING DIFFERENT WORDS TO DESCRIBE THE SAME THING OR WHETHER WE'RE JUST CREATING SOME SORT OF INSTITUTIONAL CONFUSION AND WHY ICANN WOULD WANT TO NEGOTIATE DIFFERENT CLAUSES FOR DIFFERENT REGISTRIES WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO GET TO THE SAME POINT.
AND I ALSO WONDER ABOUT THE VALUE OF HAVING DIFFERENT REGISTRIES SUBJECTED TO DIFFERENT CONSENSUS POLICIES.
AND IF IT'S THE SAME CONSENSUS POLICY, THEN WHY DON'T WE MOVE TO SOME STANDARDIZED LANGUAGE?
>>BECKY BURR: I THINK THAT WE DO HAVE STANDARDIZED LANGUAGE ABOUT CONSENSUS POLICY. NOW, MARILYN, I SENSE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PRICING CAP ISSUE THAT I WANT TO SPECIFICALLY TAKE OFF THE TABLE. BUT THE DEFINITION OF CONSENSUS POLICY IS IN THE BYLAWS, AND IT'S IN HERE. WHAT IS IN ADDITION TO THAT IN HERE IS A DEFINITION OF SECURITY AND STABILITY. THAT'S THE ONLY REAL CHANGE FROM THE BYLAWS.
SO IT IS -- CAN YOU HEAR ME?
SO IN FACT, THERE ISN'T A CHANGE IN THE DEFINITION OF CONSENSUS POLICY. AND WITH RESPECT TO VERISIGN IN PARTICULAR, VERISIGN HAD A CONTRACTUAL LIMITATION ABOUT CONSENSUS POLICY IN ITS CONTRACT, INCLUDING ITS DOT NET CONTRACT, THAT WAS MUCH NARROWER.
SO ICANN HAS, IN FACT, OPENED UP THE TOPICS THAT CAN BE SUBJECT TO CONSENSUS POLICY DEVELOPMENT.
NOW, AS TO THE QUESTION OF THE COUNCIL DEVELOPING A POLICY ON THE CONSENSUS POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, WE NEED TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN POLICY, WHICH IS A -- YOU KNOW, THIS IS A POLICY-MAKING BODY. THEY CAN DO IT; YOU GUYS CAN MAKE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS. AND CONSENSUS POLICY. AND CONSENSUS POLICY IS DIFFERENT, BECAUSE NOTWITHSTANDING THE WORDS IN THE CONTRACT, WHEN A REGISTRY OR A REGISTRAR SIGNS UP TO A CONTRACT, THEY AGREE: IN THE FUTURE WE WILL FOLLOW -- WE WILL AGREE TO ANY CHANGES YOU WANT TO MAKE, YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO CHANGE THE CONTRACT, SO LONG AS THEY ARE PROPERLY THE SUBJECT OF CONSENSUS POLICY AND ADOPTED THROUGH THAT.
THAT'S THAT CONCESSION THAT ICANN HAS, AND I THINK RIGHTLY, DEMANDED, IS SOMETHING THAT NECESSARILY REQUIRES SOME LIMITATIONS.
SO, YES, ICANN CAN DEVELOP ANY POLICY IT WANTS THAT APPLIES TO THE WAY IT OPERATES. IT CAN'T CALL ALL OF THEM CONSENSUS POLICIES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU. I THINK WE'LL SORT OF DRAW THE DEBATE TO A CLOSE, BUT JUST FROM A SUMMARY FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS AN ISSUE THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS SEEN A CHANGE MADE, AND THE CHANGE HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. CERTAINLY HASN'T BEEN EXPLAINED BY ICANN, WHICH WAS NEGOTIATING ON OUR BEHALF.
AND YOU'VE ALSO PROVIDED AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY YOU THINK THE CHANGE SHOULD BE THERE, WHICH I THINK IS GREAT.
AND SO LET'S SEPARATE THE ISSUE FROM OUR CONCERN ABOUT PROCESS FROM WHETHER THE CHANGES HAD MERIT OR NOT. THAT'S ALL I'M SUGGESTING THERE.
>>BECKY BURR: I UNDERSTAND. I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE SUGGESTION, AND IT MAY BE OUT OF ORDER, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS A PRETTY CONFUSING DOCUMENT. I SPENT A LOT OF TIME READING IT, AND IT MAY BE WORTHWHILE TO GET SOMEBODY TO WALK US THROUGH IT POINT BY POINT. I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH A GROUP OF WHATEVER LAWYERS WANT TO WORK ON IT TO SORT OF PARSE THIS AND COME UP WITH A "HERE'S WHAT WE THINK IT SAYS."
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POLICY POINT. MY POLICY -- MY PROCESS POINT I THINK IS ALSO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLICY AND CONSENSUS POLICY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SURE. AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A DIFFERENCE THERE, YEAH.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN THAT TOPIC? YES, GO AHEAD.
>>MILTON MUELLER: YES. SPEAKING OF THE LEGACY OF BECKY BURR, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COUNCIL IF THEY HAVE ANY REACTION OR WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE'S RECENT STATEMENT REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ICANN AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
JUST TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT SLIGHTLY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S -- YES, ROSS IS PREPARED TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON THAT.
>>ROSS RADER: ACTUALLY, NO, I'M NOT. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR MILTON FROM EARLIER, THOUGH.
(LAUGHTER.)
>>ROSS RADER: IN YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL --
>>MILTON MUELLER: THE EARLIER MILTON HAS LEFT THE ROOM.
>>ROSS RADER: IN YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL YOU NOTED THAT THERE WERE STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS WITH ICANN. TODAY WE'VE DISCUSSED A LOT OF PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS WITH ICANN BUT I HAVE NOT HEARD DISCUSSION AROUND STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS AND I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD PROVIDE US WITH FURTHER INSIGHT AS TO WHAT YOUR CONSTITUENCY WAS GETTING AT WHEN YOU SAID STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS.
>>MILTON MUELLER: IF YOU'RE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE TENSION BETWEEN STAFF AND GNSO REGARDING WHAT IS POLICY AND WHAT IS PART OF THE CONTRACT, I GUESS I REFERRED TO THAT AS A STRUCTURAL PROBLEM RATHER THAN A PROCEDURAL PROBLEM. AND WHAT I MEANT BY THAT WAS THAT THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN INTENSE AMOUNT OF AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH POLICY AND WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH CONTRACTING GOING ALL THE WAY BACK, I REMEMBER, TO THE FIRST TIME THAT VERISIGN BOUGHT INTO THE REGIME AND HAD A SPECIAL CONTRACT AND THIS WAS PRESENTED TO THE GNSO AND WE WERE ASKED TO KIND OF RATIFY IT, OF COURSE. AND WE WERE TOLD IT WASN'T A POLICY DECISION.
SO THIS ISSUE RECURS ON ALMOST EVERY SIGNIFICANT POLICY DECISION THAT'S MADE.
FREQUENTLY, I HAVE VIEWED THE STAFF OR MANAGEMENT OF ICANN AS HAVING TOO MUCH LATITUDE, TOO MUCH ABILITY TO IGNORE POLICY DIRECTIVES COMING FROM BELOW, EVEN AS ICANN PROMOTES ITSELF AS A BOTTOM-UP ORGANIZATION, NOT VIEWING THAT -- SOMETIMES VIEWING THAT AS CYNICAL BUT OTHER TIMES JUST VIEWING IT AS INHERENT IN THE STRUCTURE OF ICANN THAT THE MANAGEMENT HAS INCENTIVES WHICH BECKY DESCRIBED VERY ELOQUENTLY TO HAVE TO GET IN THERE AND NEGOTIATE CONCLUDABLE CONTRACTS WITH THESE PEOPLE WHILE THE GNSO HAS POLITICAL AND POLICY CONCERNS THAT MIGHT, YOU KNOW, SHORT CIRCUIT CONTRACTING AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT.
SO THAT'S WHAT I MEAN.
AND BRINGING THAT BACK TO THE WSIS DISCUSSION, THE REPORT WAS ASKED TO ADDRESS THE PROPER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF GOVERNMENTS AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR, AND THE STANDARD WAY THE GOVERNMENTS SAY THAT THIS ROLE SHOULD BE DEFINED IS THAT GOVERNMENTS DO PUBLIC POLICY. PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY DO TECHNICAL COORDINATION AND OTHER KINDS OF THINGS, AND THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN SEPARATE THOSE TWO WE HAVE LEARNED IN OUR PROCESSES THAT FREQUENTLY THE POLICY IS IN THE DETAILS OF HOW YOU DO THINGS. AND THEREFORE, IT'S NOT SUCH A CLEAR SEPARATION.
SO AGAIN, THE -- I THINK IT TIES BACK INTO THIS WSIS PROBLEM THAT WE'RE FACED WITH.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THANK YOU, MILTON.
OKAY. I THINK WE'LL DRAW THIS TO A CLOSE.
THE COUNCIL MEETING STARTS IN AROUND ABOUT FIVE OR TEN MINUTES, SO I'LL ALLOW THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A COMFORT BREAK AND FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE HERE, TOO.
AND WE'RE BACK HERE PROBABLY, LET'S SAY, AT 4:35 P.M. TO START THE COUNCIL MEETING.

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers