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 Links and information may be outdated or incorrect.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

Public Forum Part I

Wednesday, 13 July 2005

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Public Forum Part I held on 13 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.

>>VINT CERF: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'LL TRY TO GET STARTED IN ABOUT TWO MORE MINUTES.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
WE'RE READY TO START THE FIRST HALF OF THE PUBLIC FORUM.
WE WILL GO UNTIL 6:00 P.M. WE WILL TAKE A BREAK.
THAT'S A FAIRLY LONG TIME TO GO WITHOUT ONE.
SO IF I COULD ASK YOU TO TAKE YOUR SEATS IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE YOUR CONVERSATIONS -- I GUESS I CAN'T TELL.
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TALKING ARE THE ONES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CURTAIN.
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CURTAIN.
ALL RIGHT.
SO OUR FIRST REPORT FOR THE PUBLIC FORUM COMES FROM PAUL TWOMEY, THE PRESIDENT OF ICANN.
SO, PAUL, I CALL YOU TO THE LECTERN AND ASK YOU TO MAKE YOUR REPORT.
YOU.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT.
TAKING THE FEEDBACK THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE COMMUNITY FOR THE PROCESS WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD FOR STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL PLANNING, I HAVE DEVISED THIS REPORT TO TRY TO ACTUALLY MAKE IT SOMETHING AS A PERFORMANCE AGAINST ANNUAL OBJECTIVES.
IT'S NOT PERFECT WHAT I'VE GOT TO TAKE YOU THROUGH AND IT'S NOT IN THE PERFECT FORMAT.
THAT'S STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS.
BUT SEEING PARTICULARLY THAT THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR SOME, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IN MAR DEL PLATA, THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR SOME REPORT BACK ON HOW WE GOT ON PROGRESS ON VARIOUS OBJECTIVES, I'D LIKE TO THANK MY STAFF AND OTHERS WHO HAVE HELPED PUT THIS TOGETHER.
WE'VE GOT SOME ATTEMPT HERE THAT I WANT TO GO THROUGH ABOUT PERFORMANCE.
AS I SAID, IT'S NOT THE STANDARD I WOULD WANT US TO DO NEXT YEAR.
I THINK THERE'S -- MORE DETAIL WOULD BE REQUIRED.
BUT AT LEAST I HOPE IT'S USEFUL FOR THE OPERATIONAL PLANNING AND STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESSES WE'RE ABOUT TO GO THROUGH.
SO LET ME START WITH A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST ANNUAL OBJECTIVES.
THE ANNUAL OBJECTIVES FOR THE PRESENT FISCAL YEAR WERE ACTUALLY FORMULATED BY A PROCESS OF CONSULTATION, THEN STAFF PUT IT TOGETHER AND THEN IT WAS TAKEN TO THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP.
AND WITH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
SO THERE WAS INTERACTION BEYOND JUST THE STAFF, BUT IT WAS FORMULATED IN THAT FORMAT.
IN OTHER WORDS, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE OBJECTIVES WERE NOT -- FOR THIS YEAR WERE NOT ESTABLISHED THROUGH A -- THE SORT OF BOTTOM-UP PROCESS THAT WE HAVE STARTED AS OF YESTERDAY FOR THE COMING YEAR OF STRATEGIC AND FINANCIAL PLANNING.
AND THE MAJOR OBJECTIVES ARE INCLUDED IN THE APPROVED BUDGET, IN THE PROSE OF THE PROVED BUDGET.
AGAIN, TO MAKE IT CLEAR, I THINK AS WE GO FORWARD TO NEXT YEAR, WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE TWO SEPARATE DOCUMENTS.
WE'LL HAVE A CLEARER SEPARATED OPERATIONAL PLAN AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A BUDGET.
AND FOR ICANN'S HISTORY, THOSE TWO OBJECTIVES HAVE TENDED TO BE MERGED INTO THE SAME ENTITY.
AND THE OBJECTIVES CAN BE GROUPED AROUND THE FOUR AREAS OF FOCUS IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN, OR MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE FOUR AREAS OF FOCUS IN THE WHITE PAPER, OUR FOUNDING PRINCIPLES, CONTRIBUTING TO THE ONGOING SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE INTERNET.
AND IF I CAN MAKE THIS OBSERVATION, WHAT I'M ABOUT TO REPORT ON IS, ACTUALLY, IF YOU'D LIKE, THE OPERATIONAL OR EXECUTIVE STAFF FUNCTIONS OF ICANN.
ICANN'S AN UNFORTUNATELY TERM.
WE USE IT FOR MANY PARTS OF THE SAME THING.
SO I'M NOT REPORTING AGAINST ALL THE WORK OF THE COMMUNITY, ALL THE WORK OF THE BOARD, AS NECESSARILY -- NOR THE POLICY WORK.
I'M ACTUALLY REPORTING HERE AGAINST SORT OF THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS BY STAFF, IF I CAN BE THAT CLEAR.
SO THIS IS CONTRIBUTE TO THE ONGOING SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE INTERNET, PROMOTING CHOICE AND COMPETITION FOR THE MARKETPLACE, PARTICULARLY IN GTLDS, PROVIDING A FORUM FOR THE BOTTOM-UP DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY TO ENSURE CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT IN THE DNS, AND ENSURING, ON A GLOBAL BASIS, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE ICANN PROCESS BY ALL INTERESTED PARTIES.
AND I WOULD LIKE NOW TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THOSE AND TAKE YOU THROUGH THE SUBOBJECTIVES AND HOW -- SOME IDEA OF PERFORMANCE.
BUT IF YOU WILL EXCUSE ME A MINUTE, I HAVE A COLD AND I NEED TO GET A CLASS OF WATER.
OKAY.
SO THE FIRST OBJECTIVE IS TO ENSURE THE ONGOING OF THE SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE INTERNET.
IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS DOCUMENT DIDN'T PROPERLY GET SPELL-CHECKED.
SO I'M GOING TO ASK YOUR INDULGENCE AS I GO THROUGH IT.
THE STAFF IS TO LIAISE WITH THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY FOR INTRODUCTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES.
SO SOME OF THE KEY THINGS THAT I THINK HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED UNDER THIS OBJECTIVE WAS THE INTRODUCTION OF IPV6 GLUE INTO THE ROOT ZONE, PARTICIPATING IN THE GLOBAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OCCURRING IN THE REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRY POLICY FORUMS, WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY ON OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR IPV6 ALLOCATION, WORKING WITHIN THAT COMMUNITY PROCESS.
STAFF SUPPORT FOR IDN DEPLOYMENT.
AND WORKING WITH THE DNSSEC COMMUNITY ON IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES.
ON PROVIDING STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR DATA ESCROW COORDINATION, WE HAVE THE PLAN OUTLINED WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE NOT YET ACQUIRED.
THAT'S AN AREA OF FURTHER DETAIL WHICH WE NEED TO WORK ON.
IMPLEMENTING THE TRACKING MECHANISMS FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE ISSUES IS ONE OF THE OPERATIONAL PLANS, PART OF THE OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR THIS YEAR.
WE HAVE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED A TICKETING SYSTEM FOR INTERNAL USE AS A TEST BED.
WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT FAST ENOUGH.
BUT IT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
WE HAVE DONE IT FOR THE COORDINATION OF CUSTOMER SERVICE INQUIRIES, AND WHEN I SAY "CUSTOMER SERVICE" HERE, IT'S A RANGE OF THING, REGISTRAR INQUIRIES, REGISTRY INQUIRIES, A LOT FOR US WHICH WE TRY TO DEAL WITH PRETTY QUICKLY, OUR CONSUMER INQUIRIES, WE GET MANY, MANY CONSUMER INQUIRIES, ALSO INQUIRIES FROM THE COMMUNITY.
WE HAVE A TICKETING SYSTEM IN USE AS A TEST BED IN USE FOR SOME PARTS OF IT.
WHAT WE DON'T HAVE AND NEED TO MOVE ON IS A SIMILAR MECHANISM FOR COLLECTING ISSUES THAT TEND TO OCCUR SIMPLY THROUGH RANDOM E-MAIL AS OPPOSED TO COMING THROUGH PARTICULAR ADDRESSES.
SO THERE'S WORK FURTHER TO BE DONE THERE.
DEVELOPED PROCESS MAPS FOR SEVERAL OF THESE TASKS AROUND THAT.
AND WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING AND TESTING A WORK FLOW MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INTERNALLY.
THAT, AGAIN, IS SOMETHING I HAD HOPED TO HAVE COMPLETED BY THIS FINANCIAL YEAR, AND WE HAVE NOT.
IT IS THE MAIN OBJECTIVE TO COMPLETE OVER BETWEEN NOW AND VANCOUVER.
THE IANA PERFORMANCE, MOVING ON TO ENSURING SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE INTERNET, I THINK THE IANA PERFORMANCE STORY IS A PATCHY ONE, AND ONE WHICH WE NEED TO DO A LOT OF WORK.
WE HAVE DONE WORK ON -- THERE'S WORK THERE ON STREAMLINING EXISTING PROCESSES AND IMPROVING THE REQUEST TRACKING SYSTEM.
SOME OF THE SUBTHINGS THAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED THIS YEAR, WE HAVE HIRED AND TRAINED ADDITIONAL STAFF, BUT WE CONTINUE TO HAVE DIFFICULTIES IN IDENTIFYING AND TRAINING -- IDENTIFYING AND HIRING KEY STAFF.
AND WE VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD TO ASSISTANCE AND HELP FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY TO HELP US IDENTIFY SUCH STAFF.
AND ONE OF THE ISSUES WE CERTAINLY ARE WORKING ON IS SOME OF THE IMPLICATIONS WE HAVE OF THE LOS ANGELES LABOR MARKET.
SO -- BUT THAT'S AN AREA WHERE THERE'S BEEN A DIFFICULTY, AND THE COMMUNITY HAS FELT THAT.
AND THAT'S BEEN VERY FRUSTRATING.
AND IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO CONCLUDE IS THAT HIRING PROCESS.
WE HAVE INTRODUCED NEW SYSTEMS ON TICKETING AND WORK FLOW, BEGINNING THE PROCESS OF SOME PARTS OF THE INTERACTION WITH THE IANA PROCESS BEING AUTOMATED IN WAYS WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE -- WITHOUT PUTTING IDENTIFICATION, AUTHENTICATION, AND RISK CONTROL AT RISK.
THAT IS IN PROGRESS.
THAT, AGAIN, HAS NOT BEEN PUSHED FAST ENOUGH.
THAT, AGAIN, IS SOMETHING THAT WE LOOK FORWARD VERY MUCH TO INTERACTING WITH THE COMMUNITY IN A SENSE OF STEWARDSHIP TO HELP DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT.
SO I WANT TO REINFORCE THAT.
SOME PROCESS MAPS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT AND THERE IS QUITE A LOT OF INTERNAL WORK ON NONVALUE-ADDED STUFF THAT'S BEEN CUT OUT OF THE PROCESSES.
OVERALL, WE HAVE IMPROVED REPORTING IANA STATISTICS.
ON THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE, SOME -- THERE'S A GRADUAL IMPROVEMENT IN CYCLE TIMES IN SOME AREAS, BUT IT IS VERY LUMPY.
WE HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WHICH I THINK ARE REALLY SOMETHING THAT ARE SERIOUS AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT, WHICH IS THE PHENOMENON OF CYCLE TIMES DECREASING AND SOMETIMES -- SOMETIME IN THE YEAR INCREASING FOR A PARTICULAR REQUEST AND OTHER TIMES OF THE YEAR.
THAT'S NOT A SATISFACTORY OUTCOME.
WE KNOW THAT'S NOT A SATISFACTORY OUTCOME.
AND SO THAT'S A MAJOR ISSUE.
THE OTHER ISSUE WHICH IS THE NEXT ONE, IS THAT WE HAVE, I'D SAY PATCHY AND OFTEN POOR HANDLING OF NON-STANDARD ISSUES.
AND THERE IS MUCH WORK TO BE DONE HERE.
AND IF WE LOOK AT THE DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF REQUESTS AND WE LOOK AT THE WAY IT'S BEEN HANDLED, THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS THAT WE HAVE TOO MANY OUTLIERS SITTING, YOU KNOW, ONE OR TWO OR WHATEVER STANDARD DEVIATIONS OFF FROM THE MEAN, SO THAT, OVERALL, WE GET SOME IMPROVEMENT ON SOME CYCLE TIMES, BUT WE'RE HAVING SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS ON WHAT I WOULD SAY IS NONSTANDARD ISSUES, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE THERE.
AND OUR PERFORMANCE HAS TO INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY.
IT'S JUST NOT BEEN SATISFACTORY.
WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT STAKEHOLDER TRAVEL AND COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS.
AND JUST SO ALL PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY KNOW, THERE IS A LOT OF COMMUNICATION AND A LOT OF STAKEHOLDER INTERACTION, INCLUDING A LOT OF ATTENDANCE OF MEETINGS OF VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE STAKEHOLDER COMMUNITY AROUND THE IANA ENVIRONMENT.
I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
WHEN IT FITS IN WITH THE PROBLEM OF HIRING ADDITIONAL STAFF, IT'S -- AT THE MOMENT, IT'S A GREAT CHALLENGE.
AND WE WOULD PREFER TO HAVE STAFF ALLOCATED TO DOING THE FUNCTIONAL WORK THAN NECESSARILY DOING THE TRAVELING.
AND THAT'S A BALANCE WE UNDERTOOK WITH OUR COMMUNITY.
A KEY PART OF THIS IS ABOUT HAVING A SERVICE MENTALITY TO THE PEOPLE THAT WE ARE SERVING.
AND PART OF THE SERVICE MENTALITY IS TO LISTEN AND PART OF IT IS ENSURING THAT YOU DO THINGS ON TIME AND PEOPLE FEEL COMFORTABLE ABOUT THAT.
AND I THINK THAT BALANCE IS BEING UNDERMINED PARTLY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENTLY RESOURCES PRESENTLY ACTUALLY DOING WORK AND PARTLY I THINK WE JUST NEED TO REBALANCE.
SO WE TAKE THAT -- THAT'S SOMETHING, I THINK, WE REALLY NEED TO IMPROVE SIGNIFICANTLY.
I WOULD BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE SEEN A VERY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN REQUESTS, PARTICULARLY A DEMAND FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRY REQUESTS AND DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND DEMAND FOR INTERACTION, WHICH IS NOT JUST TAKEN UP BY THE STRICT IANA STAFF IN MARINA DEL REY, IT'S TAKEN UP BY A LOT OF THE OTHER MANAGEMENT TASKS.
I KNOW I MYSELF FIND MYSELF IN A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE WORLD AROUND THESE ISSUES WHERE, INVARIABLY, THE REQUEST -- THE CONVERSATION TURNS AROUND PRETTY QUICKLY TO ISSUES AROUND COUNTRY CODE MANAGEMENT IANA REQUESTS, THOSE SORTS OF ISSUES.
I JUST WANT TO REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY THAT WE SEE THAT -- A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THOSE.
AND MAYBE BECAUSE -- NOT ONLY BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN AN INCREASE, BUT BECAUSE SOME OF THESE AREAS HAVE -- SOME OF THESE CASE STUDIES, CASES HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN HANDLED EARLIER THIS YEAR, SOME OF THE MORE DIFFICULT ONES, I THINK WE'RE SEEING AN INCREASE IN DEMAND COMING FROM SOME OF THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, SO THEY'RE GOING THROUGH A DIFFERENT CYCLE AT THE MOMENT, I THINK, IN HAD TERMS OF ATTENTION TO CCS.
AND A LOT OF THESE ISSUES ARE NOT -- THEY'RE NOT EASY AND THEY'RE NOT QUICK.
SO THAT'S NOT AN EXCUSE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FLAG TO THE COMMUNITY THAT WE ARE SEEING A SLIGHT SHIFT IN THE TYPE OF DEMAND THAT -- OVERALL WHICH IS COMING INTO THE IANA.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, WHILE SOME PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE, THERE IS A VAST MUCH MORE TO BE DONE.
AND HAVING THESE TRAINS RUN ON TIME IS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO FOCUS ON.
WE, THE STAFF, GOING FORWARD.
IF I GO TO COMPLETING THE MOU PROCESS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ASPECTS IN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN, WE HAVE COMPLETED THE MOU PROCESS WITH THE DOC.
18 OF THE 25 DELIVERABLES HAVE BEEN SATISFIED IN TERMS OF MILESTONES.
THERE IS SOME WORK STILL TO BE DONE ON FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF SOME OF THEM.
16 OF THE 16 TIMED REPORTS ARE SATISFIED, INCLUDING THE ONGOING REGULAR REPORTS.
ALL DELIVERABLES ARE DUE SEPTEMBER 2006.
AND SO THAT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, I THINK PROGRESSING AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, TO BE TRUTHFUL.
ENSURING THE FUTURE SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM.
OBVIOUSLY -- THAT'S OBVIOUSLY THE WORK DONE WITH L ROOT AND THE WORK OF OTHER MANAGERS.
I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE ALSO DISCUSSION AMONG ROOT SERVER OPERATORS ABOUT ASPECTS OF NOT ONLY HOW THEY OPERATE, BUT POTENTIAL COORDINATION. AND WE CERTAINLY LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE DISCUSSIONS COMING TO FRUITION.
WORKING WITH THE REGISTRIES AND MULTILINGUAL COMMUNITY ON INTRODUCTION OF IDNS.
THERE'S BEEN CREATED A DEDICATED IDN TEAM FROM STAFF AND FROM NONSTAFF.
WE ARE SUPPORTING THE REWRITING OF THE CRITERIA AND PROVIDING A ROADMAP FOR IDN IMPLEMENTATION.
WE HAD TALKED ABOUT A PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON IDN.
WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF CONSULTATION ON THAT.
WE HAVE ACTUALLY CREATED THE LIST AND WE EXPECT TO ISSUE THE INVITATIONS VERY SHORTLY FOR PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH AN INITIATIVE.
THERE IS A CONTINGENCY PLANNING UNDERWAY.
WE HAD DEVELOPED A CONTINGENCY PLAN TO PROVIDE CONTINUATION OF OPERATIONS IN THE EVENT OF NATURAL DISASTER OR BUSINESS FAILURE.
THAT'S BEEN PUBLISHED AND PUT UP, OR ASPECTS OF IT HAVE ABOUT.
THERE IS STILL SOME CAPITAL ASPECTS OF THAT PLAN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN CONCLUDED.
PARTLY BECAUSE IT WAS A NECESSITY -- I SHOULD MAKE THE POINT HERE, ALTHOUGH THE BUDGETED -- THE BUDGET FOR THE 2005/2006, IT WAS ABOUT THE $16 MILLION MARK, THE -- BECAUSE OF THE WAY IN WHICH THE BUDGET -- REGISTRARS ACTUALLY APPROVED THE BUDGET AND THE DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE, IT WASN'T UNTIL NOVEMBER THAT IT WAS FINALIZED IN THE FIRST SORT OF PART OF THE NEW REVENUE MODEL CAME INTO EFFECT THE FIRST QUARTER OF THIS YEAR.
SO WE ACTUALLY HAD A DELAY IN THE PAYMENT PROCESS THROUGH THAT.
LET ME MOVE ON TO CHOICE AND COMPETITION FOR THE MARKETPLACE.
STRENGTHEN CONTRACTUAL COMPLIANCE.
WE PUBLISHED THE COMPLIANCE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
WE DEFINED AND FURTHER DEVELOPING THE STAFF REQUIREMENTS.
AND THERE ARE JOB POSITIONS, I THINK ABOUT 14 JOB POSITIONS PRESENTLY UP ON THE WEB SITE FOR THE COMMUNITY TO LOOK AT.
AGAIN, ANY APPLICATIONS GRATEFULLY RECEIVED.
AND WE'VE -- WE'VE PUT IN PLACE A TRANSFER POLICY COMPLIANCE PROGRAM.
AND, OBVIOUSLY, A FOLLOW-UP BEHIND THAT HAS BEEN THAT YOU WILL DISCUSSION, THINGS LIKE IN THE SECURITY AND STABILITY COMMITTEE, ASPECTS OF DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING, ET CETERA.
WE NEED IN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN CALLED FOR US TO ADD STAFF TO PERFORM CONTRACT MANAGEMENT.
WE HAVE HAD TO RELY ON OUTSIDE COUNSEL IN THE SHORT TERM.
AND WE HAVE A RECRUITMENT PROCESS UNDERWAY AT THE MOMENT NOW THAT WE HAVE THE IMPROVED CASH FLOW.
SIMILARLY, ON THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION STAFF, WE HAVE AUTOMATED THE ACCREDITATION RENEWAL PROCESS FOR REGISTRARS, AND WE HAVE ADDED ADDITIONAL LEVEL STAFF.
ON IMPROVING CHOICE AND COMPETITION FOR THE MARKETPLACE, IMPROVE WHOIS ACCURACY, THERE ARE VARIOUS REPORTS TO THE DOC WHICH I WOULD DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO.
WE HAVE RESTRUCTURED THE WHOIS DATA REPORT PROBLEM SYSTEM TO IMPROVE ITS EFFICACY.
AND THE LAST ANALYSIS INDICATES THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE OF REPORTS RESULTED IN CHANGE, SUSPENSION, OR DELETION OF WHOIS INFORMATION.
THE PREDICTABLE PROCESS AND PUBLISHED GUIDELINES FOR THE EVALUATION OF NEW REGISTRY SERVICES, WE CONTRIBUTED TO THE GNSO PDP.
WE USED THE GNSO WORK TO DATE TO DEVELOP A MODEL WHICH WAS USED IN DOT NET, DOT JOBS, AND DOT TRAVEL PROPOSED AGREEMENTS.
IT'S IN THOSE AGREEMENTS.
THE SAME MODEL WAS ALSO USED IN DOT NET.
AND THAT IS, OBVIOUSLY, A HOT TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AT THIS MEETING.
BUT IT WAS BASED ON THE WORK ON THE GNSO PDP TO THAT DATE.
AND ALSO, WE'VE BEEN, OBVIOUSLY -- THERE'S AN OPERATIONAL PLAN ITEM THAT SAYS "MANAGE LITIGATION."
AND ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS, WE ARE DEFINITELY ONGOING MANAGING LITIGATION.
EFFICIENT -- ONE OF THE OPERATIONAL PLANS IS TO EFFICIENTLY INTRODUCE NEW GTLDS TO INCREASE COMPETITION IN THE DOMAIN NAME SPACE.
THERE WAS A STRATEGY OUTLINED IN SEPTEMBER LAST YEAR, THERE WAS CONSULTATION PUT OUT IN THAT STRATEGY.
THERE WAS VERY LITTLE RESPONSE TO THAT CONSULTATION.
WE ARE NOW CONSULTING WITH SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND OTHER GROUPS TO DISCUSS NEXT STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION.
YOU'LL KNOW THERE'S A PAPER OUT FOR THAT PURPOSE NOW.
WE'RE SOLICITING -- WE'VE BEEN SOLICITING TECHNICAL ADVICE AND ECONOMIC STUDIES.
WE RECEIVED SOME.
AND THE BOARD IS STILL CONSIDERING -- CLEARLY, ITS CONSIDERATIONS OF WHERE TO GO IN THE PROCESS STEPS ON THE GTLD.
BUT THE POINT, I WOULD SAY, IS WE ALSO -- THE STLD ROUND VERY MUCH INFORMED THE GTLD PROCESS.
IN TERMS OF STRENGTHENING SERVICE TO GTLD REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES, WE'VE HIRED A CHIEF REGISTRAR LIAISON.
AND WE'VE HIRED THREE REGISTRAR LIAISON ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE STAFF.
WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF FINALIZING THOSE OFFERS AT THE MOMENT.
OKAY. SO THAT'S ALL THE WORK ON COMPETITION AND CHOICE. THE OPERATIONAL PLAN CALLED, UNDER THE FORUM FOR BOTTOM-UP DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY, STAFF SUPPORT FOR SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS POLICY DEVELOPMENT. SO WE HIRED A GNSO STAFF SUPPORT POLICY OFFICER, A CCNSO STAFF SUPPORT POLICY OFFICER, A MANAGER OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION, AS A VISAGE, AND WE'VE MADE CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR INTERIM SUPPORT AS THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY SUPPORT LEFT US AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR, AND WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF RECRUITING FOR THAT AND WE FOUND THE RESPONSE BY THE CHAIR OF THE GNSO AND OTHERS INTERESTING AS TO HOW THAT RECRUITMENT SHOULD PROCEED. ADDING STAFF TO RESPOND TO AND ASSIST INDIVIDUAL USERS. WE HAVE ADDED ADMIN LEVEL STAFF TO RESPOND TO PHONE AND E-MAIL CHOIRS AND WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL CUSTOMER SERVICE MANAGER TO BE HIRED IN 2005-2006. WE DON'T GO LOOKING TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER. THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE AND THAT'S NOT WHO WE ARE. WE DO GET A L!
OT OF INQUIRIES AND WE HAVE TO FIND SOME WAY OF DEALING WITH THEM. I WOULD MAKE THE OBSERVATION THAT AT VARIOUS TIMES IN THE YEAR WE GET INCREASING -- WE GET QUITE A LOT OF REGISTRAR REDIRECTED INQUIRIES. OFTEN, I THINK FOR SOME PEOPLE IT'S EASIER TO SAY "RING ICANN," IN SOME ASPECTS AND WE GET A LOT OF THAT. AND WE DO WORK WITH THE REGISTRARS TO FIX THAT SORT OF INADVERTENT OR ADVERTENT REDIRECTION.
IN TERMS OF THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GLOBAL PARTICIPATION, WE PARTICULARLY LOOKED AT AUGMENTING STAFF TO COORDINATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICIES. I THINK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE GLOBAL PARTICIPATION, INTERNATIONALIZATION. WE RETAINED THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES. WE'VE RETAINED AN OMBUDSMAN AND PROVIDED APPROPRIATE LOGISTICAL SUPPORT. WE'VE TAKEN DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN GTLD CONTRACTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, A COMPULSORY ARBITRATION FORUM, AND ARE QUITE AWARE OF THE NEED TO CONTINUE INTERNATIONALIZED DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES.
ENHANCE THE WEB SITE FOR BETTER EDUCATION OF CONSUMERS. THERE IS SOME IMPROVEMENT MADE THROUGH LINKS, CHANGES TO IANA AND GNSO SITE. THERE'S SOME TRANSLATION. WE'VE GOT SOME VERY GOOD STAFF NOW HIRED.
WE ARE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT SOME FURTHER SUPPORT IN THIS AREA. BUT I DO THINK THE WEB SITE IS SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT AGAIN THIS YEAR IN TERMS OF ITS EFFICACY AND ASSISTANCE TO THE VARIOUS USERS TO ALL THE USERS OF IT.
WSIS, THE WORKING GROUP FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE, WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY PUT A LOT OF ATTENTION AND HELP INTO THAT, AS HAS THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY INVOLVED A LOT OF MANAGEMENT ATTENTION, COMMUNITY ATTENTION, AND ASPECTS OF EXPENSE DIRECTED TOWARDS TRYING TO ACHIEVE THIS OBJECTIVE, AND I'LL LET THE COMMUNITY MAKE JUDGMENTS AS TO HOW EFFECTIVE THAT HAS BEEN AS THE REPORT COMES OUT AND AS WE PROGRESS.
IN TERMS OF ACTIVELY PROMOTING CONSUMER INTERESTS THROUGH INFORMATION AND SERVICE, WE'VE DEVELOPED AND DISTRIBUTED LITERATURE NOW IN 17 LANGUAGES. IF YOU GO BACK TO THE OPERATIONAL PLAN, I THINK WE STARTED IN TWO. WE STARTED CONDUCTING MULTILINGUAL SESSIONS IN THIS LUXEMBOURG MEETING. WE HAD TRANSLATION FOR PART OF OUR ACTIVITIES IN SOME OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS. AND WE STARTED CREATING AND DISTRIBUTION EDUCATIONAL MATERIALLY THE OMBUDSMAN. SO THAT'S ACTIVITY UNDERWAY.
SO THAT'S, CHAIRMAN, A LONG BUT A CONCISE -- I HOPE IT'S CONCISE. I'M AFRAID I DON'T THINK IT'S THE LEVEL OF DETAIL OR PROPERLY TABULATED REPORT TO THE BOARD. WE SHOULD IMPROVE FOR NEXT YEAR BUT IT'S SOME SORT OF REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY ON PROGRESS.
I HAVE THREE OTHER QUICK POINTS TO GO THROUGH, IF THAT'S OKAY.
I WANT TO GIVE JUST AN UPDATE ON THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESSES THAT NOW HAVE STARTED.
AND IF I MAY MAKE A PERSONAL OBSERVATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COMMUNITY FOR WHAT I THINK WAS REALLY THE FANTASTIC FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS OF STRATEGIC PLANNING IN 2005. 2004-2005.
I THINK IT'S INEVITABLE IN ANY ENTERPRISE, AND PARTICULARLY IN SUCH A WIDESPREAD MULTISTAKEHOLDER ENTERPRISE, THAT IT TAKES US QUITE SOME TIME TO FIND THE RIGHT PATTERN AND MODEL FOR STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL PLANNING. WE STARTED THE PROCESS OFF THIS YEAR. I THINK IT HAD SOME PROS, IT DEFINITELY HAD SOME CONS. SOME PEOPLE I KNOW WERE REASONABLY COMFORTABLE, SOME PEOPLE WERE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. THAT WAS GREAT. WE UNDERSTOOD THAT AND WE LEARNED FROM THAT AS TO WHAT TO DO FOR THIS COMING YEAR. AND SO THIS COMING YEAR PROCESS IS ONE OF RUNNING A SERIES OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS. THEY'RE UNDERWAY PRESENTLY HERE. THEY'RE ALSO AVAILABLE ONLINE, CONNECTING MULTIPLE CONSULTATIONS IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES. AND WE'VE POSTED A STRATEGIC PLANNING CALENDAR AND QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION.
AND THOSE QUESTIONS ARE OPEN TO FURTHER AMENDMENT, CHANGE AND SUGGESTION FROM THE COMMUNITY. BUT I'D REALLY DIRECT EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION TO THAT CALENDAR.
AFTER INITIAL ROUNDS OF CONSULTATION, THERE WILL BE THE PUBLICATION OF AN ISSUE STATEMENT FOR COMMUNITY REVIEW AND COMMENT, WHICH WILL BE SORT OF A DISTILLATION OF ALL THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED. AND AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT, IT MOVE TOWARDS SOME MOVEMENT TOWARDS DRAFTING A STRATEGIC PLAN. AND THE AIM OF THAT WILL BE HAVE IT AVAILABLE FOR FULL CONSULTATION AT THE MEETING IN VANCOUVER AND THE TIME SOMETHING TO HAVE THE STRATEGIC PLAN APPROVED BY THE BOARD IN JANUARY. SO WE CAN MOVE TO A SIMILAR PROCESS -- OR A PROCESS FOR THE OPERATIONAL PLAN IN THE FIRST HALF OF 2007, AND THE PRESIDENT IS CERTAINLY LOOKING FORWARD TO THE ADVICE OF THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP, AS WELL AS OTHERS, ON THE PROCESS FOR PUTTING TOGETHER THAT OPERATIONAL PLAN AND -- THE OPERATIONAL PLAN AND BUDGETING PROCESS.
THIS -- THE 2005-2006 BUDGET PROCESS PROVIDES IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET A DESCRIPTION OF THE BUDGETING PROCESS. IT OUTLINES OUR OPERATIONAL PLAN. TIED OUT TO THE PRIORITIES SET OUT IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
NOW, WE APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS SOME DISCOMFORT WITH THE FACT THAT THE STRATEGIC PLAN IS NOT YET APPROVED AND THE STRATEGIC PLAN IS -- THERE ARE ISSUES IN THAT THAT PEOPLE HAVE CONCERNS WITH.
WE HAVE JUST TIED IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ACTUALLY SOME SORT OF ASPECTS OF THAT OPERATIONAL -- YOU KNOW, JUST TO HAVE A FRAMEWORK ON WHICH TO BUILD THE OPERATIONAL PLAN WITHOUT NECESSARILY ANY IMPLIED APPROVAL PROCESS AROUND THE STRATEGIC PLAN ITSELF.
AND I APPRECIATED THE SESSIONS THAT WERE BEING HELD HERE EARLIER IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, GOING THROUGH THE OPERATIONAL PLAN POINT BY POINT AND GETTING FEEDBACK IN THAT PROCESS. IT ALSO INCLUDES THE SPENDING PLAN AND REVENUE GOALS AND SOURCES OF REVENUE.
I THINK THE ELEMENTS OF THE BUDGET PROCESS ARE QUITE STRAIGHTFORWARD THERE.
WHAT'S PRESENTLY THE KEY ELEMENTS OF THE OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR THE COMING YEAR INCLUDE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CONTRACTUAL COMPLIANCE PROGRAM, IMPROVED REGISTRATION SERVICES, IANA PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS. I'M A BIT FRUSTRATED THAT THAT'S SITTING THERE AGAIN WHEN IT WAS SITTING THERE LAST YEAR, SO THAT'S CERTAINLY A VERY SHORT TERM AND MAJOR PRIORITY. FOSTERING COMPETITION AND CHOICE THROUGH MANY INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIVES. A COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTINGENCY PLANS. GLOBALIZATION, INCLUDING WORKING TOWARDS EFFECTIVE REGIONAL PARTICIPATION.
FULFILLING THE FINAL OBJECTIVES SET OUT IN THE MOU WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. MANAGING EXTERNAL RISKS TO THE COMPANY. I THINK THAT'S MY GENERAL COUNSEL'S NICE LANGUAGE FOR WHAT HE DOES.
AND INTERNATIONALIZATION, PARTICULARLY MULTILINGUAL COMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION.
THESE ARE THE KEY ELEMENTS, CHAIRMAN, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN GONE THROUGH IN QUITE A LOT OF DETAIL OVER THE LAST DAY OR MORE IN OPEN SESSION.
I'LL FINISH UP WITH -- THERE IS SOME ITEMS HERE ON THE TLD PROCESS.
I JUST WANT TO REMIND MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT THE BOARD OF ICANN IN NOVEMBER 2003 AGREED ON A TWIN-TRACK PROCESS TO DEAL WITH INTRODUCING MORE CHOICE TO REGISTRANTS IN THE GTLD MARKETPLACE. HAVING HAD A TEST BED ROUND IN 2001.
AND THAT TWO-PART TRACK WAS OPEN A ROUND FIRST, SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, NOT NUMBER DELINEATED, SET AGAINST AN RFP AND THEN TO BE EVALUATED. AND THEN A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT PEOPLE REALIZED WERE AWARE TO PUT IN PLACE A STRATEGY FOR LETTING THE COMMUNITY IDENTIFY ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT WOULD LET THEM DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO MOVE TO HAVING A MORE -- SET OF AN OPENING OF THE GTLD NAMING PROTOCOL, IF YOU LIKE. AND IF SO, ON WHAT TERMS.
THE STLD ROUND IS NOW COMING TO ITS CONCLUSION. THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF LEARNING OUT OF THERE, LOTS OF ISSUES THAT THE BOARD AND OTHERS HAVE LEARNED, WHICH NEEDS TO BE INCORPORATED IN.
THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF -- WHAT'S COME OUT OF THAT IS THERE IS A LOT OF COMPLEXITY AROUND INTRODUCING NEW GTLDS, THERE ARE LOTS OF ISSUES WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. THERE IS A PAPER UP ON THE WEB SITE NOW, OUTLINING WHAT SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE, WITHOUT SAYING THAT THAT'S A FULL LIST OR IT'S COMPLETE. THERE IS ALSO SOME INDICATION OF WHAT SORT OF GROUPS MIGHT HAVE VIEWS ON IT, BUT THAT'S PROBABLY ALSO INCOMPLETE. WE'RE LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK.
THE PROCESS FOR HOW THAT IS TAKEN FORWARD IS A MATTER OF DISCUSSION AT THIS MEETING.
AND SO THE BOARD IS ACTUALLY HAVING CONSULTATIONS AND TALKING TO MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THE PROCESS FOR GOING FORWARD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE THINGS IS STILL -- I CAN'T SAY WHAT THE ANSWER TO THAT IS AS THE CONSULTATIONS TAKE PLACE DURING THIS WEEK.
BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY RECOGNITION BY THE BOARD OF THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THAT DEVELOPMENT POLICY.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FINAL POINT ON COUNTRY CODES, IF I MAY.
IT IS THE VIEW, I KNOW, OF THE BOARD, IT IS CERTAINLY THE VIEW OF THE MANAGEMENT AND IT IS THE VIEW OF IANA TRADITIONALLY THAT, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE COUNTRY CODES BUT IT'S ALSO TRUE FOR OUR LINKAGES WITH THE REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRIES, ALSO WITH IETF, THAT WE SHARE A JOINT STEWARDSHIP RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE STABILITY OF THESE UNIQUE IDENTIFIERS.
WHEN I COME TO COUNTRY CODES, PART OF THAT JOINT STEWARDSHIP INCLUDES BOTH BEING VERY RECEPTIVE, IF YOU LIKE, TO A CUSTOMER, BEING SORT OF CUSTOMER FOCUSED AND BEING ABLE TO SERVE WELL, BUT ALSO RECOGNIZING THE SORTS OF RISKS AND SORTS OF OBLIGATIONS JOINT STEWARDSHIP MEAN FOR ENSURING A SINGLE GLOBAL INTEROPERABLE INTERNET WHERE EVERYBODY GETS THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE.
WE DON'T VIEW IN ISSUE AS BEING ONE WHERE, IF YOU LIKE, IT'S CAVEAT EMPTOR. IF DID YOU KNOW CODE ZZ, MAKE SOMETHING UP, DECIDES THEY SHOULD DO SOMETHING ELSE, THAT'S FINE, AND CAVEAT EMPTOR, TAKE THE RISK, OUR VIEW IS IT'S FOR THE BILLION USERS OF THE INTERNET AS A WHOLE AND THOSE PEOPLE HAVE AN INTEREST IN GETTING TO .ZZ DOMAINS AS WELL AS THE PEOPLE FROM .ZZ WANT TO GET TO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.
THAT'S A PART OF OUR STEWARDSHIP.
ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF THAT IS ALSO IN HAVING SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT, FRAMEWORK, THROUGH WORKING WITH EACH OTHER, BUILDING ON THE ONES THAT EXISTED IN THE PAST. AND WE'RE LOOKING TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE STABLE SORT OF AGREEMENTS, ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS IN THIS ARENA.
AND THE CCNSO HAS FORMED A WORKING GROUP TO PROPOSE A SET OF PRINCIPLES RELATING TO SUCH A FRAMEWORK. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO RECEIVING THAT WORK AND TO START THAT DISCUSSION.
AND TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
I ALSO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO EVERYBODY, JUST SO THERE'S NO CONFUSION ABOUT THESE SORT OF THINGS, THE ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS AND HAVING THESE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN US AS TO HOW WE IMPLEMENT OUR JOINT STEWARDSHIP IS NOT TIED IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER TO REQUESTS FOR REDELEGATIONS. THAT'S NOT THE POLICY. THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THAT, THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONFUSION IN E-MAIL COMMUNICATION ABOUT THAT. I WANT TO PUT THAT FIRMLY ON THE TABLE THAT IS NOT THE POLICY. THERE IS NO TIE BETWEEN ANY REQUESTS FOR A REDELEGATION AND THE ENTERING INTO ANY ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT QUITE CLEAR BECAUSE THAT SOMETIMES DOES EMERGE AS CONFUSION, SOME OF IT GENERATED FROM OUTSIDE, SOME OF IT GENERATED FROM OTHER PEOPLE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S A LONG BUT COMPLETED STATEMENT.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PAUL. THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR QUESTIONS A BIT LATER, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT REPORT.
I THINK IN FUTURE, WRITTEN MATERIAL WILL BE AVAILABLE -- I HOPE WILL BE AVAILABLE SO MORE DETAIL WILL BE IN OUR HANDS WITHOUT YOU HAVING TO WALK US THROUGH IT ORALLY.
LET ME NOW MOVE ON TO THE FIRST OF THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION REPORTS. IF BRUCE TONKIN IS AVAILABLE, I WOULD INVITE HIM TO MAKE THE REPORT FOR THE GNSO. AND THERE HE IS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I WAS GOING TO STALL FOR TIME WHILE YOU ASKED PAUL TWOMEY SOME QUESTIONS, AND IT WAS GOING TO GIVE ME TIME TO SET UP.
>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY; NEXT TIME WE'LL HAVE TO COORDINATE A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I --
>>VINT CERF: YES, PETER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I WONDER ABOUT THE EFFICACY OF SAVING ALL COMMENTS TILL THE END, AND I SHOULD HAVE RAISED THIS EARLIER. I HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO SAY THAT ARE NICE ABOUT THE CEO'S REPORT, AND I'LL HAVE FORGOTTEN THEM BY THE TIME WE GET TO IT AT THE END OF THE DAY. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE A BRIEF PERIOD AFTER EACH REPORT WITHOUT FORECLOSING THE OPPORTUNITY TO RETURN TO IT AT THE END OF THE DAY?
>>VINT CERF: WE CAN TRY. WHILE BRUCE IS TRYING TO PLUG THINGS IN, LET ME INVITE YOU TO SAY SOMETHING NICE.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: BRUCE, DO YOU WANT SOME HELP? I CAN GET A LAWYER TO COME PLUG YOU IN.
>>VINT CERF: PLEASE GO AHEAD, PETER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I WANTED TO SAY TO PAUL, THANK YOU FOR A REPORT THAT CONTINUES THE TREND OF LINKING THE ITEMS IN THE REPORT TO THE OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES IN THE MOU BY NUMBER. AND AGAIN, AS WE SAW WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING OPERATIONAL PLAN, AS SOON AS WE GOT AN OPERATIONAL PLAN WITH NUMBERS IN IT, IT JUST MAKES IT SO MUCH EASIER TO TRACK PROGRESS AGAINST CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE GOALS. SO I THANK YOU FOR THAT.
IN RELATION TO THE NEW GTLDS, I JUST WANT TO RECORD MY VIEW, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT ANYBODY DISAGREES WITH IT, THAT IT'S THE PRIMARY ORGANIZATION THAT SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS IS THE GNSO. BECAUSE ARTICLE X-1 OF THE BYLAWS, AND I'M SORRY TO TAKE OVER MIKE'S ROLE OF REFERRING TO THE BYLAWS, BUT ARTICLE X-1 MAKES IT THE GNSO'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DEVELOP POLICIES AND REFER THEM TO THE BOARD. AND I'VE ASKED THE GNSO AT THEIR CROSS-CONSTITUENCY MEETING TO TELL US HOW THEY WOULD MANAGE THIS -- THIS PROCESS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, BRUCE. ARE YOU READY TO ROLE?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: , YES, THANK YOU, VINT.
THE PURPOSE OF THE GNSO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING AND RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD POLICIES RELATING TO TOP-LEVEL NAMES. FOR QUITE A WHILE, THAT LIST HAS STAYED FAIRLY CONSTANT, BUT I'M PLEASED TO SAY IT'S GROWING AND WE NOW HAVE JOBS AND TRAVEL ON THE LIST. I'M SURE OTHERS WILL SHORTLY JOIN.
IN TERMS OF CURRENT ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT WORK, IN THE WHOIS AREA, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION CURRENTLY BEFORE THE COUNCIL WHICH RELATES TO IMPROVING INFORMATION FOR REGISTRANTS TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE CONTACT INFORMATION THEY PROVIDE TO PUT IN FIELDS LIKE ADMIN AND TECHNICAL CONTACT IS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE WHOIS SERVICES. AND WE'RE CURRENTLY WAITING FOR SOME DRAFT LEGAL TEXT FROM THE ICANN STAFF SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT RECOMMENDATION WILL BE ON REGISTRAR AGREEMENTS.
WITH RESPECT TO THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR CHANGES TO GTLD AGREEMENTS, OFTEN REFERRED TO AS THE SORT OF PROCESS FOR APPROVING NEW REGISTRY SERVICES, THERE'S A FINAL REPORT CURRENTLY BEFORE THE COUNCIL, AND WE HAD A BRIEFING AT THIS MEETING FROM THE GENERAL COUNSEL ON THE IMPLICATIONS ON THE RECENT CHANGES TO THE .NET AGREEMENT ON THAT PROCESS. AND CERTAINLY ONE OF THE SENTIMENTS, I GUESS, IS THAT WE MAKE THAT PROCESS CONSISTENT, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, ACROSS ALL OF THE GTLDS.
IN TERMS OF NEXT STEPS WITH THE WHOIS WORK, ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION AFTER A WHILE IS THERE'S OFTEN LOTS OF DEBATES ABOUT WHAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE AND HOW SHOULD IT BE MADE AVAILABLE. AND TO REALLY ENGAGE IN THAT DISCUSSION NEEDS REFLECTION ON WHAT THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS IS WITH RESPECT TO THE MISSION OF ICANN. SO THERE IS WORK CURRENTLY UNDERWAY TRYING TO COME UP WITH A SUCCINCT DEFINITION OF WHOIS PURPOSE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ICANN SECURITY AND STABILITY AND OTHER ISSUES.
ALSO, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO CUSTOMERS OR TO PEOPLE THAT REGISTER NAMES WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE VARIOUS CONTACTS ARE. CURRENTLY WE HAVE, REGISTRANT, ADMIN, TECH AND BILLING. USUALLY IT'S THE SAME INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR ALL FOUR OF THOSE. IN MANY CASES IT'S THE WRONG INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR ALL FOUR OF THOSE, AND IN SOME CASES YOU SEE SOMEONE HAS ASKED THEIR FRIEND TO REGISTER THE DOMAIN NAME AND IT'S THEIR FRIEND'S NAME IN ALL THOSE FIELDS. SO THE PERSON WHO THINKS THEY HAVE CONTROL OF THE DOMAIN NAME HAVE ACTUALLY NO LEGAL TIE TO THE DOMAIN NAME AT ALL.
SO ONCE WE HAVE THOSE PURPOSES VERY CLEAR, THEN WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION WE COLLECT AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION, HOW MUCH OF THAT SHOULD BE PUBLIC, AND OF THE BITS THAT AREN'T PUBLIC, HOW SHOULD ACCESS TO THAT BE PROVIDED. AND WE CERTAINLY HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS EARLIER THIS WEEK WITH THE WORKSHOP WITH THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW DATA IS CURRENTLY USED AND HENCE WHICH DATA WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO STILL REMAIN PUBLIC, AND IF IT'S NOT PUBLIC, WHAT WOULD WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO THOSE THAT NEED IT.
OTHER ISSUES THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT BEFORE IS TO TRY TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS FOR CORRECTING DATA AND HOW TO MANAGE CONFLICTS WHERE THERE MIGHT BE LOCAL LAWS RELATED TO MAKING INFORMATION PUBLIC AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THERE'S METHODS TO MANAGE THAT.
IN TERMS OF NEW ACTIVITIES, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT NEW GTLDS. THAT'S BEGUN, I GUESS, AFTER THE RECENT PUBLICATION OF THE LIST OF QUESTIONS THAT THE STAFF HAVE PRODUCED.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S NOT CLEAR IN THE GNSO COMMUNITY NOW, AFTER WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT TLDS FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND MANY PEOPLE WEREN'T AROUND IN SORT OF 2000 AND BEFORE THAT, IS TO REALLY CONFIRM WHAT ACTUALLY IS A STATEMENT OF CURRENT CONSENSUS POLICY FROM ICANN AND DETERMINE WHAT NEW POLICIES ARE REQUIRED TO ASSIST STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THAT POLICY.
WE ALSO, AS WE HAVE NOW STAFFED UP WITHIN ICANN, THE ABILITY TO DO ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONTRACTS IT SIGNED CAN REGISTRARS. THAT THE MECHANISMS NEED TO BE MORE THAN JUST BASICALLY A CASE OF IF YOU DON'T FIX THIS PROBLEM, WE'LL TERMINATE YOUR AGREEMENT, AND MORE TOWARDS MAYBE FINES OR SOME OTHER MECHANISMS TO ENCOURAGE REGISTRARS TO FIX THE LITTLE THINGS.
WE HAD A WORKSHOP TODAY ON INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, AND SO CERTAINLY THE GNSO WILL BE LOOKING AT REVIEWING THE OUTCOMES OF THAT WORKSHOP AND MAKING SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD ON THAT TOPIC.
WITH RESPECT TO DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING, THERE WAS A RECENT REPORT ON THAT AND AGAIN THE GNSO WILL NEED TO CONSIDER THE OUTCOME OF THAT REPORT AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE NEXT STEPS.
THIS REALLY BRINGS US TO GNSO PLANNING. AND THAT'S TRYING TO SAY, WELL, THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS WE COULD WORK ON. WE NEED TO WORK WITH THE ICANN STAFF IN AGREEING THE PRIORITIES, CERTAINLY FOR THE NEXT FOUR MONTHS. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT DO WE NEED TO GET DONE BY VANCOUVER.
WHAT SHOULD WE BE DOING OVER A 12-MONTH PERIOD. AND THOSE, I GUESS, LIST OF THINGS TO DO SHOULD ULTIMATELY FIND THEIR WAY INTO THE ICANN OPERATING PLAN WITH RESPECT TO THE POLICY SECTION.
AND WE NEED TO START THINKING ABOUT OUR STRATEGY FOR THE GNSO COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS. AND ESPECIALLY STRENGTHENING PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSTITUENCIES, BECAUSE WHILE NATURALLY THERE'S A LOT OF PARTICIPATION IN THE REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCIES BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CONTRACT WITH ICANN, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING PARTICIPATION FROM INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS AROUND THE WORLD, BUSINESSES, NONCOMMERCIAL USERS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY USERS. SO I THINK THE GNSO AS ON ORGANIZATION NEEDS TO IMPROVE IN THIS AREA.
FINALLY, INDEPENDENT REVIEWS. WE'VE HAD A REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL ITSELF AND THE OUTCOMES OF THAT REVIEW WILL FIND THEIR WAY INTO THE OPERATING PLAN AND STRATEGY PLAN, AND CERTAINLY WE NEED TO REVIEW PERHAPS THE NEXT LEVEL DOWN, LOOK AT DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT STRUCTURE FOR THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES AND DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT PARTICIPATION.
WE PROPOSE THAT REVIEW WOULD BE HAPPENING NEXT YEAR SOMETIME.
WITH RESPECT TO VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY, IN RECENT TIMES WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ROLE HAS TENDED TO BE SPLIT, REALLY, BETWEEN DOING POLICY WORK BUT ALSO DOING A LOT OF OUTREACH. AND WE FEEL THAT THEY REALLY ARE ALMOST TWO FULL-TIME ROLES. SO WE HOPE THE POLICY ROLE FOCUSES ON THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND WORKING WITH THE ICANN OPERATION STAFF TO GIVE BETTER DATA TO THOSE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS ON PROBLEMS THEY NEED TO SOLVE.
AND SEPARATE OUT THE ROLE WHICH IS OUTREACH INTO ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE NOT YET PART OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY AND TRYING TO BRING THEM IN AND PARTICIPATE.
NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO DO A LOT MORE REGULARLY IS TRY AND REPORT TO THE BOARD AND THE WIDER ICANN COMMUNITY THE OUTCOME OF DISCUSSIONS THAT OCCURRED WITHIN CONSTITUENCIES OVER THE PAST TWO DAYS. IT TURNS OUT THERE'S NOT REALLY A CLEAR PROCESS ON HOW TO DO THAT, AND, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE REGISTRARS' MEETING, THE REGISTRARS MEETING DECIDED THEY WANTED TO COME UP WITH A STATEMENT, BUT THE FORMAL PROCESS FOR THE COMING UP WITH THE STATEMENT WOULD PROBABLY TAKE SEVERAL WEEKS TO BE CALLED A CONSTITUENCY STATEMENT.
SO INSTEAD, THE REGISTRARS GOT A LIST OF REGISTRARS INDIVIDUALLY TO AGREE TO A STATEMENT, AND THAT TURNS OUT TO BE A LARGE NUMBER.
AND LIKEWISE WHEN WE CAME UP TO THE COUNCIL YESTERDAY, WE HAD SOME DEBATE ABOUT HOW WE COULD PASS A RESOLUTION TO ALLOW ME TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD SOME OF THE OUTCOMES OF THOSE MEETINGS.
SO WE PROBABLY NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE FORMALITY OF THIS A BIT FURTHER, BUT I CAN CERTAINLY REPORT ON WHAT I HAVE HEARD.
SO A COUPLE OF -- TWO KEY THINGS SEEM TO COME OUT OF DISCUSSIONS I HAD HEARD IN PRESENTATIONS FROM THE CONSTITUENCIES YESTERDAY. THAT IT DOES SEEM THERE'S A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL MEMBERS, AT LEAST, THAT BELIEVE THE CURRENT DOCUMENT CALLED STRATEGY PLAN DOES NOT YET REPRESENT A CONSENSUS VIEW OF THE GNSO COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S NOT REALLY SURPRISING BECAUSE IT DOES TAKE A WHILE ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT, LOOKING AT A THREE-YEAR STRATEGY, IT TAKES A WHILE FOR THOSE COMMUNITIES TO CRYSTALLIZE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND REALLY PUT THAT INTO A PLAN. SO CERTAINLY WE HOPE THAT WE CAN DEVELOP A STRATEGY PLAN FOR NEXT YEAR THAT DOES HAVE CONSENSUS REPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY.
THERE'S ALSO A VIEW FROM THE MAJORITY OF MEMBERS THAT THE FINAL .NET AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE THE BOARD APPROVED IT, AND CERTAINLY IN THE REGISTRAR COMMUNITY THERE WAS GREAT SURPRISE AS SOME OF THE CHANGES, AND I THINK OTHER PARTS OF THE GNSO, LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SPECIFIC CHANGES, BUT MORE CONCERN THAT THEY AT LEAST KNEW THAT THEY WERE SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THE REGISTRARS TOLD THEM SO AND THEY ALSO FELT THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE THE CHANGES EXPLAINED AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT.
THE OTHER THING THAT I'D LIKE TO DO GOING FORWARD IS TRY AND REALLY PRESENT SOME OF THE OUTCOMES FROM THE PUBLIC COMING AND SPEAKING IN THE GNSO FORUM. AND I'LL TRY AND DO THAT A LOT MORE FORMALIZED IN THE FUTURE BY COLLECTING THOSE COMMENTS AND ACTUALLY EXPLAINING HOW THE GNSO IS GOING TO ADDRESS THE SIGNIFICANT ONES. BUT HERE IS A COUPLE THAT DID COME UP. AND IT'S COME UP BEFORE, OF COURSE, WHICH IS IMPROVING EDUCATION AND AWARENESS OF ISSUES WITH NEW TLDS AND PRESUMABLY INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES AS WELL, AND SUPPORT IN APPLICATION SOFTWARE. AND SOME SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS THERE WAS ON THE ICANN WEB SITE HAVING A CLEAR PLACE IN THE WEB SITE THAT HELPS PEOPLE FIND INFORMATION ON WHAT THE TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS ARE OF THOSE NEW TLDS FOR APPLICATION DEVELOPERS. AND ALSO WHEN WE HAVE ANNOUNCEMENTS ON A NEW TLD, SO WE HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT SAYING WE JUST CREATED .TRAVEL, THAT ANNOUNCEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LINK TO THE MORE TECHNICAL INFORMATION THAT EXPLAINS SOME OF THE ISS!
UES WITH TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES THAT MIGHT HAVE MORE THAN THREE CHARACTERS AND SO ON.
WE ALSO FOUND THAT WE HAD LEGAL EXPLANATIONS FROM ONE OR MORE MEMBERS OF THE GNSO COMMUNITY ON WHAT THE NEW CHANGES TO THE DOT NET AGREEMENT MEANT.
NATURALLY, THEY WERE DIFFERENT, AND CERTAINLY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE CHANGES TO AGREEMENTS, IT WOULD HELP IF WE HAD AN EXPLANATION, I GUESS, FROM THE ICANN ITSELF ON AT LEAST WHAT IT BELIEVED THE REASONS FOR THE CHANGES WERE AND WHAT THOSE CHANGES MEANT.
NOW, SOME BROUGHT UP WHAT I THINK IF HE FELT TO BE VERY NEGATIVE, SO IT IS GETTING BETTER.
JUST THAT WE HAVE AN OPERATIONAL AND A STRATEGIC PLAN, EVEN THOUGH SOME OF US THING THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT YET OPTIMAL, AT LEAST WE HAVE THEM, AND BEFORE WE DIDN'T.
AND I THINK THIS IS SHOWING THAT THE ORGANIZATION IS MATURING, AND IT'S PLEASING TO SEE THAT WE ARE STARTING TO FORMALIZE OUR PROCESSES, AND WE RECOGNIZE WE CAN DO BETTER.
CERTAINLY AS A REGISTRAR, WE'RE SEEING THE -- STARTING TO SEE THE BENEFITS OF THE ADDITIONAL STAFF.
AND I'VE CERTAINLY SEEN BETTER MANAGEMENT OF COMPLIANCE IN RECENT TIMES.
AND I DO KNOW THAT ICANN IS PLANNING TO PUT MORE RESOURCES IN THERE.
AND I THINK THAT'S VERY POSITIVE, TOO.
AND I'M JUST PICKING A COUPLE OF GOOD THINGS HERE.
THERE'S MANY OTHER GOOD THINGS THAT STAFF ARE DOING.
SO WE'RE ALL WORKING HARD.
AND LET'S BE CLEAR, FOR A COUNCIL MEMBER, AS A MEMBER OF COUNCIL, THEY'RE PROBABLY SPENDING 20 HOURS A WEEK IN ADDITION TO, LET'S SAY, THEIR 40-HOUR-A-WEEK NORMAL JOB.
FOR THE CHAIR, WE'RE PROBABLY TALKING 40 HOURS A WEEK IN ADDITION TO THE 40 HOURS A WEEK OF THEIR NORMAL JOB.
AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, ASK MY WIFE.
SO LET'S MAKE SURE WE SELECT THE RIGHT THINGS TO WORK ON AND ENSURE WE STICK TO THE PRINCIPLES OF TRANSPARENCY AND DIALOGUE AS WE DO SO.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE.)
>>VINT CERF: JUST A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS.
FIRST OF ALL, I ATTENDED ONE OF THE MEETINGS WITH THE REGISTRARS, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT WAS A CANDID MEETING, BUT IT WASN'T VITRIOLIC AND THERE'S SOMETHING WONDERFUL ABOUT CANDOR IN THE ABSENCE OF VITRIOL.
AND I APPRECIATE OUR VERY MUCH KEEPING THAT AM MIND.
THE OTHER THING I WANT TO REACT TO IN RELATION TO BRUCE'S COMMENT IS WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO LET PROCESS INTERFERE WITH COMMUNICATION SO LET'S NOT GET TRAPPED, BRUCE, EVEN IN YOUR OWN RULES IN THE GNSO, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU NEED TO COMMUNICATE, PLEASE FIND A WAY TO DO THAT AND DON'T ALLOW YOURSELF TO GET YOUR SHOELACES TANGLED UP, EVEN IF IT'S AN INFORMAL COMMUNICATION.
YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE STRATEGIC PLAN NOT ENJOYING FULL CONSENSUS, I CAN TELL YOU IT DOESN'T ENJOY FULL CONSENSUS IN THE BOARD, EITHER.
SO THIS IS A MATTER OF CONTINUING DISCUSSION.
IN KEEPING WITH PETER'S REQUEST, IF THERE ARE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE GNSO REPORT, I'LL TAKE A FEW BRIEF ONES NOW, IF THERE ARE ANY.
AND, OF COURSE, PETER HAS ONE.
OKAY.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I HAVE TO WATCH OUT.
BRUCE, I'M JUST -- THIS STRAT PLAN AND THE COMMENTS THAT IT DOESN'T ENJOY CONSENSUS SUPPORT I DON'T FIND TERRIBLY HELPFUL.
CAN I ASK TO YOU BE A LITTLE MORE EXPLICIT TO THAT.
BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR TO ME FROM THE COMMENTS FROM YOUR COMMUNITY THAT MUCH OF THE PLAN WAS ACCEPTABLE.
THERE WERE MANY, MANY PARTS OF THAT PLAN THAT WERE QUITE ACCEPTABLE.
I SEE YOU NODDING TO THAT.
AND, OF COURSE, WHAT'S IN IT FOR THE YEAR 2004-2005 WAS ALWAYS REDUNDANT BECAUSE IT WAS PROVIDED FOR IN THE BUDGET FOR THAT YEAR, WHICH WAS THE STRATEGIC PLANNING EQUIVALENT FOR THAT YEAR.
SO THAT -- WE CAN'T BE COMPLAINING ABOUT THAT PART OF IT.
WE'RE NOW LOOKING AT THE BUDGET FOR 2005-6, SO THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THAT INDEPENDENT OF WHAT'S IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
SO I GUESS WE'RE HONING DOWN ON THE THIRD YEAR OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
IT WOULD HELP ME IF YOU COULD JUST ITEMIZE THE BITS IN THAT THIRD YEAR THAT ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE YOUR GROUP'S CONSENSUS, BECAUSE THAT MIGHT ALLOW US, FOR EXAMPLE, TO APPROVE THE DOCUMENT WITH THOSE BITS STRUCK OUT OR WITH A CLAUSE IN IT TO SAY "SUBJECT TO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THESE CLAUSES," JUST A BLANKET "WE DON'T LIKE IT" DOESN'T HELP TERRIBLY MUCH.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
THE POINT OF THE STATEMENT IS TO MAKE -- IS TO BE CLEAR THAT IF WE'RE PRESENTING THIS PLAN FROM THE ORGANIZATION, SO IF ICANN GOES AND TALKS TO THE MEDIA TOMORROW, I THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS PLAN HAS THE FULL CONSENSUS OF THE COMMUNITY.
SO THAT'S REALLY, I GUESS, THE POINT OF THE RECOMMENDATION.
I CAN ACCEPT IT IS A PLAN, AND CERTAINLY, AS YOU SAY, FOR MOST PEOPLE, THEY WOULD PROBABLY AGREE WITH 80% OF THE PLAN, OR HIGHER.
WHERE YOU'LL GET DISAGREEMENT, I GUESS, IS ON THE REMAINING 20%, BECAUSE DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE PLAN THAT CONCERNS THEM.
I GUESS WHAT WE WOULD HOPE TO DO IS PROBABLY ARRANGE IT FROM 80% AGREEMENT, PERHAPS, TO 95% AGREEMENT.
I THINK WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET TO THE 100 POINT.
BUT I THINK WE CAN DO A BIT BETTER THAN WE ARE TODAY.
SO LET'S TRY AND GET IT FROM 80 TO 95 OR MAYBE WE'RE NOT EVEN THAT HIGH, MAYBE WE'LL TRY AND GET IT FROM, SAY, 70% UP TO 85 AND ACCEPT THAT THERE WILL BE SOME DIFFERENCES AROUND THE EDGES.
BUT I DON'T THINK I COULD CLEARLY EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT THOSE DIFFERENCES ARE, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S BEEN A PROCESS AMONGST THE GNSO TO BRING THOSE DIFFERENCES FORWARD.
SO SOME PARTS OF THE CONSTITUENCY MIGHT BE A LOT MORE DEVELOPED IN THEIR THINKING THAN OTHERS.
BUT AS CHAIR, I CAN'T REALLY REPRESENT TO YOU THE SPECIFIC AREAS, WEARING MY HAT AS THE CHAIR OF THE GNSO.
I CAN CERTAINLY TALK TO YOU PERSONALLY AND OFFLINE SAYING, YOU KNOW, SENTENCE NUMBER 5 OUT OF THE THOUSAND SENTENCES I DON'T LIKE.
BUT THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT SENTENCE COMPARED TO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY.
AND THE DIFFICULTY IS TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT ARE THE COMMON AREAS OF AGREEMENT AND THE COMMON AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT.
AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT GOING FORWARD WITH DOING PLANNING IS THAT WE HAVE A PROCESS THAT AT LEAST IDENTIFIES THOSE AREAS OF AGREEMENT AND AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT, AND WE DON'T YET HAVE THAT.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: VERY QUICK SUPPLEMENTARY, IF I MAY.
DON'T YOU FEEL AN OBLIGATION TO DO THAT AND BEFORE COMING FORWARD AND COMPLAINING, THAT YOU REALLY DO -- THE OBLIGATION MUST BE ON YOU TO IDENTIFY THOSE.
BUT WHAT ARE WE TO DO ABOUT --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: NO, I ACTUALLY COMPLETELY AGREE.
ONE COMMENT, I SHOULD SAY, AS AN AUSTRALIAN EXPRESSION IS, PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES.
AND CERTAINLY I DON'T THINK THE GNSO IS WELL-DEVELOPED IN ITS OPERATING AND STRATEGIC PLAN PROCESSES TO SAY TO THE BOARD, GEE, YOU GUYS ARE DOING A TERRIBLE JOB.
YOU COULD COME BACK TO ME AND SAY, "WHERE'S YOUR PLAN?"
AND I'D SAY, "I HAVEN'T GOT IT YET."
SO WE'VE GOT TO BE WORKING TOGETHER ON THIS.
BUT I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO DO BETTER.
AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
AND DOING BETTER MEANS HAVING A PROCESS WHERE WE IDENTIFY BOTH -- AND YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT, I'LL PUT IT BACK ON THE GNSO.
BUT I THINK WE WOULD COMMENT THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE INPUT EARLIER IN THE PROCESS WHEN THAT PLAN WAS PRODUCED.
AND HENCE YOU DIDN'T GET OUR BUY-IN IN THAT EXERCISE.
>>VINT CERF: PETER, LET ME REINFORCE THIS LAST COMMENT, BECAUSE IF OUR PROCESS IS ACTUALLY WORKING WELL, WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN ALL -- ENOUGH FEEDBACK TO HAVE REACHED CONSENSUS, OR AT LEAST SOME CLARITY AS TO WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE IT.
SO PART OF THIS ISSUE IS MAKING SURE THAT THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE STRATEGIC PLAN WORKS BETTER THAN IT DID THIS LAST TIME.
MY GUESS IS THAT IF ANYONE SAID 80% AGREEMENT ON THE PLAN, WE MIGHT ACTUALLY GET THAT SAME STATEMENT FROM TEN PEOPLE, BUT THEY MIGHT NOT BE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME 80%.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S RIGHT.
>>VINT CERF: ALEX, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: BRUCE, IT WOULD ADD INCREDIBLY TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THESE COMPLAINTS TO HAVE A SUMMARY THAT GIVES US ANY MEASURABLE IDEA OF HOW DIVERSE AND BROAD-BASED THE CONSENSUS AND THE DISSENT ARE ON THE SPECIFIC POINTS.
I DON'T THINK THAT THE WEEKS OF DISCUSSION, OR MAYBE MONTH OR MORE, THAT WENT ON BEFORE THE -- WHAT WAS CALLED THE AMSTERDAM CONSULTATION, THE MAR DEL PLATA MEETING, IN THE TIME FROM MAR DEL PLATA TO HERE COULDN'T HAVE INCLUDED MORE THAN GRUMBLINGS.
WHAT YOU'RE REPORTING IS -- AFTER YOUR REPLY TO PETER, I THINK THAT YOU CAN ONLY REPORT ON GENERALIZED GRUMBLINGS, NOT ON SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS.
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S ANYTHING TO THE CREDIBILITY OF PUTTING FORWARD THIS COMPLAINT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I'LL JUST ANSWER IT QUICKLY IN THAT YOU'RE RIGHT.
I WOULD LIKE TO BE REPORTING A LOT MORE DETAIL.
AND AT THIS STAGE, I GUESS I'LL PUT IT TO THE PUBLIC FORUM FOR PEOPLE THAT HAD THEIR OWN VIEWS.
BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE A PROCESS, AND YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT, FOR ME TO REPORT AT THAT LEVEL.
>>VINT CERF: ALL RIGHT.
NOW, PETER, THIS IS THE TROUBLE YOU'VE GOTTEN ME INTO.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WILL TAKE TWO MORE COMMENTS, BRIEF ONES FROM MIKE AND THE FLOOR, AND THEN THIS TOPIC IS OVER.
I APPRECIATE THE CANDOR, BUT NOW I HAVE TO MOVE ON.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: I'LL LET GRANT SPEAK, BECAUSE I THINK HE HAS SOME RELEVANT INFORMATION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN'T HEAR YOU, GRANT.
COME UP HERE.
>>GRANT FORSYTH: OKAY.
WE'RE UP NOW?
IT'S GRANT FORSYTH.
VINT, JUST SO AS NOT TO ENTIRELY DERAIL YOUR PROCESS, LET ME JUST RESTRICT MY COMMENT TO THE FACT THAT I THINK THIS DISCUSSION WE'VE JUST HAD DOES A GREAT DISSERVICE TO, FIRSTLY, THOSE OF US WHO HAVE PROVIDED SPECIFIC COMMENTS, AS REQUESTED, AND ALSO THE MAJORITY POSITION THAT WAS REACHED IN COUNCIL.
AND I THINK IF WE LOOK AT THE STATEMENT WHICH BRUCE CONVEYED VIA HIS POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, I THINK THE BOARD SHOULD TAKE A GREAT DEAL MORE STRENGTH FROM THAT STATEMENT.
AND THE STATEMENT IS TO CONTINUE THE PROCESS TO ARRIVE AT A CONSENSUS AS OPPOSED TO ACCEPTING THE DOCUMENT AS IT IS AT THE MOMENT.
SO WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE SPECIFICS, BECAUSE I THINK A NUMBER OF THE BACK-AND-FORWARDS DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD HERE, THERE ARE SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO THOSE WHICH I AND OTHERS, I'M SURE, WOULD BE HAPPY TO SHARE PERHAPS LATER ON IN THE FORUM.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: AND JUST TO FOLLOW UP, VINT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT THE EFFORT THAT THE GNSO HAS DONE THROUGH THE AMSTERDAM CONSULTATION, THE EFFORTS, THE OUTREACH.
AND, AGAIN, JUST AS A REFERENCE BENCH POINT, THIS ORIGINAL STRATEGIC PLAN DOCUMENT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE RELEASED DURING LAST YEAR'S BUDGET CYCLE, AND IT WAS NOT, IN FACT, RELEASED UNTIL LAST NOVEMBER.
SO, AGAIN, I THINK THE GNSO AND THE OTHER SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB.
IT'S NOT PERFECT.
BUT, AGAIN, I -- I'M JUST TRYING TO SORT OF SIT THERE AND LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE HERE.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MIKE.
THANK YOU, BRUCE.
MY GUESS IS THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER IF WE SPENT TIME WORKING ON A NEW STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE FUTURE RATHER THAN RETROFITTING WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, LOOKING BACKWARDS IN THE PAST.
BUT CERTAINLY THE DOCUMENT AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS IS A GOOD SOURCE OF INPUT TO ANOTHER STRATEGIC PLANNING CYCLE.
LET'S MOVE ON NOW TO CHRIS DISSPAIN AND THE CCNSO REPORT.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE CCNSO HAS PRODUCED A BRIEF REPORT OF ITS COUPLE OF DAYS' WORTH OF MEETINGS.
I DON'T PROPOSE TO READ IT.
IT'S AVAILABLE AND WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE WEB SITE SOON.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE A FEW KEY COMMENTS ON A FEW KEY ISSUES FOR US.
THERE ARE REALLY TWO KEY ISSUES RUNNING AT THE MOMENT, ONE OF WHICH PAUL HAS ALREADY MENTIONED, AND THAT'S ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS.
AND I'LL GET BACK TO THAT IN A SECOND.
AND THE SECOND ONE IS THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ON MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOME CHANGES TO THE CCNSO BYLAW AND ANNEXES IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE AN INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP OF THE CCNSO.
GENERALLY, ON THAT SCORE, WE ARE STARTING -- I'M DELIGHTED TO SAY WE'RE STARTING TO WORK -- TO COALESCE AND TO WORK AS A GROUP.
WE'VE HAD GREAT SUCCESS IN ADDRESSING THE SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT CAME UP IN BART BOSWINKEL'S ISSUE REPORT.
AND THERE HAS BEEN MUCH PARTICIPATION IN THE DEBATE.
IT'S INTERESTING THAT IF YOU JUDGE -- IF YOU CHOOSE TO JUDGE THE SUCCESS OF THE CCNSO BY THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS, YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY BE LESS SUCCESSFUL IF YOU JUDGE IT BY THE LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION, BECAUSE IT'S VERY HIGH.
WE WILL BE -- THERE IS A TIME LINE FOR THE PDP, AND IT'S ON THE WEB SITE.
WE'LL BE PUBLISHING A SECOND REPORT RELATIVELY SOON.
ON THE TIME LINES, SPECIFICALLY, THAT ONE HAS BEEN, AS I SAID, IS SET OUT ON THE WEB SITE AND THERE IS A PROCESS IN PLACE TO INVOLVE THOSE MEMBERS OF ICANN STAFF AND THE BOARD IN THE NECESSARY DISCUSSIONS.
AND ON THE BASIS OF THAT TIME LINE, WE WILL GET THE -- WE WILL HAVE THE RESULTS OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TO THE BOARD IN TIME FOR EITHER BEFORE OR AT VANCOUVER.
BEFORE I MOVE ON TO ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS, JUST BRIEFLY, ON IANA, CAN I THANK PAUL FOR HIS OPEN AND FRANK ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION WITH IANA.
I DON'T PROPOSE TO COMMENT ANY FURTHER ON THAT.
THE CCNSO'S POSITION ON IANA IS IN OUR REPORT.
AND THANK YOU.
ON ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS, WHICH I KNOW IS A VEXED ISSUE, AT THE JOINT CCNSO COUNCIL/ICANN BOARD BREAKFAST, WHICH I THINK WAS YESTERDAY, ALTHOUGH TIME -- YEAH -- VINT ISSUED A CHALLENGE THAT WE COMPLETE THE ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK WORK BEFORE VANCOUVER.
WE ACCEPT THAT CHALLENGE.
HOWEVER, WE ARE -- WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON THE ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO RESOLVE WITH THE ICANN STAFF SO THAT WE CAN COMPLETE THE CHALLENGE.
SO WHAT WE WILL BE DOING SHORTLY IS COMING TO YOU WITH A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO GET SOME GUIDANCE AND INPUT ON SO THAT WE CAN GO AWAY AND GET THE CONSENSUS THAT WE NEED TO SAY, "THIS IS NOW ACCEPTABLE AS A GUIDELINE."
BECAUSE, FRANKLY, IT IS COMPLETELY POINTLESS FOR US TO GO THROUGH A TORTURED PROCESS OF COMING ONE CONSENSUS ONLY TO DISCOVER THERE IS A MAJOR PROBLEM FROM YOUR SIDE THAT WE HAVEN'T THOUGHT OF.
SO WE'RE DOING THAT.
AND THE POINT I WANT TO STRESS HERE IS THAT WE CONTINUE TO PUT A LOT OF WORK INTO THIS, AND IT'S NOT A ONE-WAY STREET.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE STAFFING ISSUES THAT ICANN HAS.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT COMPLETELY.
BUT WE NEED YOU, THE BOARD AND THE STAFF, TO GIVE THESE ISSUES TIME AND ATTENTION.
IT'S MORE THAN IMPORTANT; IT'S CRITICAL.
ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO MEET THE CHALLENGE OF DR. CERF.
FINALLY, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH BRUCE, IT'S DEFINITELY GETTING BETTER.
AND PROGRESS IS BEING MADE.
I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE UP ANY MORE OF YOUR TIME UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS OR THERE'S DISCUSSION.
>>VINT CERF: LET ME ASK IF THERE IS ANYTHING FROM THE BOARD.
OR THE FLOOR.
I DON'T, EXCEPT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING THAT CHALLENGE, CHRIS, IT'S REALLY MUCH APPRECIATED.
AND I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO VANCOUVER IN THE HOPE THAT I WILL SEE AT LEAST A DOCUMENT THAT IS -- LAYS OUT ALL THE ISSUES AND LAYS OUT RECOMMENDATIONS, EVEN IF WE HAVEN'T NEGOTIATED ANY ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS YET.
SO THANK YOU ON MY BEHALF AND THANK THE CCNSO ON THAT.
NEXT UP IS HANS PETTER HOLEN GIVING THE ASO REPORT.
>>HANS PETTER HOLEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I HAVE CONNECTED MY COMPUTER, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THERE IS A SIGNAL ON THE SCREEN.
AH.
THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS HANS PETTER HOLEN.
I AM CHAIR OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IN THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION.
THIS REPORT IS TO DESCRIBE A BIT OF THE WORK THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IS DOING.
WE ON THE ADDRESS COUNCIL DO NOT REPRESENT THE REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRIES DIRECTLY.
WE ARE, IN MAJORITY, ACTUALLY, ELECTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, NOT BY THE RIRS.
HOWEVER, AFTER THE LAST MOU, THREE OF THE -- OR ONE MEMBER FROM EACH REGION IS ACTUALLY ELECTED BY THE BOARD OF EACH RIR.
THE REPRESENTATIVES ON THE COUNCIL ARE NOT NECESSARILY RIR MEMBERS.
I, FOR ONE, IS NOT CURRENTLY A MEMBER OF ANY OF THE RIRS.
I AM MERELY WORKING FOR A COMPANY NEEDING INTERNET SERVICES.
IN THE PROCESSES WE HAVE IN THE DIFFERENT REGIONS, THEY ARE ACTUALLY OPEN TO ALL PARTICIPANTS.
IN THE NEW MOU, IT'S CLEARLY SPECIFIED WHAT THE ROLES OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IS.
IT'S PARTLY GIVING THE BOARD ADVICE IN THE PROCESS OF RECOGNIZING NEW RIRS.
IT'S ALSO ELECTING SOME MEMBERS TO THE ICANN BOARD.
IT'S TO PROVIDE THE ICANN BOARD ADVICE ON POLICY ISSUES.
AND IT'S PURELY AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER OF DEVELOPING PROCEDURES FOR OUR OWN.
THE FIVE RIRS HAVE SINCE -- OR OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS DEVELOPED THEIR OWN ORGANIZATION TO BE ABLE TO ACT IN CONCERT.
IN THE PAST, THEY WERE TRULY INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER, BUT THEY HAVE NOW CREATED THIS NUMBER RESOURCE ORGANIZATION BOTH TO SUPPORT THE WORK OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL ON THE GLOBAL LEVEL, BUT ALSO TO BE ABLE TO MAKE FORMAL CONTRACTS WITH, FOR INSTANCE, ICANN.
WHAT WE HAVE DONE OVER THE LAST YEAR IS THAT, AS YOU PROBABLY ALL KNOW, WE HAVE COMPLETED THE POLICY FOR I.P. VERSION 4 ALLOCATIONS TO THE RIR AND THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD AT THE MAR DEL PLATA MEETING.
THE REASON FOR MENTIONING THIS IS THAT THE NEXT ITEM THAT IS COMING UP IS ACTUALLY THE IPV6 GLOBAL POLICY, WHICH IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF BEING DISCUSSED IN ALL THE REGIONS.
IN THE DIFFERENT REGIONS, THE STAGE OF THIS POLICY IS NOT AT THE SAME POINT FOR THE MOMENT.
IN SOME REGIONS, THEY HAVE COMPLETED MOST OF THE PROCESS; IN SOME REGIONS, THERE ARE STILL DISCUSSIONS GOING ON.
SO I WOULD FORESEE THAT THIS COULD ACTUALLY COME THROUGH THE PROCESS THIS YEAR, OR AT LEAST VERY EARLY NEXT YEAR.
I'M ALSO HAPPY TO WELCOME AFRINIC ON THE COUNCIL.
AND SINCE THE LAST MEETING, AFRINIC HAS ACTUALLY ELECTED THREE MEMBERS TO THE COUNCIL THROUGH THEIR NEW PROCESS, TWO OF THEM ELECTED BY THE COMMUNITY AND ONE OF THEM APPOINTED BY THE AFRINIC BOARD.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW WHO WE ARE, I'VE INCLUDED HERE A LIST OF MEMBERS FOR YOUR REFERENCE, SO YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT.
I WON'T SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON THAT.
AND WE ALSO HAVE THE SECRETARIAT TO SUPPORT OUR WORK, WHICH IS CURRENTLY PROVIDED BY LACNIC, BUT THIS IS ON ROTATION BETWEEN THE RIRS.
AS YOU PROBABLY ALSO KNOW, ONE OF OUR TASKS IS TO ELECT BOARD MEMBERS.
AND TWO OF THE CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS, RAIMUNDO BECA, AND MOUHAMET DIOP, ARE ACTUALLY ELECTED BY THE ADDRESS COUNCIL.
THE WAY THE AC CONDUCTS OUR BUSINESS IS PARTLY ON THE MAILING LIST, OF COURSE.
BUT IN ORDER TO MAKE FORMAL RESOLUTIONS, WE DO HAVE BIMONTHLY TELEPHONE CONFERENCES.
WE ALSO HAVE -- IN THE PAST HAVE AT LEAST ONE WORKSHOP EACH YEAR.
THIS YEAR WE HAVE DECIDED TO HAVE TWO WORKSHOPS.
WE HAD ONE DURING THE AFRINIC MEETING IN MOPUTU, AND WE HAVE DECIDED TO HAVE THE SECOND PHYSICAL MEETING OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL DURING THE ICANN MEETING IN VANCOUVER.
SO WE WILL DEFINITELY MEET AGAIN THEN.
AND WE ARE ALSO, OF COURSE, DOING OUTREACH ON THE RIR POLICY MEETINGS, OF COURSE.
AND WE ARE ALSO INCREASING OUR PRESENCE AT ICANN MEETINGS, AS YOU WILL SEE.
RECENTLY ON THE AGENDA OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL HAS BEEN A RESPONSE TO THE ICANN STRATEGIC PLAN DOCUMENT.
AND YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THAT BY NOW.
WE HAVE ALSO DONE SOME WORK ON FEEDBACK TO THE WGIG WHERE WE APPOINTED ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ACTUALLY GO TO THE MEETING AND PRESENT OUR STATEMENTS TO THE WORKING GROUP.
AND WE HAVE ALSO SENT SOME COMMENTS BOTH IN THE PUBLIC FORUMS AND IN -- WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE STAFF, TO THE ICANN PROCEDURE ON HOW TO HANDLE ASO POLICY PROPOSALS SO THAT WE, IN FUTURE, CAN WORK VERY CLOSELY AND BE VERY PREPARED BEFORE A GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSAL REACHES THE BOARD.
ON THE NEW AGENDA, FORTHCOMING AGENDA FOR THE ADDRESS COUNCIL, WE HAVE BEEN ASKED BY THE ICANN BOARD TO GIVE SOME FEEDBACK ON THE NEW GTLD STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION.
AND WHAT WE WILL BE LOOKING FOR IS IF THERE ARE ANY I.P. ADDRESSING ISSUES IN THIS PROPOSAL, OR ANY CONCERNS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
THAT'S OUR SCOPE.
AND WE HAVE ALSO BEEN ASKED TO GIVE ADVICE TO THE ICANN BOARD ON THE PAPER CIRCULATED ON COMPETITIVE I.P. VERSION 6 ALLOCATION AND ASSIGNMENT POLICIES.
AND WE HAVE CREATED A WORKING GROUP TO DO THAT AND WE WILL COME BACK WITH A FORMAL REPLY LATER ON.
AND WE ARE FOLLOWING CLOSELY DEVELOPMENT OF THE IPV6 GLOBAL POLICY, AND READING FROM THE MOU, YOU WILL SEE THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A SPECIAL OBLIGATION TO ASSURE THAT SIGNIFICANT VIEWPOINTS OF ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED IN THIS PROCESS.
AND WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING WITHIN THE COUNCIL ON HOW TO ADDRESS THAT.
AND THAT WAS ALL I WAS GOING TO SAY.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HANS-PETTER.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE ASO REPORTER?
PAUL.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: VINT, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO THANK HANS-PETTER FOR ATTENDING AND FOR MAKING THE PRESENTATION.
AND THAT I KNOW SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AND I THINK THE STAFF, WITH RESPECT TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, WE APPRECIATE HAVING THE ADDRESS COUNCIL OF THE ASO PRESENT AND BEING ABLE TO TALK FURTHER.
>>HANS-PETTER HOLEN: HANS PETTER HOLEN.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, HANS-PETTER.
WE HAVE -- OH, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>>WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: I HAVE ONE SHORT QUESTION CONCERNING THE COMPETITIVE I.P. VERSION 6 ALLOCATION POLICIES WORKING GROUP.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE WORKING GROUP WILL DEAL WITH THE ITU PROPOSAL.
AND COULD YOU BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC AND DO YOU HAVE A TIME LINE WHEN YOU CAN DELIVER A REPORT?
>>HANS PETTER HOLEN: THE ADDRESS COUNCIL HAS BEEN ASKED BY THE BOARD TO PROVIDE THEIR COMMENTS, OR OUR COMMENTS, ON THAT PROPOSAL, NOT THE ITU PROPOSAL, BUT THE PROPOSAL BY MILTON, WHO WAS PRESENTED OR PUBLISHED A COUPLE OF WEEKS BACK.
AND WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE THAT OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS TO PROVIDE OUR ADVICE TO THE BOARD ON THAT MATTER.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, HANS-PETTER.
THANK YOU, WOLFGANG.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE TIME NOW FOR MORE OPEN COMMENTS, SPECIFICALLY, HOWEVER, ON THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT AND THE VARIOUS SUPPORT ORGANIZATION REPORTS.
SO IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTION THAT ANYONE WANTS TO RAISE, NOW WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO DO IT.
I SEE VITTORIO BERTOLA COMING.
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: THANK YOU.
I'M SORRY TO REOPEN THE USUAL CAN OF WORMS, BUT I HAD A COMMENT ABOUT BRUCE'S PRESENTATION ON WHOIS.
AND THE COMMENT IS THAT -- WELL, I WAS A BIT SCARED TO SEE THAT ON THE LIST OF THINGS THAT THE GNSO THINKS IT HAS TO DO ABOUT WHOIS, IT IS ALSO TO DETERMINE WHICH DATA SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC AND WHICH DATA SHOULD NOT BE MADE PUBLIC, BECAUSE MY PERCEPTION OF THAT IS THAT, I MEAN, WE HAVE AN ENTIRE FRAMEWORK OR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS THAT HAS BEEN BUILT OVER THE YEARS TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF DATA PROTECTION AND THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF PROTECTION FOR PRIVACY RIGHTS.
SO I THINK THAT THE WHOIS TASK FORCE AND THE GNSO SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL AND ICANN AS A WHOLE SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL NOT TO ENTER INTO A VERY PROBLEMATIC FIELD OF TRYING TO REPLY TO THE INTERNATIONAL PRIVACY STANDARDS.
ACTUALLY, WELL, I THINK I CAN ANTICIPATE, BY THE WAY, THAT THERE WILL BE A RECOMMENDATION ON WHOIS ALSO IN THE REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
AND -- BUT THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE ABOUT THAT IS THAT YOU MIGHT IMAGINE IT WAS THE ICANN PEOPLE WHO -- I MEAN, RAISED THE PROBLEM.
BUT, IN FACT, IT WAS ONE GOVERNMENTAL PERSON WHO I THINK WAS NEVER INVOLVED IN ICANN.
AND EVEN IF HE NEVER -- PERHAPS HE WAS NEVER EVEN AWARE OF ALL THE DISCUSSION WE HAD HERE, BUT HE KNEW ABOUT THE PROBLEM OF PRIVACY AND THE WHOIS DATABASES.
SO I THINK WE HAVE -- I MEAN, ICANN AND ALSO THE BOARD HAS TO PUT EXTREME CARE IN ENSURING THAT ICANN DOES NOT GO BEYOND ITS MANDATE.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, VITTORIO.
I THINK WHAT I TOOK AWAY FROM THE COMMENTS THAT BRUCE MADE -- AND THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION, BRUCE -- THAT WE MIGHT BE HEARING WHAT KINDS OF INFORMATION THEY THOUGHT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE IN THE PUBLIC -- AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
THIS IS STILL SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTIONS THAT YOU JUST BROUGHT UP.
BUT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW WHY SOMEONE THOUGHT SOMETHING SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WARNING NOT TO ADOPT A POLICY THAT MIGHT GET US IN TROUBLE.
PLEASE.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: THOMAS ROESSLER.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR PAUL.
IN MARCH 2003, THE BOARD ESTABLISHED A PRESIDENT'S STANDING COMMITTEE OF -- ON PRIVACY.
I SEE IT STILL HAS A WEB SITE.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE THING OTHER THAN THAT?
>>PAUL TWOMEY: IT'S BEEN QUIET.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: DISAPPOINTING.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: I WAS TEMPTING TO SAY IT'S BEEN PRIVATE, BUT I DIDN'T --
>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS UP OR PEOPLE AT THE MICROPHONE, UNLESS IT'S MIKE.
NO.
OKAY.
IN THAT CASE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ACT- -- ALMOST MADE IT.
>>CHUCK GOMES: YEAH.
IS THIS A GENERAL COMMENT PERIOD OF ANY OF THE PRESENTATIONS OR JUST THE ONE?
>>VINT CERF: IT'S A GENERAL COMMENT ON THE FIRST PRESENTATIONS.
>>CHUCK GOMES: EXCELLENT.
I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE USE OF THE WORD "CONSENSUS" WITH REGARD TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
AND I WAS GLAD TO HEAR SOME MODIFICATIONS OF THAT.
BECAUSE BY MOST DEFINITIONS OF "CONSENSUS," WHETHER IT'S 75% OR ON UP, IT COULD VERY EASILY BE A RECIPE FOR PARALYSIS.
NOW, IF WE CAN DEFINE IT ON A LESSER LEVEL, WHICH SOME PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED, THEN YOU'VE GOT -- THEN YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE IT.
AND WE HAVEN'T PUT TOOLS IN PLACE TO MEASURE WHAT LEVEL OF CONSENSUS THERE ARE ON PARTICULAR ELEMENTS OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
NOW, SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED THROUGH THE PROCESS THESE PAST SIX MONTHS OR SO ACTUALLY SUGGESTED SOME THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND I THINK THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE -- IF WE WANT TO PUT A -- SOME LEVEL OF AGREEMENT IN THE COMMUNITY ON IT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE THAT.
FROM THE SUBJECTIVE INPUT -- AND I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE SUBJECTIVE INPUT.
I HAVE MADE SOME OF THAT AS WELL -- THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED SO FAR, HOW DO YOU REALLY DETERMINE WHETHER YOU'VE REACHED ANY PARTICULAR LEVEL, HOWEVER WE MAY DEFINE THAT.
SO FIRST OF ALL WE HAVE TO DEFINE IT.
AND IF WE'RE GOING TO DEFINE A LEVEL, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE IT.
THERE'S BEEN TREMENDOUS FEEDBACK AND I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN A LOT OF PROCESSES ON THAT.
BUT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WE KEEP THOSE THINGS IN MIND.
WHAT WE DON'T WANT IS A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE PARALYZED.
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO REACH A CERTAIN LEVEL, WHATEVER WE DEFINE THAT TO BE, AND WE CAN'T GET THERE.
I THINK ALL OF US AGREE THAT THERE ARE AREAS WHERE THERE'S NOT AGREEMENT.
THAT'S GOOD.
LET'S WORK ON THOSE AREAS.
BUT LET'S BE CAREFUL ABOUT SETTING THE BAR SO HIGH THAT WE'RE PARALYZED.
>>VINT CERF: THANKS VERY MUCH.
WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO BE IN THAT POSITION.
BRUCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST AS A SUGGESTION, CONSENSUS IS SUCH A LOADED TERM IN THE AGREEMENTS, ALWAYS ANOTHER TERM AND JUST SAY "BUY-IN," AND THEN MOST OF THE OTHER COMMENTS ARE THE SAME.
>>VINT CERF: THANKS VERY MUCH, BRUCE.
I THINK WE CAN TAKE A BREAK NOW.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, COULD WE TRY TO BE BACK BY 3:45, AND WE'LL START UP AGAIN WITH THE DISCUSSION FROM OUR UPCOMING VANCOUVER MEETING HOSTS.
SO WE'LL TAKE A BREAK UNTIL 3:45.
(BREAK.)
>>VINT CERF: WELCOME BACK. KINDLY TAKE YOUR SEATS.
ACCORDING TO MY SCHEDULE -- COULD -- THOMAS, MR. NARTEN, MR. NARTEN, THOMAS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS A PRESENTATION FROM OUR VANCOUVER HOST, BUT I SEE THEY WERE EXPECTING TO START AT 4:15 AND WE'RE ACTUALLY EARLY. THEY MAY NOT BE HERE. ARE THEY HERE? ARE YOU READY TO ROLE? GRAB IT.
>>ALI FARISCHIAN: HELLO. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'D LIKE TO START BY THANKING ICANN, IN PARTICULAR THE ICANN MEETINGS COMMITTEE, FOR SELECTING VANCOUVER AS THE HOST OF THE NEXT MEETING. ON BEHALF OF LEADING EDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA AND CIRCLE ID, I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT TO YOU ICANN VANCOUVER 2005.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>ALI FARISCHIAN: THE MEETING WILL BE HELD FROM NOVEMBER 30TH TO DECEMBER 4TH OF THIS YEAR, AND QUITE OFTEN WHEN WINTER IN CANADA IS MENTIONED, ESPECIALLY TO PEOPLE FROM WARMER CLIMATES, THEY AUTOMATICALLY THINK OF SNOWSTORMS AND FREEZING TEMPERATURES. SO I'M HERE TO ASSURE YOU THAT THE WINTER WEATHER IN VANCOUVER CAN BE SURPRISINGLY PLEASANT. AND BY PLEASANT, I DON'T MEAN THAT KIND OF PLEASANT.
THE MEETING WILL NOT BE IN A GIANT IGLOO AND YOU WILL BE ASSURED TO BE GREETED BY VERY FRIENDLY STAFF, BUT HE IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
VANCOUVER LOOKS LIKE THIS. EVEN IN WINTER DAYS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SEEING A LITTLE MORE SNOW ON THE MOUNTAINS.
IN THIS PICTURE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE NORTHERN PART OF DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER, ADJACENT TO STANLEY PARK.
AND THE LOCATION OF THE VENUE.
HERE IS A QUICK OVERVIEW OF VANCOUVER. VANCOUVER IS LOCATED ON THE WESTERN -- ON THE SOUTHERN CORNER OF CANADA IN THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. CLIMATE IN WINTER IS -- AVERAGE IS AROUND FIVE DEGREES CENTIGRADE OR 41 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, VANCOUVER IS THE LARGEST CITY IN THE PROVINCE. AND HAS A TWO MILLION POPULATION.
VANCOUVER IS LAWRENCE SOLUM HOSTING THE 2010 OLYMPIC GAMES, AND BRITISH COLUMBIA HAS THE HIGHEST CONNECTED JURISDICTION IN NORTH AMERICA. OVER 72% OF HOUSEHOLDS CONNECTED TO INTERNET, 56% HAVE HIGH-SPEED BROADBAND CONNECTION.
VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PROVIDES ACCESS TO MANY CITIES IN THE WORLD. IT'S ABOUT 30 MINUTES DRIVE FROM THE VENUE. WE'LL HAVE A VARIETY OF TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS, INCLUDING, SHUTTLES, BUSES, TAXIS, LIMOUSINES, RENTAL CARS.
AND THE VENUE, THE VENUE IS LOCATED AT THE WESTIN BAYSHORE, AND THERE ARE ROOMS AVAILABLE FOR DISCOUNTED PRICES.
WE'LL ALSO BE PROVIDING YOU WITH OTHER HOTEL OPTIONS AT VARYING PRICES NEAR THE VENUE. WE'LL HAVE THEM POSTED ON THE WEB SITE VERY SOON. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THE ICANN VANCOUVER WEB SITE IS NOW LIVE AND THERE'S LOTS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE THERE INCLUDING SOME USEFUL LINKS. THE ADDRESS IS ICANNVANCOUVER.CA. THIS WEB SITE IS SET UP TO BE UPDATED FREQUENTLY WITH ANNOUNCEMENTS AND UPDATES FOR THE VANCOUVER MEETING. THE BEST WAY TO STAY UPDATED IS BY USING THE E-MAIL ALERT OR RSS SERVICES PROVIDED ON THE WEB SITE.
I SHOULD ALSO MENTION THAT THE ANNOUNCEMENTS POSTED ON THE SITE ARE LICENSED UNDER CREATIVE COMMONS.
SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE ANY OF THE POSTINGS WITH YOUR RESPECTIVE COMMUNITIES AND WEB LOGS, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO SO.
I HAVE A SATELLITE TOUR OF VANCOUVER FROM HERE TO LUXEMBOURG. DO WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE MINUTES? YEAH?

COURTESY OF GOOGLE EARTH.
THIS SHOULD BE -- IT LOOKS A LITTLE MORE ROUNDER ON MY SCREEN. SORRY FOR THE -- EARTH HAS BEEN STARVING A LITTLE BIT SO IT'S GONE A LITTLE THIN.
SO THIS SHOULD BE ESPECIALLY USEFUL FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T BEEN ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF NORTH AMERICA.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO NOW DOWN TO LUXEMBOURG WHERE WE ARE NOW. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO FLY TOWARDS THE CONTINENT OF NORTH AMERICA, MORE SPECIFICALLY CANADA. SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE HOVERING DIRECTLY OVER CANADA, AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE WEST TOWARDS BRITISH COLUMBIA, SO WE'RE IN THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND NOW WE'RE DIRECTLY OVER THAT PROVINCE. AND VANCOUVER IS JUST NEAR THE BORDER OF THE UNITED STATES, SO WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THERE AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE YVR, VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. AND THE PURPLE LINE IS THE ACTUAL ROUTE YOU'RE GOING TO BE TAKING FROM THE YVR TO THE VENUE, AND THIS WILL BE THE ROUTE YOU'LL BE TAKING WHETHER YOU TAKE A SHUTTLE OR TAXI. SO WE'RE GOING TO START GOING TOWARDS THE VENUE NOW. SO THIS IS THE FIRST BRIDGE YOU'RE GOING TO CROSS. IT'S OVER FRASER RIVER, SO WE'RE GOING TO CROSS THAT AND ENTER GREATER VANCOUVER IS WHAT THEY CALL IT. SO WE'RE NOW MOVING OVER GREATER VANCOUVER, PASSING ALL THE LITTLE MUNICIPALITIES AND NOW WE'RE RIGHT AT THE EDGE OF DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER. WE'RE GOING TO PAS!
S A SECOND BRIDGE, AND NOW WE'RE ENTERING DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER AND THAT'S JUST A FEW OF THE LANDMARKS, JUST SO WE DO SOME SIGHTSEEING WHILE WE GO IN THERE.
SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE BC PLACE STADIUM RIGHT NOW, AND ON YOUR RIGHT IS ACTUALLY WHERE THE OLYMPIC 2010 VILLAGE IS BEING BUILT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO ONE OF THE MAIN STREETS IN DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT BECAUSE IT'S WALKING DISTANCE FROM THE VENUE. AND YOU SEE CANADA PLACE WHICH IS A LANDMARK OF VANCOUVER AND WE MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE THE GALA DINNER THERE. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO OUR ROUTE, AND YOU CAN SEE THE WESTERN BAYSHORE NOW RIGHT NEAR THE WATER, AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO MOVE BACK A BIT AND SHOW YOU QUICKLY ALSO THE FAMOUS STANLEY PARK WHICH IS RIGHT ADJACENT TO THIS VENUE.
AND THIS IS ACTUALLY THE ONLY VENUE IN DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER THAT HAS A DOCKING STATION FOR IT.
SO HERE WE ARE. ON YOUR RIGHT IS THE -- IT'S A LITTLE DARK, BUT IT'S THE FAMOUS STANLEY PARK WHICH IS WALKING DISTANCE FROM THE VENUE.
SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE COME BY AND SEE MYSELF OR KATHERINE. WE HAVE A BOOTH, WHICH IS RIGHT ACROSS -- BEHIND THESE CAN YOU REMEMBER CONTINUES HERE AND IT'S BOOTH NUMBER 7. WE HAVE LOTS OF MAPS, BROCHURES, AND WE HAVE SOME NEW BOOKLETS THAT HAVE JUST ARRIVED, SO FEEL FREE TO COME BY AND PICK THEM UP.
COMPANIES INTERESTED IN SPONSORSHIP, WE HAVE INTERESTING PACKAGES AVAILABLE. PLEASE COME BY AND ASK US SO WE CAN SEND YOU A PACKAGE.
THE OTHER NIGHT AT LUXEMBOURG'S GALA DINNER WE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WITNESSING ONE OF THE -- A VERY STRONG MAN LIFTING PEOPLE WITH HIS TEETH AND BENDING STEEL RODS. WELL, VANCOUVER IS NEXT. SO IF THERE IS ANY TALENTED MEMBERS IN THE AUDIENCE, WE MIGHT BE LOOKING FOR A JOB.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>ALI FARISCHIAN: WE LOOK FORWARD TO WELCOMING TO YOU VANCOUVER.
>>VINT CERF: WE LOOK FORWARD TO BEING THERE. NOW, THE LAST COMMENT YOU MADE ABOUT THE STRONGEST MAN, ARE YOU SAYING THAT HE'S GOING TO LIFT VANCOUVER WITH HIS TEETH?
>>ALI FARISCHIAN: I DON'T KNOW, BUT IF HE'S GOING TO TEAR THE YELLOW PAGES, IT'S GOING TO BE THICKER SO HE MIGHT HAVE MORE CHALLENGING WITH THAT ONE
(LAUGHTER.)
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ALL LOOK FORWARD TO THIS.
WELL, WE SEEM TO BE RUNNING EARLY HERE, BUT I SEE THAT VITTORIO BERTOLA IS HERE. VITTORIO, ARE YOU ABLE TO BEGIN YOUR REPORT ON THE ALAC? AND THEN LET'S KEEP GOING. I'LL BE PLEASED TO HAVE MORE TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS OR ENDING EARLIER TODAY, DEPENDING ON WHICH COMES FIRST.
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: OKAY. THANK YOU, AND I AM ACTUALLY VERY HAPPY TO TAKE THE FLOOR AFTER VANCOUVER, SINCE WE'VE HEARD THAT VANCOUVER IS THE HOST OF THE 2010 OLYMPIC EVENTS. AND MY HOME TOWN, TORINO, IS THE HOST OF THE 2006 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES SO WE'RE JUST BEFORE THEM IN THE SCHEDULED OLYMPICS. SO I WILL BE GIVING YOU MY PRESENTATION ABOUT THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND I'M STARTING JUST BY THE USUAL CAPITULATION OF THE COMMITTEE. AND WE HAVE BEEN CREATED IN 2003 AFTER THE ICANN REFORM, AND BASICALLY WE HAVE BEEN CREATED WITH A DOUBLE PURPOSE. OUTSIDE OF ICANN, WHICH I DO OUTREACH TO REACH USER GROUPS AND TO INFORM THEM ABOUT ICANN AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN ICANN, AND INSIDE ICANN WE FOCUS ON THE INTERESTS OF THE END USER OF THE INTERNET, INCLUDING THE REGISTRANTS.
BASICALLY, THIS IS A SHORT DEMONSTRATION OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING SINCE THE LAST MEETING IN MAR DEL PLATA. SO WE USUALLY HOLD REGIONAL MEETINGS AND WE HAVE HAD TWO HERE, ONE FOR EUROPE AND ONE FOR ASIA-PACIFIC. WE HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN SOME EVENTS AROUND THE WORLD. WE DO THE USUAL ACTIVITIES, SEND NEWSLETTERS, AND WE HAVE STARTED VERY IMPORTANT WORK ON A NEW WEB SITE. SO WE WANT TO CREATE A NEW WEB SITE FOR THE COMMITTEE THAT SHOULD BE TARGETED SPECIFICALLY TO INTERNET USERS AND BE A LITTLE MORE APPEALING THAN THE ONE WE HAVE NOW.
AND OF COURSE WE CONTINUING IN THE PROCESS OF RECEIVING APPLICATIONS IN THE PARTICIPATION OF ICANN BY USER GROUPS AND ACCREDITING THEM. SO MORE ON THAT LATER.
AND FROM THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT POINT OF VIEW, OF COURSE WE PARTICIPATE IN THE DIFFERENT TASK FORCES, FOR INSTANCE IN THE GNSO WHOIS TASK FORCE, AND IN OTHER POLICY MAKING GROUPS. AND HERE WE HAVE BEEN ORGANIZING A WORKSHOP ON SUNDAY ON NEW GTLDS WHICH WAS WELL ATTENDED AND I THINK QUITE INTERESTING, EVEN FOR NON-USER CONSTITUENCIES.
AND OF COURSE WE ARE VERY ACTIVE IN THE WSIS ENVIRONMENT SO WE ALSO HAD TO ORGANIZE THE WSIS WORKSHOP AS USUAL. WE'RE HOLDING PUBLIC MEETINGS. WE'VE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN THE STRATEGY PLAN PROCESS, AND WE ARE RELEASING SOME STATEMENT ON POLICY ISSUES, AND MORE ON THAT LATER AGAIN.
ABOUT THE PROCESS OF GETTING ORGANIZATIONS ACCREDITED, SINCE MAR DEL PLATA WE HAVE A NEW ONE. SO WE ARE WELCOMING ISOC NETHERLANDS IN THE LIST OF ACCREDITED AT-LARGE STRUCTURES. AND WE ARE JUST HOLDING VOTES ON SIX MORE SO WE MIGHT ANNOUNCE A FEW MORE ACCREDITATIONS LATER THIS WEEK OR EARLY NEXT WEEK. AND WE HAVE BEEN RECEIVING MORE APPLICATIONS, SO WE'RE ACTUALLY UP TO 32. 20 ACCREDITED, AND 32 HAVE APPLIED. SO I WILL NOT REPEAT THE HIGHLIGHTS I ALREADY HAD IN MAR DEL PLATA, BUT THE COMMITTEE IS AT A CRITICAL STEP IN ITS LIFE BECAUSE WE AIM TO CONCLUDE THE PROCESS OF STARTING UP REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AND YET THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE PERHAPS A BIT MORE COMPLEX AND DIFFICULT THAN IT WAS ORIGINALLY EXPECTED. AND ONE PARTICULAR CHALLENGE THAT WE ARE FACING NOW IS THAT THE COMMITTEE IS CURRENTLY IN THE INTERIM STAGES AND TEN OF ITS MEMBERS WERE APPOINTED BY THE BOARD ALMOST THREE YEARS AGO, TWO YEARS AND A HALF, AND SO WE THINK WE MIGHT WANT TO HAV!
E A DIALOGUE WITH THE BOARD ABOUT -- I MEAN, WHETHER THEY SHOULD CONTINUE, AT LEAST THEY SHOULD BE REAPPOINTED, OR IN ANY CASE, BE GIVEN MORE LEGITIMIZATION TO CONTINUE WORKING BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO STAY FOREVER APPOINTED AS AN INTERIM MEMBER ON THE COMMITTEE.
SO I DID THIS VERY QUICKLY, BECAUSE THIS TIME I WANTED TO READ YOU SOME OF THE STATEMENTS WE ARE RELEASING. WE USUALLY DO THAT IN THE OPEN MICROPHONE IN THE SECOND PART OF THE OPEN FORUM, BUT SINCE THE HOUR OF TIME, WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME ACTUALLY BECAUSE THERE WASN'T TIME AT THE END OF THE PUBLIC FORUM SESSION. WE THOUGHT IT BETTER TO READ THEM NOW.
SO....
OKAY. THE FIRST ONE IS A VERY SHORT STATEMENT ADDRESSED TO THE BOARD, AND IT IS ABOUT THE ICANN BUDGET, BUT IT SAYS A VERY IMPORTANT THING SO I WANTED TO READ IT.
IT SAYS ALTHOUGH REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES ARE THE PRIMARY CONDUITS THROUGH WHICH ICANN FEES ARE PAID, THE MONEY PAID TO ICANN EACH YEAR ULTIMATELY COMES FROM DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BELIEVES THAT IT SHOULD HAVE APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATION ON THE ICANN BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP AND ASKS THE PRESIDENT OF ICANN TO APPOINT REPRESENTATIVES OF ALAC TO THIS IMPORTANT ADVISORY GROUP FOR THE COMING YEARS.
AND THE NEXT STATEMENT IS -- WELL, IT IS A STATEMENT ADDRESSED I GUESS TO THE BOARD BUT ALSO TO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, INCLUDING OURSELVES BECAUSE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING WE DON'T ACTUALLY DO THEM YET.
SO -- BUT I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT THAT THE ICANN COMMUNITY NEEDS TO CONSIDER IN THIS MOMENT.
SO WE HAVE A STATEMENT ON TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND WE WILL OF COURSE PROVIDE COPIES TO THE BOARD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
SO THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO REAFFIRM THE OVERARCHING IMPORTANCE OF ENSURING OPEN AND INCLUSIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE ICANN PROCESS, THROUGH THE ONGOING IMPLEMENTATION OF TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND THROUGH PRACTICAL MEASURES AIMED AT MAKING MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION BY ALL STAKEHOLDERS POSSIBLE. THE NEED FOR INCREASED TRANSPARENCY AND EFFECTIVE MEANS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD REPEATEDLY AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL IN THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY PROCESS. THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME MEASURES THAT ICANN CAN PROMPTLY ADDRESS.
THE ICANN REFORM CONDUCTED IN 2002 CONTEMPLATED THE CREATION OF AN IMPORTANT NEW STAFF POSITION ENTITLED MANAGER OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. THE ROLE OF THE MANAGER OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WAS TO MANAGE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND PARTICIPATION PROCESS FOR ICANN ON ALL SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS AND TO SOLICIT, RECEIVE AND REPORT TO THE BOARD ON ALL PUBLIC INPUT MATTERS PUT OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. WHILE THE POSITION HAS BEEN COVERED ON AN INTERIM BASIS BY THE ICANN'S PUBLIC RELATIONS STAFF PERSON, IT HAS NOT YET BEEN FILLED ON A PERMANENT BASIS. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY AN IMPORTANT VITAL ROLE WITHIN THE ICANN PROCESS, AND THE ALAC ENCOURAGES THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD TO FILL THE POSITION WITH A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE WITH SUPPORT STAFF AND OTHER RESOURCES NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT HIS OR HER RESPONSIBILITIES EFFECTIVELY AS SOON AS A SUITABLE, QUALIFIED CANDIDATE CAN BE LOCATED.
EFFECTIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT IN PERSON MEETINGS LIKE THIS ONE IN LUXEMBOURG IS ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN PARTICIPANTS ARE ABLE TO PREPARE FOR TOPICS UNDER DISCUSSION WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING ITSELF. WE ENCOURAGE ICANN AND ALL THE CONSTITUENCIES TO MAKE A STRONG EFFORT TO PUBLISH AGENDAS, DOCUMENTS, AND MEETING TIMES AND PLACES WELL IN ADVANCE AND KEEP THOSE AGENDAS CURRENT. WE ENCOURAGE ICANN TO CREATE A NEW COMMITTEE COMPOSED OF MEMBERS OF ICANN STAFF AND THE ICANN COMMUNITY, TO COORDINATE AND PLAN THESE IMPORTANT MEETINGS. THE ALAC WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS ON THIS COMMITTEE AND TO SERVE ON IT.
ALSO, EFFECTIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN ACCOMPANIED BY TIMELY, COMPLETE AND ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT ICANN'S WORK. TO THAT END, THE ALAC WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THE NEED FOR PROMPT PUBLICATION OF ICANN'S DOCUMENTS AND OF THE BOARD'S RESOLUTIONS AND MINUTES AND THE NEED FOR A BETTER WEB SITE, WHICH MORE EFFECTIVELY APPRISES REGISTRANTS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC OF ICANN'S ACTIVITIES. THE STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITIES REGARDING THESE MATTERS SHOULD BE PROMPTLY IMPLEMENTED AND THE ALAC WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH ICANN STAFF TO DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT A MORE EFFECTIVE WEB SITE.
MULTILINGUALISM IS ALSO A KEY ISSUE IN ENHANCING POSSIBILITIES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THE EFFORTS THAT ICANN HAS BEEN MAKING TO THIS EXISTENT, THE VISION OF MULTILINGUALISM AS ONLY AFFECTING INSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ICANN AND THE PUBLIC ASK REDUCTIVE AND, IN OUR OPINION, WRONG. IT IS THE INTERNAL CULTURAL AND OPERATING PRACTICES OF ICANN THAT HAVE TO BECOME MULTILINGUAL, NOT JUST ITS LEAFLETS AND WEB SITE.
REAL-TIME TRANSLATION OF MEETINGS AND ADVANCE PREPARATION OF PRINTED TRANSLATED DOCUMENTS FOR DISCUSSION SHOULD BECOME REGULAR PRACTICE AND COVER AT LEAST SOME MAJOR LANGUAGES; CORE DOCUMENTS, SUCH AS THE STRATEGIC PLANS AND THE POLICIES SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE IN AS MANY LANGUAGES AS POSSIBLE. WHILE THE COSTS OF THESE PRACTICES WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT, WE THINK THAT THEY ARE NECESSARY TO GRANT LEGITIMACY TO ICANN'S ROLE. THEY ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF ITS MANDATE.
TO FURTHER THE CONSIDERATION OF THESE AND OTHER SUGGESTIONS AND THE DEFINITION OF A SET OF CLEAR AND IMPLEMENTABLE ACTIONS TO REACH THESE OBJECTIVES, WE SUGGEST THAT ICANN CREATES A TASK FORCE ON TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC PERHAPS, INCLUDING THE APPROPRIATE STAFF OFFICERS AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALS FROM THE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDER GROUPS WITH THE MANDATE TO PROPOSE A PLAN OF ACTION FOR DISCUSSION AT THE VANCOUVER MEETING AND SUBSEQUENT IMPLEMENTATION BY THE WELLINGTON MEETING.
SO THANK YOU, AND THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VITTORIO.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>VINT CERF: THOSE ARE ALL VERY HELPFUL SUGGESTIONS BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY CONCRETE AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT
I CAN'T MAKE PROMISES THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM BUT EACH OF THEM IS GOING TO GET SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.
DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP A MOMENT AGO?
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: YES.
>>VINT CERF: GO AHEAD.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I JOIN VINT IN HIS EXPRESSION OF SUPPORT AND WELCOMING FOR THESE STATEMENTS. I THINK THAT WE STILL NEED TO WORK A LOT ON THE AT-LARGE TO MAKE IT ATTRACTIVE AND TO CREATE A PROCESS FOR EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION. I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT A NUMBER OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE RELATED TO ICANN DO NOT ATTRACT MASSIVE ENOUGH ATTENTION AND HOT ENOUGH ATTENTION IN THE COMMUNITIES THAT WOULD BECOME MEMBERS OF THE AT-LARGE. SO WE HAVE A WHOLE CHAIN OF THINGS THAT NEED WORK.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN MANY OF THE DISCUSSIONS AROUND THE WSIS AND WGIG AND DIAGNOSTICS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE OF MANY OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE A CLAIM TO BE PART OF THE UNIVERSE OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE, ONE CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT ICANN IS DEALT WITH IN THESE STUDIES IN MORE DETAIL THAN ANY OTHER. IT ACTUALLY MEANS THAT THERE ARE MORE PARAGRAPHS SUBSTANTIATING THE FACT THAT ICANN COMPLIES VERY WELL WITH THE WSIS CRITERIA OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER, TRANSPARENT AND DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION. WHEREAS, FOR OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, A PARAGRAPH OR TWO SUFFICE TO SHOW THAT THEY DON'T. STILL DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD ONLY CONCENTRATE ON REFORMING GOALS OR WHOEVER IS INTERESTED SHOULD BE REFORMING GOALS TO COMPLY WITH THE WSIS CRITERIA.
BUT ALSO, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE SHOULD BE COMPLACENT IN ICANN AND THINK THAT BECAUSE WE ARE RELATIVELY HIGH ON THE SCALE, ON THE GRADING SCALE, WE CAN REST ON OUR LAURELS. WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO HERE.
I AM PERSONALLY SUBSCRIBING VERY MUCH THE POINT YOU HAVE MADE ABOUT THE BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND WAYS -- MAYBE NOT EXACTLY AS PROPOSED, BUT STARTING ON THE PROPOSAL, TO STUDY THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND, PARTICULARLY, THROUGH THE AT-LARGE ORGANIZATIONS AND FOR THE AT-LARGE PUBLIC. THIS IS EXTREMELY VALUABLE.
>>VINT CERF: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? PETER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: VITTORIO, WERE YOU ADVOCATING THE FORMATION OF WHAT SOME OF US HAVE BEEN CALLING A PROGRAM COMMITTEE FOR THE SEATING OF THE AGENDAS FOR THESE REGULAR MEETINGS? WAS THAT PART OF YOUR REPORT?
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: YEAH, THAT COULD BE ONE OF THE OPTIONS, AT LEAST TO GOVERN SOME -- MORE OR LESS THE AGENDA OF THE MEETINGS. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A BROADER LOOK AT THE ENTIRE WAY THE PUBLIC AND CONSTITUENCIES INTERACT WITH ICANN AND THAT IS JUST ONE PART OF THE PICTURE.
IF I MAY RESPOND TO ALEX, I WANT TO SAY ONE THING. I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT AS A SUPPORT OF ICANN, I AM ACTUALLY HAPPY THAT WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN A LOT OF SCRUTINY BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN COMPETITIVE EVOLUTION. SO THE MORE SUGGESTIONS WE GET TO BECOME BETTER, I MEAN THE BETTER ICANN BECOMES. AND OTHER PEOPLE THAT DON'T RECEIVE SUGGESTIONS WILL NEVER BECOME GOOD ENOUGH TO CONTINUE EXISTING.
>>VINT CERF: VITTORIO, ONE OTHER QUESTION. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF EXPERIENCE YOU HAD TRYING TO STIMULATE INTEREST IN CREATING THESE REGIONAL AT-LARGE ORGANIZATIONS. I AM NOT LOOKING FOR AN INSTANTANEOUS RESPONSE, BUT I AM WONDERING WHAT PEOPLE SAY. AND IF THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE INTERESTED, DO THEY EVER SAY WHY? THIS MIGHT HELP US UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT HOW WE ARE VIEWED IN THE COMMUNITY THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO STIMULATE.
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: WELL, I THINK IT REALLY VARIES DEPENDING ON THE REGION OF THE WORLD AND ON THE TYPE ORGANIZATIONS YOU ADDRESS AND SO ON. BUT ONE COMMON PROBLEM WE ENCOUNTER IS THAT, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHAT ICANN IS AND WHAT IT DOES. SO WE DON'T JUST HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY SHOULD BE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN ICANN, BUT FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS.
AND OF COURSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT REASONS. SOME DEAL WITH THE OLD STORY OF THE AT-LARGE ELECTIONS; OTHER ENTER THIS WORLD OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE FROM THE UNITED NATIONS SITE AND MAYBE THEY HAD DIFFERENT MISCONCEPTIONS OR WHATEVER. OTHERS DON'T SEE ANY COMPELLING REASON. USERS USUALLY STAND UP WHEN THERE'S SOMETHING THAT GOES REALLY WRONG. SO WE HAD A LOT OF INTEREST AFTER .NET PROCESS OR SITEFINDER, BUT NOT IN ADVANCE.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU. THAT'S A LITTLE TERRIFYING TO THINK THAT IN ORDER TO GET INTEREST IN STARTING REGIONAL GROUPS WE HAVE TO MESS THINGS UP MORE SO THAT THEY WILL BECOME UNHAPPY ENOUGH TO START A GROUP.
I HOPE WE DON'T GO DOWN THAT PATH.
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VITTORIO.
I'M VERY CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE SCHEDULE AND PROBABLY ARE NOT GOING TO ARRIVE UNTIL THEIR SCHEDULED TIMES.
SO SHARIL, I THINK -- WHERE IS SHARIL? HE'S NOT HERE. THERE YOU ARE.
I TAKE IT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DEFER UNTIL THE TIME WHEN THE REST OF THE GAC MEMBERS CAN BE HERE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF GEORGE SADOWSKY IS IN THE ROOM AND WOULD BE PREPARED TO START EARLY OR NOT.
NO. OKAY.
IN THAT CASE, LET ME ASK WHETHER WE COULD GET THE ROOT SERVER ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT FROM SUZANNE, WHICH IS QUITE BRIEF, OR IF SHE'S NOT HERE EITHER BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T KNOW THAT SHE SHOULD BE.
I'M I DROVE -- OH, THERE YOU ARE. EXCUSE ME, SUZANNE. I'M LOOKING OUT IN THE WRONG PLACE. DO YOU HAVE TIME TO DO THAT NOW?
>>SUZANNE WOOLF: BOTH BRIEF AND EARLY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I ACTUALLY DON'T EVEN HAVE SLIDES TO TAKE UP YOUR TIME TODAY, BECAUSE THAT WOULD IN FACT CLOSELY RESEMBLE WHAT I PRESENTED IN MAR DEL PLATA. MORE ON THAT IN A MOMENT.
AS MOST OF YOU KNOW. RSSAC WAS ONE OF THE INITIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES CREATED BY ICANN. COMPRISED OF THE OPERATORS OF THE DNS ROOT SERVERS AND INVITED OBSERVERS INCLUDING INTERNET REGISTRIES AND LIAISON FROM GNSC, SSAC AND SO ON. ADVISES RELATED TO THE TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL SIDE OF MAINTAINING THE DNS ROOT AS WELL AS SUPPORT OF IPV6.
RSSAC MEETS SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR, GENERALLY AT IETF, AS MANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS ARE INVOLVED WITH IETF BY CUSTOM. THE BREVITY AT THIS OF THIS REPORT IS PRINCIPALLY BECAUSE RSSAC HAS NOT MET SINCE THE ICANN MAR DEL PLATA MEETING. WE MEET NEXT IN PARIS IN TWO WEEKS. WE'RE CONTINUING ON THE PRINCIPAL ITEMS FROM THE REPORT AT THE PREVIOUS ICANN MEETING. WE'RE WORKING ON A RECOMMENDATION TO IANA REGARDING THE NEXT PHASE OF IPV6 DEPLOYMENT IN DNS, WHICH IS IPV6 RECORDS FOR THE ROOT SERVERS THEMSELVES.
WE HOPE TO SEE A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSED IN PARIS.
WE'RE ALSO WORKING WITH IANA, SSAC, THE IETF DNS OPS WORKING GROUP AND OTHERS ON DEPLOYMENT OF DNSSEC.
IT'S A LARGE PROJECT WITH MANY FACETS, AND INDIVIDUAL OPERATORS ARE INVOLVED IN VARYING WAYS. BUT THOSE OF YOU WHO ATTENDED THE DNS SECURITY WORKSHOP ON TUESDAY GOT SOME SENSE OF THE BREADTH AND COMPLICATION OF THIS DEPLOYMENT PROJECT.
THE INVOLVEMENT OF RSSAC HAS BEEN MOSTLY IN ANALYZING THE ISSUE OF SIGNED DATA IN THE DNS ROOT. SOME INDIVIDUAL SERVERS ARE READY TODAY; OTHERS ARE UPGRADING SOFTWARE AND POLICIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR NORMAL ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES.
IN THE AREA OF TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS, MUCH OF THE DIFFICULTY WE FACE IS IN ASSURING THERE ARE NO UNEXPECTED DANGERS TO OLDER SOFTWARE FROM PROPOSED TECHNOLOGY CHANGES. IN THE CASE OF BOTH DNS SECURITY AND IPV6, MODERN SOFTWARE SUPPORTS THE NEW TECHNOLOGY BUT MUCH OF THE SOFTWARE IN THE OPERATING INTERNET IS NOT MODERN. AND WE DON'T HAVE THE OPTION OF TELLING PEOPLE THEY CAN'T USE THE DNS ROOT UNTIL THEY UPGRADE THEIR SOFTWARE.
SO A GREAT DEAL OF OUR WORK IS ON BEST PRACTICES AND TEST AND ANALYSIS JUST TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE NOT OVERLOOKED ANYTHING AND THAT THE CHANGES WE ARE PROMOTING ARE, IN FACT, BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE.
I HAVE TO SAY I'M ALWAYS HAPPY WHEN I CAN BE BRIEF UP HERE BECAUSE IT MEANS THINGS ARE WORKING WELL. YOU WILL CONTINUE TO SEE THE OPERATIONS FOLKS AS CONTRIBUTES HERE. SEVERAL OF US WERE IN THE DNS WORKSHOP, IN THE IETF, AT IIR MEETINGS AND SO ON. BUT RIGHT NOW I'M PLEASED TO RETURN THE FLOOR UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
>>SUZANNE WOOLF: HOW DID I KNOW?
>>VINT CERF: WE HAVE BEEN BEGINNING TO GET STATISTICAL INFORMATION FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE ICANN OPERATION, LIKE FROM IANA. DO THE ROOT SERVERS CAPTURE STATISTICS THAT MIGHT BE SAFE TO SHARE PUBLICLY? FOR EXAMPLE, THE NUMBER OF ANYCAST ROOT SERVERS IN AGGREGATE? NOT NECESSARILY WHERE THEY ARE, BUT JUST HOW MANY DO WE HAVE? AND IS THAT TREND LINE GOING UP, DOWN, OR STAYING STABLE?
ARE WE SEEING A TREND IN THE DEMAND FOR RESOLUTION GOING UP OR DOWN? ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD GIVE US A KIND OF SENSE FOR HOW THE ROOT FUNCTION, ROOT SERVICE FUNCTION IS DOING, HOW IT'S BEHAVING, HOW THE NETWORK DEMAND IS CHANGING?
I ADMIT TO YOU THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS OF VITAL CONCERN BUT IT IS SOMETHING TO JUST HELP UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE NETWORK. AND SO JUST SPEAKING AS AN ENGINEER WITH A GREAT DEAL OF CURIOSITY ABOUT IT, I WONDER IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR THE ROOT SERVER GROUP TO SHARE ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IF THEY COLLECT AND MAINTAIN STATISTICS OF THAT KIND.
>>SUZANNE WOOLF: IT'S VERY NOISY OUT THERE. IT WAS HARD FOR ME TO TELL WHEN YOU STOPPED SPEAKING. SORRY.
FIRST OF ALL, ON THE SPECIFICS, ANYCAST, THE ACTUAL RATE OF DEPLOYMENT OF NEW ANYCAST HAS SLOWED AS WE GO INTO THE MOST OBVIOUS PLACES WHERE ANYCAST HELPS.
THERE ARE STILL INCREASING NUMBERS OF ANYCAST NODES IN SERVICE. WE ARE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT SOMEWHAT OVER 80 DIFFERENT ANYCAST SITES IN THE WORLD. THERE IS QUITE A FEW OF THEM AND WE PASSED, EARLY LAST YEAR, ACTUALLY, IT'S BEEN MORE THAN A YEAR, MORE OF THEM OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES THAN IN, WHICH IS ADDRESSING -- WHICH IS REDRESSING A HISTORICAL ANOMALY WHICH SHOWS THAT WE'RE MOVING ALONG WITH THE GROWING INTERNET.
IN GENERAL, A NUMBER OF THE SERVERS DO -- MAKES VARIOUS SUBSETS OF THEIR OPERATIONAL INFORMATION PUBLIC. ONE GOOD PLACE TO FIND THAT IS WWW.ROOT-SERVERS.ORG.
THERE IS NOT A SHARED PLACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE COORDINATING THAT KIND OF STATISTICS. IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE CAN PUT TO THE OPERATORS AS POSSIBLY OF INTEREST. BUT THAT DOES NOT EXIST TODAY.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, SUZANNE. I GUESS WHAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONVEY TO YOUR FRIENDS IN THE ROOT SERVER GROUP IS JUST TO THINK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHETHER THERE ARE ANY STATISTICAL THINGS THAT WOULD BE WORTH HAVING YOU REPORT TO US IN EACH OF THESE MEETINGS AS A WAY OF HELPING EDUCATE US ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM. IT'S NOT A DEMAND BY ANY MEANS; THAT'S SIMPLY A REQUEST AND I'LL BE INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT THE THOUGHTS ARE.
>>SUZANNE WOOLF: IT MAY WELL BE THAT WE HADN'T CALIBRATED THE LEVEL OF INTEREST IN THAT LEVEL OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION. SO I'LL BE HAPPY TO CONVEY THAT.
>>VINT CERF: RICHARD THWAITES HAD HIS HAND UP.
>>RICHARD THWAITES: THANKS.
SUZANNE, YES, I WAS INTERESTED IN ONE POINT THAT YOU MADE THAT THE NEED TO MAINTAIN BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY WITH THE RELATIVELY ANCIENT SOFTWARE STILL BEING EMPLOYED IN THE ROOT SYSTEM IS A CONSTRAINT ON WHAT YOU DO.
I WONDER IF YOU COULD GIVE US SOME IDEA OF THINGS THAT YOU WOULD DO IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT CONSTRAINT, I MEAN, IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO HAVE A PLAN WHICH WOULD MOVE THE SOFTWARE FORWARD IN A PLANNED WAY, WHETHER IT BE FOR SECURITY REASONS OR ANY OTHER ASPECT OF IMPROVEMENT OF SERVICE.
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IS ACTUALLY AN ISSUE FOR THE SERVICES THAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR?
AND THEREFORE SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT ANY FORM OF COORDINATED POLICY ABOUT TRANSITION OR UPGRADING OF THE SOFTWARE PLATFORM OVERALL?
>>SUZANNE WOOLF: FIRST OF ALL, I MAY HAVE MISSPOKEN, BECAUSE I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT SOFTWARE LIMITATIONS ON THE SERVERS THEMSELVES.
THE SERVERS ARE RUNNING MODERN SOFTWARE, YOU KNOW, COMPETENTLY MAINTAINED BY NORMAL OPERATIONAL PRACTICE THAT SUPPORTS FULLY MODERN EXTENSIONS TO THE DNS PROTOCOL.
THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE INSTALLED BASE OF CLIENTS.
AND, YES, IT'S A PROBLEM.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE TECHNICAL LIMITATIONS ON THE SIZE OF RESPONSE PACKET THAT CAN BE SENT TO A QUERY THAT, IN MODERN SOFTWARE, IS -- HAS BEEN REMOVED.
MODERN SOFTWARE WILL NEGOTIATE THE SIZE OF THE RESPONSE IT WILL ACCEPT.
THE INSTALLED BASE STILL HAS A GREAT DEAL OF OLD SOFTWARE THAT IF IT SEES A LARGER RESPONSE THAN IT EXPECTS, WILL DISCARD THE ANSWER.
AND IF THERE'S SOME WAY TO GET PEOPLE TO INCUR THE COSTS AND EFFORT OF UPGRADING THE BASE TO THE POINT WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THINGS LIKE THAT, BESIDES NATURAL ATTRITION, WE'D LOVE TO HEAR ABOUT IT.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE FUNDAMENTALS OF MILLIONS -- LITERALLY MILLIONS -- OF CLIENTS INSTALLED IN PEOPLE'S HOME PCS AND PEOPLE'S ENTERPRISE NETWORKS TODAY.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, SUZANNE.
THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF THAT WOULD CAUSE -- STIMULATE THE CHANGE WOULD BE TO DELIBERATELY CAUSE THE REST OF THOSE OLDER SERVERS TO BREAK.
AND I HAVE A FEELING THAT IS NOT OUR OBJECTIVE.
SO PROBABLY NOT A GOOD IDEA.
>>SUZANNE WOOLF: AS A SAID, THAT'S NOT AN OPTION WE'D CONSIDER.
>>VINT CERF: GOOD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR SUZANNE?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SINCE OTHERS ARE STILL NOT QUITE READY FOR THEIR REPORTS, STEVE CROCKER, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU COULD GO EARLY?
THIS IS THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT.
>>STEVE CROCKER: FANTASTIC.
ALL RIGHT.
IT IS NOISY IN HERE.
I'M STEVE CROCKER.
I CHAIR THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
WE'RE AN EXTERNAL COMMITTEE OF VOLUNTEERS, ALL TECHNICAL IN OUR VARIOUS FIELDS.
I'LL TELL YOU ABOUT THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING.
BUT FIRST, I WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT A RATHER SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN OUR OPERATION.
WE HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BRING ON BOARD A ESSENTIALLY FULL-TIME STAFF PERSON, DAVE PISCITELLO, IN THE ROLE OF A FELLOW, WHICH IS A SENIOR POSITION FOR A VERY EXPERIENCED PERSON, AND WE HAVE FOUND PROBABLY THE ULTIMATE PERFECT CANDIDATE.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER DAVE IS IN THE AUDIENCE HERE.
NOPE.
WELL --
>>VINT CERF: HE'S WORKING.
>>STEVE CROCKER: HE IS, IN FACT, WORKING.
HE JOINED US MAY 31ST, ABOUT FIVE WEEKS AGO.
WE THREW HIM INTO THE ONGOING EFFORT THAT WE HAD TO GET A REPORT OUT ON DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING.
THAT REPORT CAME OUT YESTERDAY AND IS ON THE WEB SITE.
AND WE PRESENTED IT YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
AND I'M EXPECTING A CONTINUING SEQUENCE OF OUTPUT AND INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE COMMITTEE -- THE COMMITTEE'S BEEN VERY GOOD ABOUT THING THROUGH THINGS AND ABOUT IDENTIFYING ISSUES.
AND IT'S A GREAT SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE.
AND THEN RUNS OUT OF GAS IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO GENERATE A LOT OF OUTPUT, BECAUSE WE'RE ALL BUSY WITH OTHER ASPECTS.
SO THAT'S A MAJOR CHANGE FOR US.
AND THAT IS BIG NEWS.
HE'S VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE ON THE TECHNICAL SIDE, HAS GOT A LOT OF EXPERIENCE.
VINT AND I BOTH HAVE KNOWN HIM FOR MANY YEARS.
HE'S ALSO AN EXCELLENT WRITER.
AND SO I THINK I'VE SAID THE REST OF THAT.
ON DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING, THERE WERE A SERIES OF WELL-PUBLICIZED INCIDENTS.
PERHAPS THE MOST HIGHLY PUBLICIZED WAS THE HIJACKING OF PANIX.COM IN MID-FEBRUARY.
AND PERHAPS OTHERS WHEN WE LOOKED AROUND.
OUR FOCUS WAS NOT ON THE MALFEASANCE OF ANY PARTICULAR PARTY, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS THE BAD GUYS WHO DID THE HIJACKING OR THE BREACHES IN PROCEDURE BY INDIVIDUAL REGISTRARS OR RESELLERS, BUT MORE ON THE SYSTEM ASPECT OF HOW THE PARTS ARE PUT TOGETHER AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE WEAKNESSES THAT WOULD BE LIKELY TO BE EXPLOITED OR FALL APART IN THE FUTURE.
SO IN -- BY WAY OF ANALOGY, ONE COULD COME ALONG AT A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AT AN INTERSECTION AND SAY, "BOY, SOMEBODY SCREWED UP, SOMEBODY RAN A RED LIGHT OR DROVE POORLY."
BUT IF THERE'S A SEQUENCE OF ACCIDENTS AT THAT SAME INTERSECTION, IT'S TIME TO STAND BACK AND SAY MAYBE THE ROAD NEEDS TO BE REENGINEERED A LITTLE BIT.
SO THAT'S THE APPROACH THAT WE HAVE.
WE MADE A SERIES OF I THINK TEN FINDINGS AND TEN RECOMMENDATIONS.
I COMMEND THE REPORT TO YOU.
IT'S ONLINE.
LET ME BACK UP.
THE URL IS THERE.
SO IT'S A SORT OF LONG URL.
BUT YOU CAN FIND IT FROM GOING TO THE FRONT PAGE OF THE ICANN WEB SITE.
BUT AMONG THE VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS, THE ONES THAT I THINK STAND OUT ARE THAT THERE ARE AVAILABLE MECHANISMS FOR LOCKING DOWN A DOMAIN NAME AND PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PROTECTION FOR REGISTRANTS.
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH VISIBILITY AND SOMETIMES THESE ARE TOO HARD TO USE, BECAUSE THEY'RE PRESENTED IN VERY DIFFERENT WAYS BY DIFFERENT REGISTRARS AND SOMETIMES THEY'RE HIDDEN COMPLETELY.
SO THAT'S ONE WHOLE AREA WHERE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT IS POSSIBLE RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARDLY.
ANOTHER ASPECT THAT EMERGED FROM LOOKING AT THIS IS THAT WE HAVE VERY ELABORATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS WHERE THERE ARE CONTRACTUAL TYPE PROBLEMS.
WE HAVE NO COMPARABLE MECHANISMS IN PLACE WHERE THERE IS AN URGENT OPERATIONAL PROBLEM, AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE RIGHT NOW.
WHEN SOMEBODY LOSES A DOMAIN NAME IN AN ABRUPT FASHION, IF THEY'RE AN ONLINE BUSINESS, THEN THEY'RE OUT OF BUSINESS, AND THE DAMAGE IS LARGE AND IMMEDIATE AND OFTEN CATASTROPHIC.
SO THIS IS MORE AKIN TO YOU HAVE A FIRE AND YOU WANT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, YOU'LL SORT OUT THE CONTRACTUAL ISSUES LATER.
BUT RIGHT NOW YOU NEED TO GET THAT FIRE TAKEN CARE OF.
SO THAT'S OUR WORK ON THERE.
WE GAVE A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THIS IN MAR DEL PLATA, AND THIS FINISHES OUR ACTIVITY HERE.
WE WILL BE TRANSMITTING THIS, SENDING THIS WITH -- WE'VE TRANSMITTED IT, BUT WE'LL BE SENDING A FORMAL LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO THE BOARD, ALONG WITH SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR WHICH PARTIES SHOULD TAKE WHICH ACTIONS OR FOLLOW UP.
ANOTHER VERY BROAD ACTIVITY IS THE INTRODUCTION OF THE DNS SECURITY PROTOCOL, DNSSEC, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.
ICANN PLAYS A CRITICAL ROLE, OF COURSE, BUT IT'S JUST ONE PLAYER AMONG THE WHOLE SYSTEM.
THERE HAS TO BE BROAD-SCALE DEPLOYMENT THROUGHOUT THE ZONES, STARTING WITH THE ROOT AND THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, WOULD GO THROUGH THE ENTERPRISES, AND THEN ALSO THROUGH THE RESOLVERS.
WE HAD -- LET'S SEE.
YEP.
WE HAD A WORKSHOP HERE YESTERDAY MORNING AND COVERED A LOT OF ACTIVITIES WITH SOME EMPHASIS ON THE REGISTRIES.
LET'S SEE.
I WANT TO -- I'M SLIGHTLY OUT OF ORDER HERE.
SO WE HAD THIS FIRST WORKSHOP HERE.
IT WAS IN MANY WAYS A FOLLOW ON TO THE WORKSHOP THAT WE HAD IN MAR DEL PLATA.
AND WE PLAN TO CONTINUE THE SERIES WITH ANOTHER WORKSHOP UPDATING WHERE THINGS ARE AND ALSO FOCUSING RATHER SPECIFICALLY ON THE REGISTRARS THIS TIME.
AND IT'S NOT JUST AT ICANN, BUT MANY OTHER FORUMS THAT THESE KINDS OF WORKSHOPS AND OUTREACH PROGRAMS EXIST.
AND THAT'S ALL PART OF THE DEPLOYMENT EFFORT.
LET'S SEE.
UNDERNEATH THE COVERS, THE MAIN DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE EXPECT TO SEE OVER THE COMING YEAR AND A HALF, THE END OF THIS YEAR AND THROUGHOUT NEXT YEAR, ARE THE GETTING THE ROOT SIGNED, GETTING THE EARLY ADOPTER TLDS UP IN OPERATION, AND HAVING SOFTWARE THAT IS WIDELY AVAILABLE AT THE RESOLVER END TO MAKE USE OF THIS.
SOME OF THE CHALLENGES AND QUESTIONS.
THERE IS AN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER DNSSEC AS CURRENTLY DEFINED MAKES IT EASIER TO FIND THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF A ZONE THROUGH A PROCESS CALLED ZONE WALKING.
THERE IS A SMALL TECHNICAL CHANGE IN PROCESS TO THWART THAT EFFORT, TO THWART THAT CAPABILITY AND ELIMINATE THE POTENTIAL FOR ZONE-WALKING.
THERE IS OPEN ISSUES AS TO WHAT THE PERFORMANCE PENALTIES ARE IN MEMORY SIZE, BANDWIDTH, CPU USAGE.
MEASUREMENT IS UNDERWAY.
MY GUESS IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO WIND UP IN THE -- BROADLY IN THE FACTOR OF TWO TO FACTOR OF FIVE.
THAT MAY SOUND TERRIBLE, BUT IT'S PROBABLY NOT ALL THAT SERIOUS IN MOST CASES.
ANOTHER AREA THAT IS -- GENERATES A LOT OF CONTROVERSY AND EMOTION IS MANAGEMENT OF THE KEYS AND HOW MUCH PROCEDURE AND PROTECTION THERE IS AROUND THAT VERSUS MAKING IT EASY TO DO.
AND THAT KIND OF DISCUSSION GETS PARTICULARLY POINTED WITH REGARD TO THE VERY TOP-LEVEL KEY, THE ROOT KEY.
SO THAT'S THE BASIC PICTURE OF WHERE WE ARE.
LET'S SEE.
I CAN OFFER UP ONE MORE THING HERE, WHICH IS HERE'S A PICTURE -- WELL, IN DIFFERENT RESOLUTION, IT ALL FIT ON ONE PAGE.
HERE'S A PICTURE OF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE REPORT THAT I MENTIONED ON HIJACKING.
THIS IS A PDF FILE THAT IS, IF I RECALL, ABOUT 40 PAGES.
48 PAGES.
AND AS I SAY, AVAILABLE ON THE WEB SITE.
I'LL TAKE QUESTIONS, IF YOU WANT.
OR, VINT, MANAGE THE TIME.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU.
WE DO HAVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS, STEVE.
I JUST WANTED TO COMMEND YOU AND ALL OF THE REST OF THE SSAC ON THAT TERRIFIC REPORT ON HIJACKING.
I FOUND IT QUITE EYE-OPENING TO SEE HOW CREATIVE THE INIMICAL ELEMENTS OF THE INTERNET ARE AT MANAGING VARIOUS STEALTH HIJACKINGS OF DOMAIN NAMES.
I DON'T THINK THAT I'VE PERSONALLY GIVEN ENOUGH CREDIT TO THE BRILLIANCE OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT MEAN YOU WELL.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STEVE EITHER FROM THE FLOOR OR FROM THE BOARD?
>>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: IN THAT CASE, STEVE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>STEVE CROCKER: YEP.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: VINT.
>>VINT CERF: OH, BRET FAUSETT.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: JORDYN BUCHANAN, ACTUALLY.
>>VINT CERF: BEG YOUR PARDON.
OKAY.
CERF NEEDS A BRAIN TRANSPLANT.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: APOLOGIZE FOR THE LATE ARRIVAL AT THE MICROPHONE.
I DID HAVE TO (INAUDIBLE).
STEVE, I WOULD JUST -- I THINK THAT MANY OF THE CONCEPTS EXPRESSED IN THE HIJACKING REPORT ARE EXTREMELY VALUABLE.
I WOULD JUST EXPRESS ONE NOTE OF CONCERN, WHICH IS, I THINK THE SOLUTION SUGGESTED, VERY VALUABLE OF HAVING, FOR EXAMPLE, AN EMERGENCY CONTACT CHANNEL IS A GREAT IDEA.
IN FACT, I THINK REGISTER.COM, WHICH I'LL MENTION IS THE COMPANY I WORK FOR, IS GOING TO UNDERTAKE TO TRY TO PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING JUST LIKE THAT AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO OTHER REGISTRARS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANY BROADER POLICIES TAKE PLACE IN THE MEANTIME.
HOWEVER, THE PROBLEM I SEE IS THAT IN SOME CASES, A HIJACKING MAY DO -- MAY BE DUE TO A FAILURE ON BEHALF OF THE GAINING REGISTRAR TO COMPLY WITH ICANN'S POLICIES RELATING TO, FOR EXAMPLE, PROPER AUTHENTICATION OF -- OR AUTHENTICATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE INITIAL TRANSFER REQUEST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S PROPERLY AUTHORIZED BY THE EXISTING REGISTRANT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT'S LIKELY IF A REGISTRAR IS NOT COMPLYING WITH ICANN'S RULES WITH REGARDS -- WITH REGARDS TO PERFORMING THAT FUNCTION, IT MAY BE THAT THOSE SAME REGISTRARS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE UNLIKELY TO SET UP THESE EMERGENCY CONTACT CHANNELS.
SO YOU MAY WIND UP IN A SITUATION WHERE THE REGISTRARS THAT ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE CAUSING PROBLEMS IN SOME OF THESE SITUATIONS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE LEAST LIKELY TO HAVE THE CURE AVAILABLE.
AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON HOW THAT SITUATION MIGHT BE AMELIORATED.
>>STEVE CROCKER: SURE, I'D BE HAPPY TO COMMENT ON IT.
AND LET ME, IF I MIGHT, JUST PARAPHRASE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THAT IN AN INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER -- AND SOME TRANSFERS TAKE PLACE WITHIN ONE REGISTRAR OR EVEN WITHIN ONE RESELLER, YOU HAVE A GAINING REGISTRAR AND A LOSING REGISTRAR, AND THERE IS ACTION THAT TAKES PLACE PARTLY AT ONE AND PARTLY THE OTHER.
AND THE PLACE YOU'RE SHINING YOUR LIGHT IS, SUPPOSE THAT THE GAINING REGISTRAR DOES NOT OBEY ALL THE RULES.
AND LET ME BREAK THE SITUATION DOWN INTO TWO IMPORTANT SUBCASES.
IT COULD BE THAT THERE IS A -- AN INCIDENTAL BREACH, ONE OFF, THAT'S NOT A PATTERN, OR IT COULD BE THAT THERE'S A PATTERN.
AND I THINK THE SITUATIONS ARE VERY DIFFERENT.
IF THERE IS A PATTERN, THEN IT'S TIME FOR A SERIOUS CHAT WITH THAT GAINING REGISTRAR, WITH THAT REGISTRAR.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO POINT OUT IN THE REPORT IS THAT ALTHOUGH THERE ARE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS, MAYBE IT'S TIME TO REVISIT WHAT THEY ARE AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BE MORE VISIBLE SO THAT THEY HAVE A PUBLIC IMPACT WHEN THEY HAPPEN.
SO THAT'S ONE AVENUE THAT'S NOT UNREASONABLE TO LOOK AT.
WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE SYSTEM OF WHO NOTIFIES WHAT AND WHAT ACTIONS ARE TAKEN.
IT TURNS OUT THAT THE OWNER OR THE HOLDER OF THE DOMAIN NAME HAS A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CURRENT REGISTRAR, WHICH IN THE CASE OF AN UNINTENDED TRANSFER BECOMES THE LOSING REGISTRAR.
THAT'S WHERE THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE IS.
AND IF A REGISTRAR AND HIS -- WELL, IF A REGISTRANT AND HIS REGISTRAR ARE BOTH AWARE, ALERT, AND USING THE AVAILABLE MECHANISMS, THEN THEY'RE FAIRLY IMMUNE TO BEING HIJACKED. AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT SHOULD HAPPEN THERE, INCLUDING, AS WE SUGGEST, THAT NOTIFICATION SHOULD BE EXTENDED NOT OPTIONALLY, BUT IN A REQUIRED WAY ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
BUT BACK TO YOUR POINT ABOUT MISBEHAVIOR OF GAINING REGISTRARS.
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE INCIDENTS THAT WE LEAD OFF WITH IN THE REPORT CERTAINLY INVOLVED A REGISTRAR ON THE GAINING SIDE WHERE THAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM, AND YET WHEN YOU LOOK UNDERNEATH THE COVERS, IT'S A MIXED BAG, BECAUSE THE REGISTRAR ITSELF WAS EXTREMELY COMPETENT AND ATTEMPTED TO BE VERY CONSCIENTIOUS.
BUT THEY HAVE MANY, MANY, MANY RESELLERS, AND SO IT'S A KIND OF LEAKY SIEVE.
AND SO THAT REQUIRES NOW LOOKING AT HOW THAT WHOLE SYSTEM OF REGISTRARS AND RESELLERS IS MANAGED.
THERE ARE 150 REGISTRARS THAT ARE DEALING WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF REGISTRANTS ON A CONTINUING BASIS AND THEN THERE ARE A FEW HUNDRED THAT ARE BUYING THREADS TO POUND ON REGISTRIES.
BUT WHICHEVER OF THOSE NUMBERS YOU TAKE, 150 OR 500, THEY ARE VERY, VERY SMALL NUMBERS COMPARED TO THE 10,000 RESELLERS.
AND SO THE NUMBERS GAME MAKES IT A VERY DIFFERENT PROBLEM IN TERMS OF MANAGING BEHAVIOR.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD ASK ONE MORE QUESTION.
THANK YOU.
MY OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE, SO YOU MENTIONED -- AND I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT -- THAT THE EXISTING REGISTRAR OF A DOMAIN NAME PROBABLY HAS AN IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITY TO TRY TO VALIDATE THAT THAT REQUEST TAKES -- IS -- THAT THE TRANSFER IS DULY AUTHORIZED.
>>STEVE CROCKER: RIGHT.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: AND CURRENTLY, THE REGISTRAR ONLY HAS FIVE DAYS IN ORDER TO TRY TO ESTABLISH CONTACT WITH THE REGISTRANT.
IF THEY'RE ON VACATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO DO SO.
DID YOUR -- DID THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE GIVE ANY THOUGHT AS TO WHETHER THAT FIVE-DAY PERIOD SHOULD BE EXTENDED IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE EXISTING REGISTRAR TO CONTACT THE REGISTRANT?
>>STEVE CROCKER: YEAH, SO WE DID NOT DRILL DOWN TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT NOTIFICATION PERIOD SHOULD BE FIDDLED WITH.
THAT WOULD REALLY BE A LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT I THINK, FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, WE WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE HIGHLIGHT THIS, THIS SHOULD BE LEFT INTO THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DEALING WITH THIS EVERY DAY.
IT'S A GOOD PLACE FOR ME TO EMPHASIZE THAT WE VIEW OUR ROLE AS AN ADVISORY ROLE TO OPEN UP A TOPIC, MAKE SENSIBLE SUGGESTIONS.
WE'RE NOT JUST TRYING TO THROW RANDOM HAND GRENADES AROUND.
BUT THERE HAS TO BE AN ACCEPTANCE PROCESS.
AND THAT ACCEPTANCE PROCESS IS A SERIOUS EXAMINATION AND DETERMINATION WHETHER OR NOT THAT FITS.
I'LL ALSO SAY WITH RESPECT TO THE FIVE-DAY PERIOD THAT THAT IS AN IMPORTANT KIND OF LAST PROTECTION IN THE EVENT THAT YOU HAVE NOT LOCKED OR USED AUTH INFO.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO ON VACATION FOR FIVE DAYS, IT WOULD BE BETTER IF YOUR DOMAIN NAME WERE LOCKED.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANKS.
>>VINT CERF: THANKS VERY MUCH, STEVE.
I THINK THAT DOES IT FOR THE SSAC.
NOW WE CAN COME BACK TO PARTIES WHO HAD BEEN SKIPPED OVER EARLIER.
LET ME ASK IF, SHARIL, YOU'RE READY FOR THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT.
LET ME ASK YOU TO TAKE THE LECTERN.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU, VINT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, ALL.
MY NAME IS SHARIL TARMIZI.
I AM WITH THE GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN ICANN.
BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION, THE ICANN GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MET IN LUXEMBOURG FROM THE 9TH TO THE 12TH OF JULY THIS YEAR.
GAC PARTICIPANTS COMPRISED OF 38 MEMBERS AND THREE OBSERVERS.
THE GAC HAD SEVERAL SESSIONS TOGETHER WITH THE ICANN COMMUNITY, FOUR ROUNDTABLES ABOUT THE ROOT SERVERS, I.P. ADDRESSING, CCNSO, AND ALAC, TWO HALF-DAY WORKING SESSIONS ON INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES AND WHOIS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THE GAC ALSO HELD A SPECIAL SESSION WITH WGIG MEMBERS.
IN RELATION TO THE MATTERS DISCUSSED IN OUR DIALOGUE WITH THE ICANN BOARD, THE GAC WELCOMES THE DIALOGUE WITH THE ICANN BOARD ON VARIOUS ISSUES WHICH ICANN IS CURRENTLY UNDERTAKING.
THE GAC REAFFIRMS THE CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUING DIALOGUE BETWEEN ICANN AND THE GAC AND NOTES THE VARIOUS CHANGES IN PROCESSES THAT THE ICANN BOARD IS CURRENTLY CARRYING OUT.
ON NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, THE GAC NOTES FROM RECENT EXPERIENCE THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW TLDS CAN GIVE RISE TO SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC-POLICY ISSUES, INCLUDING CONTENT.
ACCORDINGLY, THE GAC WELCOMES THE INITIATIVE OF ICANN TO HOLD CONSULTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN STRATEGY.
THE GAC LOOKS FORWARD TO PROVIDING ADVICE TO THE PROCESS.
THE GAC ALSO ENCOURAGES THE BOARD TO ACTIVELY CONSULT ALL CONSTITUENCIES WITH REGARD TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS STRATEGY.
ON COUNTRY CODE -- CCTLDS -- SORRY, THE CCNSO PDP, THE GAC NOTES THE DECISION BY THE CCNSO COUNCIL TO CALL FOR A REPORT TO LOOK AT THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY CENTR AND SOME INDIVIDUAL CCTLDS AND THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION BY THE CCNSO ON 5TH JUNE TO INITIATE A CCNSO PDP.
THE GAC WELCOMES THE CCNSO'S INITIATIVE TO ESTABLISH THE PDP PROCESS.
THE ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENTION OF THE CCNSO TO ACT AS AN INCLUSIVE BODY REPRESENTING THE NEEDS OF THE FULL CCTLD COMMUNITY.
THE GAC CONTINUES TO SUPPORT THIS APPROACH.
THE GAC LOOK AT THIS FORWARD TO THE PDP PROCESS, FULLY EXAMINING ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING THE CONSULTATION PERIOD.
THE GAC WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL MEMBERS OF THE CCTLD COMMUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PROCESS IN A CONSTRUCTIVE IN RESPONSIVE MANNER, WITH A VIEW TO THE CCNSO FURTHER BROADENING ITS REPRESENTATION.
ON THE IANA PROCEDURES, AT THE LAST GAC MEETING IN MAR DEL PLATA, GAC ASKED ICANN TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION THAT CODIFIED THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CHANGES IN THE ROOT ZONE FILE AND FOR REDELEGATIONS.
MORE DETAILED INFORMATION HAS NOW BEEN PROVIDED BY ICANN WHICH IS NOW AVAILABLE ON THE IANA WEB SITE.
THE GAC APPRECIATES THIS AND WILL ANALYZE WHETHER THIS INFORMATION GIVES RISE TO PUBLIC POLICY CONCERNS OF GOVERNMENTS.
THE GAC ALSO ENCOURAGES THE BROADEST POSSIBLE DISSEMINATION OF THIS INFORMATION IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES IN A TIMELY MANNER.
ON THE WIPO II, THE GAC RECALLS ITS EARLIER ADVICE SUPPORTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WIPO II ON COUNTRY NAMES AND THE NAMES AND ACRONYMS OF IGOS AND RECALLS THAT THE ANNOUNCEMENTS ICANN STAFF PAPER ON THIS MATTER IS STILL OUTSTANDING.
FOLLOWING THE EXTENSIVE CONSULTATIONS ON THIS MATTER AND ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE ONGOING INTRODUCTION OF NEW TLDS, THE GAC ENCOURAGES ICANN TO PROCEED SWIFTLY TOWARDS IMPLEMENTING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
ON THE WSIS AND WGIG PROCESS, GAC WELCOMES THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF WSIS PREPCOM III, AMBASSADOR JANIS KARKLINS AND WITH THE WGIG COORDINATOR, MARKUS KUMMER, TOGETHER WITH SEVERAL WGIG MEMBERS.
WITH RESPECT TO THE REGIONAL FORUM ROUNDTABLES, THE GAC SPENT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF ITS MEETINGS IN LUXEMBOURG ENGAGING IN OPEN AND ACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH THE VARIOUS ICANN CONSTITUENTS, NAMELY, THE ROOT SERVER OPERATORS, THE I.P. ADDRESSING COMMUNITY, CCNSO, AND CCTLD COMMUNITY, AND THE ALAC.
THE GAC WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY ALL STAKEHOLDERS IN MAKING THE REGIONAL FORUM ROUNDTABLES A SUCCESS.
THE GAC ALSO FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT FURTHER AND DEEPER CONSULTATIONS ARE WELCOME AND WOULD LIKE TO WORK TOWARDS HAVING MORE SUCH ENGAGEMENTS IN THE FUTURE.
THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROUNDTABLES WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE ON THE GAC WEB SITE.
TURNING TO THE SPECIFIC WORKSHOPS THAT WE HAD, MR. CHAIRMAN, ON IDNS, THE GAC CONDUCTED AN OPEN WORKSHOP ON IDN, AND THE GAC RECALLS ITS ADVICE IN MAR DEL PLATA CONCERNING THE DEPLOYMENT OF IDNS AND THE DECISION BY THE ICANN BOARD TO CREATE A PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON IDN.
THE GAC ENCOURAGES ICANN TO IMPLEMENT THAT DECISION.
THE GAC WILL ALSO CONTINUE ITS CONSIDERATION OF IDN POLICIES AND LOOKS FORWARD TO MAKING FURTHER PROGRESS ON THIS MATTER AT VANCOUVER.
MEANWHILE, THE GAC WILL CONTINUE CONSULTATIONS WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING LINGUISTIC COMMUNITIES AND ICANN.
ON WHOIS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT, DURING THE LUXEMBOURG MEETING, THE GAC CONDUCTED A WORKSHOP ON WHOIS, FOCUSING ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DATA PROVIDED BY THAT SERVICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
THE WORKSHOP WAS DEVELOPED WITH ACTIVE SUPPORT FROM THE GNSO AND CCNSO COMMUNITIES.
PRESENTATIONS BY INTERPOL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM, AUSTRALIA, SPAIN, MALAWI, AND JAPAN INFORMED REPRESENTATIVES FROM GAC, GNSO, CCNSO, AND ASO COMMUNITIES ABOUT THE ESSENTIAL ROLE THAT THE DATA PROVIDED BY THE WHOIS SERVICE PLAYS IN THE INVESTIGATION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SPEED TO THIS ACCESS WAS A COMMON THEME.
THE WORKSHOP ALSO BENEFITED FROM PRESENTATIONS ON THE GNSO'S PAST AND PRESENT EXAMINATION OF WHOIS ISSUES AS WELL AS PRESENTATIONS FROM REGISTRIES, REGISTRARS, AND ISPS IN COMBATTING CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES.
THE GAC WILL CONTINUE TO ENGAGE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO FACILITATE THE INTERACTION WITH THE ICANN COMMUNITY WITH A VIEW TO MAINTAINING THEIR TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ACCESS TO THE DATA PROVIDED BY WHOIS SERVICES.
IN ADDITION, THE GAC WILL CONTINUE ITS EFFORTS TO BROADEN UNDERSTANDING OF OTHER IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY ASPECTS OF WHOIS DATA, SUCH AS CONSUMER, PRIVACY, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION, DURING ITS MEETING IN VANCOUVER.
THE GAC APPRECIATES THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE GNSO AND CCNSO COMMUNITIES AND LOOKS FORWARD TO FURTHER COLLABORATION AS IT -- AS ITS WORK PROGRESSES.
SORRY.
THE GAC WOULD ALSO LIKE TO EXPRESS WARM THANKS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF LUXEMBOURG AND THE ORGANIZERS FOR HOSTING THE MEETING IN LUXEMBOURG.
THE GAC ALSO THANKS ALL THOSE AMONGST THE ICANN COMMUNITY WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE DIALOGUE WITH US IN LUXEMBOURG, PARTICULARLY THE ROUNDTABLES AND THE IDN AND WHOIS WORKSHOPS.
THE NEXT GAC MEETINGS WILL BE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE ICANN VANCOUVER MEETINGS.
AND WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I END MY REPORT.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SHARIL.
LET ME ASK IF THERE ARE ANY IMMEDIATE QUESTIONS FOR THE GAC REPORT.
THOMAS.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: HELLO, THOMAS ROESSLER, LONGTIME WHOIS DISCUSSION PARTICIPANT.
I ACTUALLY GOT INTO THE WHOIS WORKSHOP, AND CHRISTOPHER HERE TOLD ME NO REPORTING, NO BLOGGING.
SO I'M VERY HAPPY TO HEAR YOUR REPORT ON THAT WORKSHOP NOW.
THAT SAID, I THINK A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT WERE SAID IN THIS WORKSHOP WOULD ACTUALLY BE USEFUL TO INFORM ONGOING DISCUSSIONS IN THE GNSO.
SO I WAS WONDERING IF THE GAC HAS CONSIDERED MAKING NOTES, SUMMARIES, AND PRESENTATIONS FROM THAT WORKSHOP AVAILABLE PUBLICLY SO IT BECOMES POSSIBLE FOR THE NATURALLY OPEN POLICY-MAKING PROCESS IN THE GNSO TO CONSIDER THESE ASPECTS AND THIS INPUT IN A NATURAL WAY.
THIS IS A KIND OF A CONTRADICTION TO HAVE CLOSED-DOOR INPUT INTO AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT POLICY-MAKING PROCESS.
SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT A LITTLE BIT.
THANK YOU.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
SORRY, I'M HESITATING BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF ACOUSTICS IN THE ROOM AND I DIDN'T QUITE HEAR YOU, SO I ACTUALLY HAD TO READ VERY CAREFULLY WHAT YOU ASKED.
THE -- AND I APPRECIATE YOUR -- YOUR ASKING THAT QUESTION.
WE WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT WAYS AND MEANS IN WHICH WE CAN FURTHER DISSEMINATE THIS INFORMATION.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE ALSO NEED TO BALANCE THE CONCERNS THAT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT COLLEAGUES HAVE.
WHAT WE ARE LIKELY TO DO IS, WE'RE LIKELY TO GO OVER THIS INFORMATION THAT WE'VE HAD AND HAVE AN INTERNAL DISCUSSION TO SEE JUST HOW MUCH OF IT CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE PUBLICLY.
AS I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, MOST OF THE INFORMATION ON THE VARIOUS OTHER WORKSHOPS AND REGIONAL ROUND TABLE SESSIONS WE'VE HAD WILL BE POSTED TO THE GAC WEB SITE.
SO PLEASE LOOK UP TO THE SITE FOR UPDATES TO SEE WHETHER SUCH INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: RAUL.
>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: THANK YOU.
RAUL ECHEBERRIA IS MY NAME.
I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND BETTER THE GAC POSITION REGARDING NEW GTLDS.
WHAT YOU SAY IS THAT THE GAC WOULD LIKE TO BE MORE INVOLVED IN THE DECISION REGARDING THE NEW GTLDS PROCESS OR THE -- REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF EACH OF -- EACH ONE OF THEM?
>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANKS, RAUL.
WELL, I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS WHAT WE'VE SAID IN THE COMMUNIQUE, WITH REGARDS TO TLD PROCESSES, NEW, CREATION OF NEW TLDS, PUBLIC-POLICY ISSUES WILL ARISE OR MAY ARISE.
AND IN RECENT EXPERIENCE, I THINK WE HAVE SEEN SOME OF THEM DO ARISE.
NOW, THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT IN SOME CASES NOTHING ARISES, ALSO. SO THE CHALLENGE IS IDENTIFYING SOMETHING EARLY ON, I GUESS, WHAT MAY BE POTENTIAL CONCERNS FROM A PUBLIC POLICY PERSPECTIVE. WHICH IS WHY IN A SENSE WE WELCOME THE INITIATIVES THAT ICANN TOOK TO ACTUALLY PUT OUT THE CONSULTATION PAPER AND THE MATRIX TO HELP BETTER FOCUS THE ISSUES.
NOW, ON THE SPECIFIC QUESTION OF WHETHER, AS YOU SAID, WHETHER WE WOULD BE WANTING TO PARTICIPATE ACTIVELY, I'M NOT TOO CERTAIN THAT THIS IS OUR ROLE. I THINK OUR ROLE IS TO ACTUALLY, TOGETHER WITH THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY, BE ENGAGED IN LOOKING PERHAPS AT THE PUBLIC POLICY CONCERNS AND LOOKING TO SEE HOW WE CAN AVOID SOME OF THE -- AND ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS.
SHOW I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC IDEA SIMPLY BECAUSE I THINK WHAT YOU ARE ASKING IS ACTUALLY GETTING TOO MUCH INTO THE OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF THINGS. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, THERE WILL PROBABLY BE FURTHER CONSIDERATION ONCE WE GO THROUGH THE STAFF PAPER AND SEE WHAT INPUTS WE CAN PROVIDE.
>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: THANK YOU, SHARIL. THE QUESTION IS BECAUSE I HAVE REALIZED THAT THE GAC MEMBERS OR GAC AS A BODY, I'M NOT SURE, HAS PRESENT CONCERNS REGARDING SOME OF THE NEW GTLDS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED NOW.
THE QUESTION IS IF YOU THINK THAT OR GAC THINK THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE A SPECIFIC ROLE IN THE APPROVAL OF EACH ONE OF THEM CONSIDERING THE SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS.
ONE THING IS THE GAC SHOULD BE EMBODIED IN THE PROCESS AND ANALYZING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOALS FOR OBLIGATIONS AND THESE KIND OF THINGS.
A DIFFERENT THING IS THE GAC IS BEING INVOLVED SPECIFICALLY IN EACH CASE. IF THE ANSWER IS YES, THE ANSWER MY QUESTION IS IF YOU HAVE PROPOSED SOME CHANGES IN THE PROCESSES TO THE ICANN BOARD AND IF YOU PLAN TO MEET MORE TIMES A YEAR IN ORDER TO HAVE A MORE DYNAMIC INVOLVEMENT IN THOSE KIND OF PROCESS.
THANK YOU.
>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANKS.
WELL, INSOFAR AS THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE RAISED, RAUL, SEE, THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT IN MANY CASES, IT'S ALWAYS AN ISSUE OF PERSPECTIVES, AND TO USE A TERM THAT WE USE BACK HOME, WHICH I THINK IS ALSO QUITE COMMON, IS ONE MAN'S MEAT CAN SOMETIMES BE ONE MAN'S POISON.
SO IN THE CREATION OF SOME OF THESE NEW TLDS, YOU WOULD HAVE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND DIFFERENT VIEWS AND DIFFERENT WAYS IN WHICH PEOPLE ARE VIEWING THIS, WHETHER IT'S A PROBLEM OR NOT A PROBLEM OR HOW TO DEAL WITH IT.
THIS IS A CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE STILL HAVING DISCUSSIONS IN THE GAC, SO IT'S A BIT PREMATURE FOR ME TO ACTUALLY EVEN GO DOWN THE SECOND QUESTION THAT YOU HAD AS TO WHETHER WE WANT TO BE INVOLVED DIRECTLY OR NOT INVOLVED DIRECTLY. BUT I THINK WHAT WE DO SAY IS THAT IF THERE'S ANY -- IF THERE'S A MECHANISM IN WHICH MORE INTENSE OR CLOSER COOPERATION AND COLLABORATION CAN BE DONE, PERHAPS THAT'S VERY WELCOME.
>>VINT CERF: SHARIL, -- I'M SORRY, BEFORE YOU -- LET ME TRY TO HELP YOU HERE BECAUSE I KNOW THIS IS A DELICATE QUESTION.
WE ARE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF PUTTING TOGETHER THE PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING NEW GTLDS. THIS IS A DOCUMENT AND A PROCESS THAT'S STILL UNDERWAY.
TO THE DEGREE THAT PUBLIC POLICY CONCERNS ARISE IN THE CREATION OF NEW GTLDS -- (NOISE).
>>VINT CERF: GOOD GRIEF. IS IT ALIVE OR DEAD?

(LAUGHTER.)
>>VINT CERF: TO THE EXTENT THAT PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES MIGHT ARISE IN THE CREATION OF FUTURE GTLDS, NOW WOULD BE A GOOD TIME FOR THE GAC TO CONSIDER HOW IT WANTS TO PARTICIPATE IN ALL THIS. ALL THE SOS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THINGS ABOUT THESE NEW PROPOSALS. SO YOU'RE DOING EXACTLY THE RIGHT THING NOW, CONSIDERING, WITHIN THE GAC PROCESS, WHAT KIND OF ROLE YOU WANT TO PROPOSE.
AND I THINK THAT'S AS FAR AS YOU CAN REASONABLY GO.
>>SHARIL TARMIZI: YES, THANK YOU, VINT.
>>CARSTEN SCHIEFNER: CARSTEN SCHIEFNER, DEUTSCHE TELEKOMM. I JUST WONDER IF THE GAC HAS GIVEN ANY KIND OF CONSIDERATION TO THE ENTIRE DOT NET PROCESS IN ITS CONSIDERATIONS AND DELIBERATIONS THROUGHOUT THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS.
>>SHARIL TARMIZI: SORRY I DIDN'T EVEN HEAR YOU, BUT THAT'S YOUR QUESTION; RIGHT?
>>CARSTEN SCHIEFNER: YEAH, BASICALLY.
>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THEN THE ANSWER IS NO.
>>CARSTEN SCHIEFNER: THEN I HAVE A SECOND QUESTION. THE QUESTION IS WHY IS THAT?
>>SHARIL TARMIZI: WELL, AGAIN, THE PERSPECTIVES, WHAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, DO YOU SEE IT AS A PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE?
>>CARSTEN SCHIEFNER: WELL, I'VE SPOKEN TO PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT LIKE THIS, YEAH.
>>VINT CERF: CARSTEN, I THINK THE ANSWER -- AN ANSWER TO THIS IS VERY SIMPLE. IF THE GAC THOUGHT IT WAS A PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE, I'M SURE THEY WOULD HAVE RAISED THE QUESTION. APPARENTLY THEY DIDN'T RAISE THE QUESTION, AND DIDN'T CONSIDER IT A PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE.
I SUPPOSE YOU'RE FREE TO LOBBY FOR THE POSITION THAT YOU'RE RAISING, BUT THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS THEY DIDN'T SEE IT THAT WAY.
>>CARSTEN SCHIEFNER: YEAH, OKAY. THANK YOU.
>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU, CARSTEN.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A MOMENT NOW, NOT A BREAK, BUT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A MOMENT NOW TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
LET ME ASK CHRISTOPHER WILKINSON TO JOIN SHARIL UP ON THE STAGE, PLEASE.
SOME OF YOU WILL RECOGNIZE THAT CHRISTOPHER WILKINSON HAS BEEN A FEATURE OF ICANN BOARD MEETINGS SINCE THE CURTACIOUS PERIOD, AND WE HAVE ENJOYED HIS HELP PARTICULARLY IN THE GAC CONTEXT FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
CHRISTOPHER HAS ANNOUNCED THAT HE HAS PLANS TO RETIRE THIS YEAR, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY THE LAST GAC MEETING, BUT PERHAPS NOT THE LAST ICANN MEETING, THAT HE WOULD ATTEND.
AND SO I WANT TO RECOGNIZE CHRISTOPHER'S SERVICE TO US OVER THIS LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND TO THE GAC. I'M SURE SHARIL WILL HAVE MORE SPECIFICS TO ADD. BUT I WANT TO SAY CHRISTOPHER HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL. I HAVE HAD PERSONAL EXPERIENCES ON MANY OCCASIONS THAT HIS VIEW OF ICANN AND HIS ABILITY TO EXPRESS IT, PARTICULARLY TO GOVERNMENTAL BODIES, HAS BEEN HELPFUL TO US. SO CHRISTOPHER, LET ME PERSONALLY THANK YOU FOR THAT FOR YOUR LONG SERVICE, AND LET ME SAY THAT WE WILL MISS YOU, AND SINCE SOME OF OUR MEETINGS WILL BE HERE IN EUROPE, PERHAPS YOU WILL COME AND VISIT. OR REEMERGE IN SOME OTHER GUISE TO BE ANOTHER PART OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY.
BUT I WANT TO THANK YOU PERSONALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK.
(APPLAUSE.)
(STANDING OVATION).
>>VINT CERF: SHARIL ACTUALLY HAS SOME SPECIFIC THINGS TO ADD TO THIS.
>>SHARIL TARMIZI: WELL, THANK YOU, VINT. I'M TOLD BY THOMAS FROM NETHERLANDS THAT CHRISTOPHER WAS THE FIRST MAN WHO SHOWED INTEREST IN .EU DURING THE CRUSTACEOUS PERIOD THE INTERNET, AND THAT'S WHEN HE CONTACTED JON POSTEL. SO IN SOME WAYS THOMAS MIGHT BE SAYING HE IS THE FOUNDING FATHER OF .EU.
BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT CHRISTOPHER HAS BEEN WITH THE GAC FIRST AS A MEMBER, THEN HE EVOLVED AND BECAME A VICE CHAIR, AND SUBSEQUENTLY HE HEADED THE GAC SECRETARIAT.
NOW HE IS INSTITUTED MANY CHANGES AND IMPROVEMENTS TO FACILITATE MORE ONLINE WORK BY THE GAC.
DURING THAT TIME, I THINK THE GAC HAS GROWN FROM APPROXIMATELY 60 MEMBERS TO OVER 100 NOW. SO WE'VE GROWN CONSIDERABLY IN THE LAST TWO YEARS.
WORKING IN THIS COMMUNITY, INVARIABLY THE HOURS ARE LONG AND ALSO ODD. HE IS IN EUROPE; I'M IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC.
CHRISTOPHER, WE IN THE GAC THANK YOU AND WISH YOU WELL IN YOUR FUTURE ENDEAVORS. NOW HOPEFULLY YOU WILL HAVE MORE TIME TO SPEND WITH ANN AND THE CHILDREN.
THANK YOU.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>CHRISTOPHER WILKINSON: FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES, GOOD AFTERNOON.
THANK YOU. I'M SOMEWHAT AT A LOSS FOR WORDS OUT OF SURPRISE. I SEE AROUND THE ROOM MANY COLLEAGUES WITH WHOM I HAVE WORKED IN AND OUT OF THE GAC, IN EUROPE, INTERNATIONALLY, AND I SUPPOSE THAT THE ONE THING THAT I APPRECIATE THE MOST IS THE EXTENT TO WHICH OUR MEMBERSHIP POLICY IN THE GAC, DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS UNDER SHARIL'S LEADERSHIP, HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN REACHING OUT TO A LARGE NUMBER OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND NEW MEMBERS.
I ONLY REGRET THAT MANY OF THEM HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO COME TO THESE KINDS OF MEETINGS, BUT THEY ARE PARTICIPATING.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY A SPECIAL WORD TO PAUL TWOMEY AND SHARIL TARMIZI FOR THEIR PERSONAL COOPERATION AND FRIENDSHIP DURING THIS PERIOD.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
BYE.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>PAUL TWOMEY: I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS AND NOT LET CHRISTOPHER ESCAPE SO EASILY.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REINFORCE ALL THE COMMENTS MADE BY SHARIL AND OTHERS ABOUT CHRISTOPHER'S SERVICE. AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE SOME PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS, BOTH AS A -- IN THREE CONTEXTS. FIRST OF ALL AS, A PREVIOUS LIFE, AN AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL FIGHTING FOR ASIA PACIFIC AND AUSTRALIAN INTERESTS, SECOND AS A GAC CHAIR, AND THIRDLY AS AN ICANN CEO.
THE FIRST ONE IS THAT I CURSED CHRISTOPHER WILKINSON AS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL FOR AUSTRALIA. WE HAD A BIG DISPUTE WITH MAGAZINER ABOUT HOW MANY BOARD MEMBERS CAME FROM WHICH REGION AND HE HAD ALREADY DONE THIS DEAL TO GET FOUR, AND NO MATTER HOW HARD WE PUSHED THAT THERE HAD TO BE AN EQUAL NUMBER, MAGAZINER SAID THERE HAD TO BE AN ODD NUMBER, THEREFORE THERE WERE THREE FROM ASIA-PACIFIC AND FOUR FROM EUROPE.
SO IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT, BUT NEVERTHELESS, I TAKE MY HAT OFF TO CHRISTOPHER'S ABILITY TO PUSH FOWARD THE INTEREST OF EUROPE IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE.
THE SECOND POINT I'D LIKE TO TAKE NOTICE OF IS, SIMILARLY IN THE GAC, WHEN CHRISTOPHER WAS PARTICIPATING AS A REPRESENTATIVE AND VICE CHAIR THAT HE WAS ALSO VERY EFFECTIVE PRESENTER OF EUROPEAN INTERESTS AND ALSO THE INTERESTS OF ICANN AS A WHOLE IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS. I KNOW, I SEE BECKY BURR IN THE AUDIENCE AND I KNOW BECKY WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT THERE WERE CERTAINLY OCCASIONS WHEN THE TRADITIONAL TRANSATLANTIC FRANK AND OPEN EXCHANGES TOOK PLACE. BUT I THINK IT WAS AN OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP CONTRIBUTION FROM CHRISTOPHER. AND FINALLY IN HIS POSITION AS GAC SECRETARIAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF THE ICANN STAFF FOR ALL OF THE SERVICE AND ASSISTANCE YOU HAVE GIVEN US AND THE GINGER YOU HAVE GIVEN US IN GETTING THINGS HAPPENING AND I AM GOING TO MISS YOU IN THESE MEETINGS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH
(APPLAUSE.)
>>VINT CERF: THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM GEORGE SADOWSKY, WHO IS THE CHAIRMAN OF OUR NOMINATING COMMITTEE, SO I WILL ASK GEORGE TO COME AND MAKE HIS REPORT.
>>GEORGE SADOWSKY: THANK YOU, VINT.
THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE IS CHARGED BY ICANN EVERY YEAR TO NOMINATE TO THE BOARD AND TO THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND TO THE ALAC MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BOARDS OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS.
THE COMMITTEE IS A LARGE ONE. IT CONSISTS OF 23 MEMBERS, 18 OF WHICH VOTE. AND THE MEMBERS COME FROM ALL OF THE VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES AND COMMITTEES OF ICANN.
THIS YEAR, WE'LL BE FILLING EIGHT POSITIONS, TWO ON THE ICANN BOARD, ONE IN THE CCNSO, TWO POSITIONS IN THE GNSO, AND THREE POSITIONS ON THE ALAC. THE THREE ALAC POSITIONS ARE SPECIFICALLY GEOGRAPHICALLY DETERMINED.
AS YOU KNOW, SIX MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ICANN ARE -- COME FROM THE SOS, TWO FROM EACH OF THE THREE SOS. AND THE OTHERS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CEO, ARE NOMINATED BY THE NOMCOM AND TAKE OFFICE THE NEXT YEAR.
EVERY YEAR WE PUT OUT A CALL FOR STATEMENTS OF INTEREST FROM VARIOUS PEOPLE. THIS YEAR WE PUT OUT THE CALL IN APRIL. WE HAD AN INITIAL DEADLINE OF THE 15TH OF JUNE, WHICH WAS THEN EXTENDED TO THE 20TH OF JULY.
NOW, THERE'S SOMETHING INTERESTING ABOUT THIS PATTERN BECAUSE IT HAPPENED LAST YEAR ALSO THAT THERE WAS A DEADLINE SET AND THEN A SECOND DEADLINE WAS POSTED, AND PEOPLE SOMETIMES TRY TO READ THESE TEA LEAVES AND SAY HAVEN'T YOU GOT ENOUGH CANDIDATES? WHAT'S GOING ON?
AND THE PROBLEM IS WE'RE FACED WITH AN ALL TOO HUMAN BEHAVIOR THAT PEOPLE WHO DECLARE OFTEN WAIT UNTIL THE LAST DAY, SO THAT BY JUNE 10TH OR 12TH OR 13TH, WE DON'T HAVE QUITE ENOUGH APPLICATIONS TO DO ANYTHING, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO GET FIVE MORE IN THE REMAINING PERIOD OR 100 MORE.
SO WE THEN -- I THINK AS A RESULT OF THIS, IT'S A HUMAN BEHAVIOR ISSUE, WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY HAVE TO SEE THIS PATTERN OF EXTENDING THE DEADLINE CONTINUE UNTIL PEOPLE GET WISE TO IT AND THEN WE MAY HAVE TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE TWICE.
WE LOOK FOR PEOPLE WHO WOULD NOT ORDINARILY PERCOLATE INTO THE GOVERNING BOARDS, THE COUNCILS OF ICANN.
WE KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOMINATED BY THE VARIOUS SOS ARE GOING TO COME FROM THAT SO COMMUNITY. WE ALSO KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THOSE SOS WHO WOULD NOT NECESSARILY COME FROM THAT COMMUNITY AND WE LOOK AT THEM ALSO.
THIS YEAR WE'LL BE MEETING, AFTER THE CLOSE FOR SOI'S, WE'LL BE MEETING SEVERAL TIMES BY TELECONFERENCE AND THEN FINALLY IN THE MARATHON SESSION PROBABLY IN THE MIDDLE OF SEPTEMBER TO LOOK AT VARIOUS SLATES AND TO MAKE FINAL DECISIONS.
THE PROCESS TOTALLY TRANSPARENT, IT SHOULD BE. IT'S LISTED ON THE WEB SITE.
THE DATA, HOWEVER, ARE COMPLETELY OPAQUE, AND PURPOSELY SO BECAUSE THE DATA ARE GUARDED CONFIDENTIALLY WITH A GREAT DEAL OF CONCERN. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NONE OF THIS -- IF YOU'VE SUBMITTED AN SOI, THAT NO ONE -- UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO TELL PEOPLE YOU'VE DONE SO, NO ONE, EXCEPT YOUR REFERENCES, WILL KNOW THAT THAT HAS HAPPENED. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE TAKE A SMALL NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE WHO APPLY AND WE DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY NEGATIVE ASPERSIONS CAST ON THOSE WHO ARE NOT CHOSEN WHO MAY HAVE NOT BEEN CHOSEN TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE PROCESSES THEY BRING TO BEAR ON THE PROCESS.
WE LOOK FOR BALANCE, AND THIS IS A DIFFICULT THING. WE LOOK FOR BALANCE IN GENDER GEOGRAPHY, CULTURE, SKILLS THAT ARE NEEDED. AND THE PROBLEM IS WITH JUST A FEW POSITIONS TO FILL, WE DON'T HAVE QUITE ENOUGH DEGREES OF FREEDOM TO DO IT REALLY WELL. SO THAT THE PROCESS OF SELECTING THE NOMINEES, ALTHOUGH IN PRINCIPLE, IN THEORY IS VERY SIMPLE, IN PRACTICE IT TAKES A LOT OF WORK, A LOT OF THINKING AND A LOT OF HARD WORK ON THE PART OF THE 23 PEOPLE WHO HAVE VOLUNTEERED TO JOIN US IN THIS EFFORT.
WE DO ONE OTHER THING. WE HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO FILL VACANCIES AS THEY OCCUR IN TERM. AND THIS YEAR WE HAVE LOOKED AT TWO PROCESSES. THE FIRST, A GENERAL PROCESS FOR NOMINATING COMMITTEES OF FUTURE YEARS TO USE IN FILLING VACANCIES THAT MAY OCCUR. AND THE SECOND A VERY SPECIAL PROCESS TO FILL THE SEAT IN THE GNSO OF DEMI GETSCHKO, WHO WAS MOVED EARLIER THIS YEAR TO THE BOARD. AND I'M VERY PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE -- ICANN ANNOUNCE THE NOMINATION OF AVRI DORIA AS THE NEW MEMBER OF THE GNSO.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>GEORGE SADOWSKY: SHE FILLS DEMI GETSCHKO'S TERM WHICH ENDS AT THE END OF THE ANNUAL MEETING IN NOVEMBER. THAT'S MY REPORT.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, GEORGE. LET ME THANK YOU AND YOUR ENTIRE TEAM FOR WHAT I KNOW IS A VERY HARD TASK. IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS VITAL TO THE ABILITY OF THIS ORGANIZATION TO FUNCTION. SO I THANK YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES ONCE AGAIN.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR GEORGE BEFORE HE STEPS DOWN?
PETER.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: GEORGE, THANKS FOR THE REPORT. I WONDER IF I CAN ASK YOU TO THINK OF SOMETHING QUITE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU REPORTED, AND IT'S STIMULATED IN PART BY A DISCUSSION ON THE BOARD WHICH INDICATES THAT BOARD SERVICE MAY OCCUPY 25 TO 30 PERCENT OF ONE'S YEAR. AND WE HAD THE ANNOUNCEMENT EARLIER THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GNSO COUNCIL IS SPENDING 40 HOURS A WEEK ON BEING THE CHAIRMAN.
SO CONSIDERATION OF THAT WORK LEVEL MUST BE AN IMPORTANT FACTOR TO APPLICANTS FOR THESE POSITIONS.
AND I WONDER IF IT'S TIME WE ADDRESSED THE QUESTION OF REMUNERATION OF THE BOARD AND COUNCIL, OR ANY OF THE POSITIONS IN ICANN. IT'S CERTAINLY A LEVEL OF WORK THAT I THINK IT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED BY PEOPLE AT THE TIME.
IT CAN'T BE DONE OR IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR IT TO BE DONE BY ANYBODY SUCH AS THE BOARD OR COUNCIL FOR OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BUT I WONDER IF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE MIGHT BE IN A POSITION TO LOOK AT THAT ISSUE AS PART OF THE WHOLE QUESTION OF GETTING GOOD CALIBER PEOPLE INTO ALL OF THESE POSITIONS.
>>GEORGE SADOWSKY: WELL, IT IS TRUE THAT PEOPLE NOW UNDERSTAND -- PEOPLE IN THE GENERAL INTERNET AND ICANN COMMUNITY UNDERSTAND THIS LEVEL OF EFFORT.
I'M NOT SURE IT'S WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT IT. WE CAN REPORT, HOWEVER, AT LEAST ANECDOTALLY, ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT IT TAKES TOO MUCH TIME.
ON THE OTHER HAND, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, THE PEOPLE WHO SAY IT TAKES TOO MUCH TIME MAKE SUCH A HIGH SALARY THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO MATTER WHAT YOU PAY THEM.
>>VINT CERF: NOW YOU'VE REALLY MESSED UP MY RESPONSE, GEORGE, IS BECAUSE WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY TO PETER IS YOU COULDN'T PAY ME ENOUGH TO DO THIS JOB.
BUT SERIOUSLY, I THINK TRYING TO REMUNERATE PEOPLE FOR THIS KIND OF WORK IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO WORK OUT VERY WELL. MY SUGGESTION, I THINK, IS TO HAVE ANECDOTAL FEEDBACK. I WOULD BE VERY SURPRISED IF ANYONE UNDER CONSIDERATION WOULD SAY, "IF I WERE PAID TO DO THIS, I WOULD IT."
I THINK THIS IS REALLY A LABOR OF LOVE, OR MAYBE IT'S A LABOR OF SOME OTHER KIND. BUT IT'S A LABOR, IN ANY CASE, THAT ONE DOES VOLUNTARILY.
I TAKE YOUR POINT, BUT I WOULD BE QUITE SURPRISED IF ANYONE FELT THAT THAT WAS THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD GET THEM INTO THE JOB.

SO IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR GEORGE, I'LL THANK YOU AGAIN, AND YOU MAY STAND DOWN.
AT THIS POINT WE REACH THE REPORT FROM THERESA SWINEHART ON THE WSIS UPDATE. I IMAGINE THIS SHOULD BE FAIRLY, FAIRLY BRIEF SINCE WE'VE GOTTEN -- THOSE OF YOU WHO PARTICIPATED, ANYWAY, GOT QUITE A DETAILED LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON IN WSIS FROM THE WGIG CHAIR AND FROM THE PREPCOM-3 CHAIR THIS MORNING.

>>THERESA SWINEHART: IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE INCREDIBLY BRIEF.
I THINK EVERYBODY HAS HEARD QUITE A FEW OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE WSIS PROCESS, SO MINE IS GOING TO BE A FACTUAL UPDATE. IF YOU MISSED THIS MORNING'S WORKSHOP, IT'S BEEN WEBCAST AND IT'S IN THE ARCHIVES AND I THINK THAT'S THE PEST PLACE TO GET THE GREATEST DETAIL BY THOSE WHO ARE THE HEADS OF THE WSIS AND THE WGIG.
FOR THOSE WHO WEREN'T THERE, HERE'S THE OVERVIEW. WE HAD THE WSIS PROCESS. IT CONSISTS OF PREPARATORY MEETINGS. SINCE MAR DEL PLATA THERE HAVE BEEN THREE REGIONAL MEETINGS LEADING INTO THE PREPARATORY PROCESS. THE PAN ARAB REGION, THE LATIN AMERICAN, AND THE ASIA-PACIFIC. THE NEXT PREPARATORY MEETING IS THE 19TH THROUGH THE 30TH OF SEPTEMBER WHICH IS REFERRED TO AS PREPCOM-3. AND IF YOU MISSED ANY OF THESE DISCUSSIONS IT WILL DEAL WITH INTERNET GOVERNANCE. THE SUMMIT IS IN TUNIS THE 16TH THROUGH 18TH OF NOVEMBER. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE WHICH MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING WILL BE RELEASED SHORTLY. IT FORMALLY BEING RELEASED ON MONDAY IN GENEVA.
I BELIEVE MOST PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE WGIG AND WHAT THEY ACTUALLY UNDERTOOK. I THINK GREAT CREDIT AND APPLAUSE SHOULD GO TO THE PEOPLE WITHIN THE ICANN COMMUNITY WHO ARE ON THE WGIG AND FOR THE HOURS OF COMMITMENT THAT THEY PUT TOWARDS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE INTERNET ISSUES AND THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM AND THE ADDRESSING SPACE.
THE REPORT OF THE WGIG WAS SENT TO THE SECRETARIAT AND AS I MENTIONED SHOULD BE FORMALLY RELEASED ON THE 18TH OF JULY.
BETWEEN THE RELEASE OF THE REPORT ITSELF AND LEADING INTO THE PREPCOM PHASE, THERE IS A COMMENT PERIOD ENDING ON THE 15TH OF AUGUST, WHICH I WOULD ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO PROVIDE COMMENTS IN AND CERTAINLY WE WILL DISCUSS WITHIN THE ICANN FRAMEWORK WHETHER TO PROVIDE ICANN COMMENTS AND CONSTITUENCY COMMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THERE WILL BE GOVERNMENTAL DISCUSSIONS. THERE IS A -- SOME WORKSHOPS AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS ALSO REGIONAL AND OTHER INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS ANTICIPATED.
ALL THAT INFORMATION WILL GO INTO PREPCOM-3 AND THE OUTPUT INTO TUNIS.
MARKUS KUMMER, NITIN DESAI, AND FRANK MARCH FROM THE SECRETARIAT HAD ALSO PROVIDED SOME DETAILS ON THE REPORT THIS MORNING, AND IT WAS A PRIVILEGE FOR US TO HAVE AMBASSADOR KHAN, AMBASSADOR KARKLINS, AMBASSADOR GIOVANNI AND OTHERS ATTENDING THIS MEETING SO THEY COULD ACTUALLY SEE HOW AN ICANN MEETING FUNCTIONS. AND HOPEFULLY WE ALL LEARNED SOMETHING. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
>>VINT CERF: LET ME REITERATE THERESA'S APPRECIATION FOR ALL OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN AND WORKED SO HARD ON WGIG. LET ME PAUSE NOW FOR APPLAUSE.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>VINT CERF: SECOND OBSERVATION, THE WGIG REPORT IS OFFICIALLY BEING RELEASED MONDAY, BUT I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE AVAILABLE ONLINE LATER TODAY OR TOMORROW.
MONDAY BEGINS A PERIOD OF TIME WHEN WE ARE ALLOWED, ANY OF US, THE GENERAL PUBLIC, TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THAT REPORT.
THE COMMENTS WILL BE BOUND IN, I ASSUME VERBATIM, ASSUMING THAT IT'S NOT SPAM, THE COMMENTS WILL BE BOUND IN WITH THE REPORT AND WITH THE BACKUP APPENDIX MATERIAL.
SO IF YOU HAVE INPUTS THAT YOU WANT THE PREPCOM-3 TO SEE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE WGIG REPORT, NOW WOULD BE A VERY GOOD TIME TO ORGANIZE YOUR THOUGHTS AND TO MAKE THAT CONTRIBUTION.
OTHER THAN THAT, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THERESA? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THERESA.

AT THIS POINT, I CAN -- SINCE WE HAVE BEEN ASKING QUESTIONS MORE OR LESS AT THE END OF EACH OF THESE REPORTS, I THINK I CAN NOW OPEN THE MICROPHONE FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THAT YOU WISH TO MAKE.
WE ARE SCHEDULED TO TERMINATE THIS FIRST PUBLIC FORUM AT 6:00. SO WE CAN GO FOR ANOTHER 30 MINUTES OR SO BEFORE WE REACH THAT END POINT, MAYBE ALMOST 40. OF COURSE I WOULD BE HAPPY TO END EARLY IF YOU RUN OUT OF COMMENTS. SO LET'S TAKE THE FIRST ONE.
>>MARCUS FAURE: MY NAME IS MARCUS FAURE, AND I AM WITH (INAUDIBLE) OF REGISTRARS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE REPORT VITTORIO GAVE US AND ALSO IT'S A BIT ON THE GAC REPORT AND IT'S ABOUT THE OTHER LANGUAGES THAT ICANN SHOULD SUPPORT.
MY FIRST OBSERVATION IS THAT I WOULD SUPPORT THE STATEMENT THAT SAYS THE THINKING AND CULTURE WITHIN ICANN IS STILL VERY U.S.-CENTRIC. I SUPPORT THAT. I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR THE STAFF LEVEL.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I DON'T THINK IT WILL HELP ICANN IF ICANN STARTS TO SUPPORT THE MOST OR THE MAJOR TEN LANGUAGES, JUST BECAUSE, AND THERE'S A REPETITION OF A COMMENT I MADE IN MAR DEL PLATA, WE SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH INTERPRETERS AROUND THAT ARE AWARE OF INTERNET LANGUAGE. AND I GIVE YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE. LAST WEEK I HAD TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE E.U. REGISTRY AND IT'S AVAILABLE IN ALL EUROPEAN LANGUAGES. GERMAN IS MY NATIVE LANGUAGE AND I CHOSE TO SIGN THE ENGLISH ONE BECAUSE THE GERMAN ONE WAS SIMPLY NOT UNDERSTANDABLE. YEAH, IT'S LIKE THAT.
AND I KNOW THAT MANY HERE IN THIS ROOM SHARE THIS EXPERIENCE, SO WHATEVER YOU DO, BE VERY CAREFUL THAT YOU DON'T BURN MONEY, AND IF YOU DECIDE TO GO FOR -- TO SUPPORT OTHER LANGUAGES, AT LEAST TEST DRIVE IT. TRANSLATE, FOR EXAMPLE, AN ICANN AGREEMENT, GIVE IT TO A NATIVE SPEAKER, AND ASK WHAT HE UNDERSTOOD.
SO I THINK THE RESULT WILL BE VERY SURPRISING.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU FOR THAT VERY PRAGMATIC PIECE OF ADVICE.
THIS IS BRET, YES.
>>BRET FAUSETT: I ACTUALLY HAD A QUESTION FOR SUZANNE WOOLF THAT I WASN'T ABLE TO GET IN BEFORE AND THE QUESTION RELATES TO THE MOU IN ITEM 5 WHICH I THINK REQUIRED FORMALIZATION OF RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE ROOT SERVER OPERATORS. I WAS LOOKING AT ICANN'S LAST STATUS REPORT AND IT SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT PROGRESS WAS BEING MADE ON TWO FRONTS.
ONE IT SAID THAT THERE WAS WORK ON CREATION OF FORMALIZED AGREEMENTS WITH THE ROOT SERVER OPERATORS AND ALSO FORMALIZATION OF BEST PRACTICES. I WONDER IF YOU CAN COMMENT ON BOTH OF THOSE FRONTS AND THE PROGRESS YOU SEE BEING MADE TOWARD COMPLETION OF THE MOU.
>>SUZANNE WOOLF: SURE.
EXCEPT IT'S VERY HARD TO COMMENT EXCEPT TO SAY THAT THAT IS AN ITEM OF VERY ACTIVE DISCUSSION AMONG THE SERVER OPERATORS AND WITH ICANN.
THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED UNDER QUITE A FEW DIFFERENT FORMS OF MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS.
SO, FRANKLY, IT'S GOING SLOWLY.
AND I DON'T REALLY WANT TO SAY ANY MORE THAN THAT, BUT IT IS UNDER A VERY ACTIVE CONSIDERATION.
>>TONY HOLMES: TONY HOLMES, CHAIRMAN OF THE ISPCP, AND I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE ISPS.
THE ISPCP CONSTITUENCY URGES THE ICANN BOARD NOT TO RATIFY, ADOPT, OR APPROVE THE CURRENT STRATEGIC PLAN IN ITS CURRENT FORM.
THE CURRENT STRATEGIC PLAN DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSENSUS OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY.
RATIFYING THE STRATEGIC PLAN WOULD CONFER A STAMP OF AUTHORITY ON THE PLAN THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME.
IT WOULD ALSO CODIFY STRATEGIC GOALS WHICH DO NOT HAVE THE CONSENSUS BUY-IN OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY.
INSTEAD, THE ISPCP PROPOSES THAT THE CURRENT STRATEGIC PLAN BE RECEIVED AS A WORKING GUIDE AND HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENT FOR ICANN'S CONTINUED EFFORT TOWARDS A STRATEGIC PLAN UNTIL A CONSENSUS DOCUMENT EMERGES FROM THE REVISED PLANNING PROCESS UNDERWAY THIS WEEK.
SOME HAVE SUGGESTED THAT ANY STRATEGIC PLAN IS BETTER THAN NONE AND THAT A RANDOM DOCUMENT WILL SERVE AS A DEFENSE AGAINST ORGANIZATIONS INCLINED TO POINT OUT ICANN'S LACK OF VISION FOR THE FUTURE.
WE DO NOT AGREE.
SUCH ORGANIZATIONS WILL NOT BE DETERRED FROM CRITICIZING ICANN BECAUSE OF THE MERE EXISTENCE OF A DOCUMENT ENTITLED STRATEGIC PLAN. HOWEVER, THE ADOPTION BY THE BOARD OF A PLAN, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND FUTURE ABANDONMENT OF THE SO-CALLED STRATEGIC PLAN WILL IN FACT GIVE THESE ORGANIZATIONS THE VERY EVIDENCE THAT THEY WILL CONDEMN ICANN WITH.
ICANN HAS AN OPERATIONAL PLAN THAT TAKES US THROUGH THE NEXT YEAR.
THAT DEFIANCE VERY CLEARLY SHORT-TERM GOALS FOR THE ORGANIZATION.
IN ADDITION, AN OPEN AND PARTICIPATIVE PLANNING PROCESS IS CURRENTLY BEING DEVELOPED FOR THE NEXT PLANNING CYCLE.
THE ISPCP APPLAUDS THE CURRENTLY PLANNING EFFORTS UNDERWAY.
THE ISPCP CONSTITUENCY REMAINS COMMITTED TO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS, AND MANY OF OUR MEMBERS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THIS WEEK'S GROUP PLANNING PROCESS.
HOWEVER, ADOPTING THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT RETREAT FROM THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY AND PLANS FOR THIS ORGANIZATION.
WE URGE ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD NOT TO ADOPT OR RATIFY THE CURRENT STRATEGIC PLAN.
THAT IS THE STATEMENT.
AND I WILL JUST ADD THAT THE VIEWS OF THE ISPCP WITH REGARD TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN HAVE ALREADY BEEN POSTED, AND THEY WERE CERTAINLY SUBMITTED AT THE LAST ICANN MEETING.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: TONY, FIRST OF ALL, LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR.
I WAS THE GUY THAT SAT IN THE MEETING AND SAID WE REALLY OUGHT TO HAVE A PLAN BECAUSE THEY'LL SHOOT AT US IF WE DON'T.
I'VE ACTUALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT SOME MORE, AND I'M NOT ACTUALLY SURE I AGREE WITH MYSELF ON THAT.
BUT FOR CLARIFICATION, ARE YOU SAYING THAT NOTHING IN THAT PLAN IS IN ANY WAY ACCEPTABLE TO YOU, OR ARE YOU SAYING SOME OF IT ISN'T?
>>TONY HOLMES: THE ANSWER TO THAT IS, SOME OF IT ISN'T ACCEPTABLE.
NOT ALL OF IT.
BUT RATIFYING SOMETHING WHICH WE CONSIDER HAS SEVERE DEFICIENCIES IN PART OF IT IS NOT THE WAY TO GO WHEN ALREADY THERE IS A PROCESS IN PLACE TO ENHANCE THAT AND TAKE IT FORWARD. AND THAT IS THE KEY POINT.
>>VINT CERF: I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT FOR THE RECORD THAT WE'RE NOT HEARING FROM YOU THAT YOU DIDN'T AGREE WITH ANYTHING IN IT.
I HOPE IT WASN'T TOO MANY THINGS YOU DIDN'T AGREE WITH.
BUT LET'S NOT GET INTO PERCENTAGES.
>>TONY HOLMES: THE SPECIFIC POINTS THAT THE ISPCP HAVE BEEN POSTED AND IF NECESSARY, I COULD SUBMIT THEM AGAIN.
>>VINT CERF: I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY.
PETER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: TONY, I WANT TO JOIN WITH VINT.
BECAUSE I THINK I'VE BEEN QUOTED AS SAYING ANY PLAN WOULD BE BETTER THAN NO PLAN, WHICH IS NOT WHAT I SAID.
MY PROPOSAL HAS BEEN FOR TO YOU GO THROUGH AND GIVE US A PLAN WITH THE PIECES THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH HIGHLIGHTED OR EVEN ACTUALLY RED-LINED SO THEY CAN BE REMOVED.
AND I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ACCEPTANCE OF ALL THAT REMAINS, BECAUSE THAT IS ACCEPTABLE BY THE COMMUNITY.
SO I PUT THAT QUESTION FORMALLY TO YOUR CONSTITUENCY AGAIN.
IS IT POSSIBLE IN A SHORT TIME FOR YOU TO LET US HAVE THE PIECES EXTRACTED FROM IT?
LET ME -- WHILE YOU'RE CONTEMPLATING THAT QUESTION, LET ME GO ON TO EXPLAIN THE PROBLEM IF YOU DON'T DO THIS.
WE WILL THEN NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY FOR ANY SPENDING BY THE CORPORATION.
THE ONLY AUTHORITY WILL THEN RESIDE IN THE BUDGET.
WE WILL HAVE TO GO AND PUT ALL OF THIS EFFORT INTO EXAMINING LINE BY LINE WHAT IS APPROVED IN THE BUDGET AND WHAT IS NOT.
THEN WE'VE SEEN IN RELATION TO EXAMINING THE BUDGET THAT IT IS PRESENTLY IMPOSSIBLE OR VERY DIFFICULT TO ACTUALLY IDENTIFY IN THE BUDGET WHAT THE COST OF SOME OF THESE ACTIVITIES ARE.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO BE -- YOU'RE GOING TO BE ASKING THE STAFF NOT TO SPEND MONEY ON SOME THINGS, AND AT THE MOMENT THEY CAN'T IDENTIFY WHAT THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY IS.
SO PART OF MY INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ISSUE ABOUT SPENDING IS DEALT WITH AT THE STRATEGIC PLAN LEVEL, NOT IN A LINE-BY-LINE ANALYSIS OF THE BUDGET.
BUT IF YOU DON'T GIVE US A PLAN WITH BITS REMOVED, WE WILL BE FORCED TO GO AND SPEND DAYS COMBING THROUGH THE BUDGET TO FIND OUT WHAT THE THINGS YOU DON'T WANT ARE GOING TO COST AND TAKE THEM OUT OF THE BUDGET.
SO THEY'VE GOT TO COME OUT OF EITHER OF BUDGET OR THE PLAN.
CAN YOU HELP US BY TAKING THEM OUT OF THE PLAN?
>>TONY HOLMES: WE HAVE SUBMITTED INPUT BEFORE ON THE PARTS OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN THAT WE HAVE ISSUES WITH.
WE CAN SUPPLY THAT INFORMATION AGAIN.
AND WE'LL LOOK TO DO THAT.
BUT WE DO HAVE THE OPERATIONAL PLAN.
AND MY STATEMENT WAS NOT AGAINST THE OPERATIONAL PLAN; IT WAS AGAINST THE STRATEGIC PLAN THAT GOES BEYOND THAT.
SO THERE IS A SEPARATION BETWEEN THOSE ISSUES AS WELL.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, PETER, I'M NOT SURE THAT I AGREE WITH THE RATHER EXTREME VIEW THAT YOU EXPRESSED.
BUT THIS IS PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT TIME TO HAVE A DEBATE OVER IT.
BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN THAT WE BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE BUDGET IN LARGER LUMPS THAN LINE BY LINE.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: WELL, YOU REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION IN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN WHERE WE ASKED THE STAFF TO TAKE OUT A PORTION OF IT AND WE WERE TOLD THAT IT COULDN'T BE DONE.
>>VINT CERF: THEY SAID IT COULDN'T BE DONE, BUT WHO KNOWS.
ALL RIGHT.
LET'S -- LET'S LET IT GO FOR NOW.
TONY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THOSE COMMENTS.
>>TONY HOLMES: THANK YOU.
>> BHAVIN TURAKHIA: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME IS BHAVIN TURAKHIA.
I'M HERE TO MAKE COMMENTS ABOUT THE DOT NET MODIFICATIONS MADE BY ICANN.
MY FIRST COMMENT IS MY REPORT AS THE CHAIR OF THE REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY ABOUT THE EXTREME DISPLEASURE EXPRESSED BY ALL REGISTRARS WITH REGARDS TO CHANGES IN THE DOT NET CONTRACT WITHOUT FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS.
WE, AS THE REGISTRARS, HAVE DRAFTED A STATEMENT WHICH HAS BEEN UNANIMOUSLY AGREED UPON BY ALL REGISTRARS WITHIN THE CONSTITUENCY.
THE STATEMENT OF THE REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY IS AS FOLLOWS:
THE 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 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 A BREACH OF THE TRANSPARENCY PROVISION OF THE ICANN BYLAWS THAT STATES THAT ICANN SHOULD OPERATE IN AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT MANNER AND CONSISTENT WITH PROCEDURES DESIGNED TO ENSURE FAIRNESS.
SPECIFICALLY, THE BYLAWS STATE THAT ICANN WILL HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IN CASE CHANGES THAT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THIRD PARTIES AND/OR INVOLVE ANY IMPOSITION OR CHANGES TO PRICING.
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED.
WHEN THE NEW TRANSFERS POLICY WAS IMPLEMENTED, THE ICANN BOARD APPROVED A CHANGE IN THE VERISIGN RRA THAT CONTAINED CHANGES BEYOND PURELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TRANSFERS POLICY WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC CONSULTATION WITH THE REGISTRARS.
THE ICANN STAFF LATER ON GAVE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE REGISTRARS, A VERBAL UNDERTAKING, "THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN."
IT IS THE REGISTRARS' VIEW THAT THIS VERBAL UNDERTAKING WAS BREACHED BY THE ICANN STAFF.
THE CHANGES TO THE DOT NET AGREEMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CONCERN REGISTRARS ARE: THE MAXIMUM PRICE, $1.425 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.
WE REGISTRARS ARE SHOCKED BY THIS AND WANT THE MAXIMUM PRICE FIXED FOR THE DURATION OF THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT.
THE SECOND POINT, WHICH IS VERISIGN IS EXCLUDED FROM NEW CONSENSUS POLICIES AND POWERS OF THE GNSO ARE CONSIDERABLY REDUCED BY THE NEW CONTRACT.
WE REGISTRARS ARE SHOCKED BY THIS AND INSIST THAT VERISIGN CONTINUE TO BE SUBJECTED TO THESE CONSENSUS POLICIES.
THE THIRD POINT IS, ICANN NEGOTIATION POWERS DURING RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT ARE SIGNIFICANTLY CURTAILED IN THE DOT NET CONTRACT.
WE REGISTRARS ARE SHOCKED BY THIS AND REQUIRE ICANN TO RETAIN THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE TERMS, INCLUDING LOWER PRICING AT THE TIME OF CONTRACT RENEWAL.
WE REGISTRARS THEREFORE INSIST FOR THE FOLLOWING.
NUMBER 1, A REOPENING AND REVISION OF THE DOT NET CONTRACT IN THE VIEW OF THE FACT THAT DUE PROCESS, INCLUDING THE ICANN BYLAWS WERE NOT FOLLOWED.
NUMBER 2, ASSURANCES THAT DUE PROCESS WILL BE FOLLOWED IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE FUTURE.
NUMBER 3, SPECIFIC ASSURANCES THAT THERE'S NO WAY SOMETHING SIMILAR WILL OCCUR IN THE DOT COM CONTRACT.
100% OF THE REGISTRARS WHO ARE PRESENT HERE AT THE ICANN MEETING IN LUXEMBOURG HAVE AGREED TO THIS STATEMENT, INCLUDING ASCIO, ANYTIME CITES, AUS REGISTRY, TUCOWS, ENOM, BULK REGISTER, CORE, DEUTSCHE TELEKOM, DIRECT I, DOMAIN BANK, DOMAINS ONLY, APAG, GODADDY, WILD WEST DOMAINS, BLUE RAZOR, I HOLDINGS, MELBOURNE I.T., NAME INTELLIGENCE, NAME DOT COM, NAME BAY, NETWORK SOLUTIONS, NAME SECURE, SRS PLUS, REGISTER.COM, SOLACE, DOMAINCLIP, 2NUM.IT, DOT STAR, MARK MONITOR, GMO, NOMINALIA, STARGATE, AND (INAUDIBLE).
MY COMMENT AS THE CHAIR OF THE REGISTRARS' CONSTITUENCY IS OVER.
I, HOWEVER, DO HAVE A FEW MORE WORDS THAT I WANT TO SAY IN MY POSITION AS AN ICANN-ACCREDITED REGISTRAR SINCE THE LAST FOUR, FIVE YEARS.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE MY INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS.
I HAVE BEEN ATTENDING ICANN MEETINGS FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW.
I HAVE SEEN DECISIONS THAT TAKE PLACE IN THESE YEARS THAT I AGREED WITH AND DECISIONS THAT I DID NOT AGREE WITH.
BUT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF MY RELATIONSHIP WITH ICANN, I HAVE LOST TRUST ON THE SYSTEM.
I WAS, UNTIL NOW, AN ARDENT AND VOCAL SUPPORTER OF THE ICANN PROCESS, BOTH WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
THERE HAVE BEEN CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PAST WHERE THE PROCESS DID NOT WORK, BUT I'VE ALWAYS ADOPTED A CONSULTATIVE PROCESS, CONSULTATIVE APPROACH TO WORK THESE THINGS OUT WITH ICANN OR OTHERS CONCERNED.
NEVER FOR ONCE IN THE PAST HAVE I EVER GIVEN A THOUGHT TO WITHDRAWING OR DIMINISHING MY SUPPORT FOR ICANN BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS FELT THAT SHOWS SITUATIONS AROSE NOT OUT OF ANY WRONGFUL INTENT.
HOWEVER, FOR THE FIRST TIME, I'M BEGINNING TO QUESTION THE INTENTIONS BEHIND ICANN.
FOR THE FIRST TIME, I'M FEELING HURT AND CHEATED, DESPITE HAVING SUPPORTED THE ICANN MODEL IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY.
FOR THE FIRST TIME, I'M BEGINNING TO QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE TRULY EXISTS A BOTTOMS-UP CONSENSUS PROCESS, OR IS IT ALL A MYTH.
THE DOT NET CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS CONDUCTED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS ARE A SLAP IN MY FACE.
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE SPENT CUMULATIVELY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY QUARTER TO ATTEND THESE MEETINGS AT POLAR ENDS OF THE WORLD SIMPLY TO SUPPORT AND SUSTAIN THIS ICANN BOTTOMS-UP CONSENSUS MODEL.
IT IS A SLAP IN THE FACE OF ALL THESE ATTENDEES AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS TO DEFY THAT CONTRIBUTION AND UNDERMINE THEIR ROLES IN THIS FASHION.
HUNDREDS OF VOLUNTEERS AROUND THE WORLD DEVOTE THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF THEIR TIME FREE OF COST TO HELP DEVELOP CONSENSUS POLICIES AND PROCESSES.
IT IS A SLAP IN THE FACE OF THESE VOLUNTEERS TO UNDERMINE THEIR WORK.
500 REGISTRARS ARE PAYING 70% OF THE ICANN BUDGET.
IT IS A SLAP IN THE FACE OF ALL OF US REGISTRARS TO BELITTLE OUR CONTRIBUTION BY TAKING US FOR GRANTED IN THIS FASHION.
I WOULD LIKE TO CONCLUDE BY SAYING THAT I'LL BE RETURNING BACK TO INDIA, AND ON MONDAY, I'LL OPEN MY CHECKBOOK AND WRITE A CHECK.
AND I WANT YOU, THE BOARD MEMBERS, TO HELP ME DECIDE, SHOULD I WRITE THAT CHECK TO ICANN, AS I'VE BEEN DOING EVERY QUARTER FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW, OR SHOULD I WRITE THAT CHECK TO MY STOCKBROKER WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO BUY VERISIGN STOCK?
THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)
>>VINT CERF: FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR THOSE CANDID WORDS.
AND I ASSUME LATER ON YOU'LL TELL ME WHAT YOU REALLY THINK.
SERIOUSLY, WE ARE LISTENING.
I SAID YESTERDAY AND TOOK NOTES, AS YOU, I HOPE, NOTICED, AND NOW I'M GLAD THAT THE BOARD HAS ALSO HEARD THE SPECIFICS OF THE CONCERNS THAT YOU AND YOUR FELLOW REGISTRARS HAVE.
I AM IN NO POSITION, SITTING ON THIS STAGE AT THIS VERY MOMENT, TO MAKE YOU GUARANTEES THAT ALL OF THE THINGS YOU WANT TO HAVE CHANGED WILL CHANGE.
BUT IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT SOME THINGS COULD CHANGE.
WE HAVE LISTENED, AND WE WILL DO WHAT WE CAN.
SO LET ME THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR CANDOR.
LET ME GO -- ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS AT THIS POINT FROM THE REST OF THE BOARD?
IN THIS THAT CASE, MARILYN, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
>>MARILYN CADE: MY NAME IS MARILYN CADE.
I'M AN ELECTED BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY COUNCILLOR, AND I AM MAKING COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.
I WILL SPEAK ON TWO TOPICS.
FIRST, I WILL SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DOT NET PROCESS.
AND THEN I WILL SPEAK IN RESPONSE FOR MORE CLARIFICATION TO THE TOPIC THAT WAS RAISED EARLIER ABOUT THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND THE OPERATIONAL PLAN.
I'VE REVERSED THE ORDER BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SHORT COMMENTS ABOUT THE DOT NET PROCESS FIRST.
THE GNSO COUNCIL TOOK EXTENSIVE COMMENT ON THIS PROCESS YESTERDAY IN OUR OPEN PUBLIC FORUM.
AND I HOPE THAT IN THE FUTURE WE'LL BE ABLE TO ARRANGE THAT MORE BOARD MEMBERS ARE ABLE TO ATTEND THAT PUBLIC FORUM.
BUT I PARTICULARLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT SEVERAL WERE ABLE TO.
SO YOU HEARD MUCH OF WHAT WE HEARD.
I'M AWARE BECAUSE YOU CAME TO VISIT THE CROSS-CONSTITUENCY WHERE THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY PARTICIPATES, THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY HEARD MANY OF OUR VIEWS.
I WOULD SAY THAT I REMEMBER THE DAYS OF TAKING NEWCO INTO ICANN, AS SOME OF YOU DO.
AND IN MY VIEW AT THAT TIME, WE MADE A DECISION, AS WE DID THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON THE WHITE PAPER, WE MADE A DECISION THAT IT WAS SO MUCH BETTER TO GOVERN BY CONTRACT THAN TO GOVERN BY GOVERNMENTS.
WE THOUGHT ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE COULD HAVE THE REGISTRARS LICENSED COUNTRY BY COUNTRY, LIKE TELCOS ARE, OR IN SOME CASES LIKE ISPS ARE.
BUT WE DECIDED TO GOVERN BY CONTRACT.
HERE'S WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN WHEN YOU GOVERN BY CONTRACT.
THE PROCESS HAS TO BE TRUSTED.
WHAT I HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE PROCESS SINCE ARRIVING HERE HAS LED ME TO BELIEVE THAT THAT TRUST CYCLE IS SEVERELY FRACTURED.
NOW, HERE'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU BREAK A LEG.
YOU GET A SPLINT AND A PAIR OF CRUTCHES, AND YOU GET BACK TO WORK.
SO MY QUESTION ON BEHALF OF THE BC IS, HOW DO WE QUICKLY REPAIR THE TRUST TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE AND HOW DO WE ALL FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET BACK TO WORK?
BUT LET ME ALSO SAY SOMETHING THAT I DON'T WANT TO FORGET.
AND I ASK YOU NOT TO FORGET.
A BADLY BROKEN LEG MIGHT BE VULNERABLE AGAIN IN THE FUTURE.
SO THAT TRUST CYCLE, THAT TRUST RELATIONSHIP IS GOING TO TAKE ONGOING ITERATIVE FEEDING AND CARING AND NURTURING.
AND THAT IS THE JOB OF THE BOARD.
I CAN PLEDGE THE BC HELP.
I CAN INFLUENCE THE GNSO COUNCIL.
WE ARE YOUR PARTNERS IN THIS.
BUT WE CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT YOU.
MY COMMENTS NOW ARE ABOUT RESPONDING TO, SO WHAT ARE THE DETAILS ABOUT THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE OPERATIONAL PLAN AND THE STRAT PLAN.
LET ME SPEAK ABOUT THE STRAT PLAN VERY BRIEFLY AND THEN MAKE A DIFFERENT COMMITMENT TO YOU.
MOST OF US FEEL THAT WE PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION IN THE PAST, AND WE, IN FACT, THOUGHT THAT YOU WERE WELL AWARE OF OUR CONCERNS.
HEARING THAT IT WASN'T ENOUGH FOR THE CHAIR OF OUR COUNCIL TO TELL YOU THERE HAD BEEN A VOTE OF CONCERN AND THAT YOU WANT THE DETAIL AGAIN, OKAY, FINE.
I'M WORKING ON IT.
AND WE WILL BE MEETING WITH SOME OF THE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES AND IDENTIFYING TWO OR THREE EXAMPLES FOR YOU SO THAT YOU CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE WE ARE IN FACT DOING OUR WORK AND THAT WE'RE NOT JUST NOISE, WHICH I HAVE HEARD SOME PEOPLE SAY.
ON THE ISSUE OF SUB- -- SO I WOULD SAY AT THIS POINT, THERE IS NO SUPPORT BY THE BC TO APPROVE THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
I ALSO THINK, HOWEVER, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO APPROVE A STRATEGIC PLAN.
AND THERE ARE VARIOUS WAYS TO ADDRESS THIS.
YOU COULD APPROVE THE STRATEGIC PLAN WITH OUR DOING THE WORK OF LINE-ITEMING THINGS OUT.
THE STAFF HAD TOLD US THAT WASN'T FEASIBLE AND THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T UNDERTAKE THAT WORK WITH THEM.
WE COULD DO THAT WORK AND THEN I'LL TELL YOU HOW MANY HOURS A WEEK I WORK FOR ICANN.
THAT'S NOT A GOOD USE OF MY TIME OR YOUR TIME FOR ME TO TELL YOU THAT.
BUT WE WILL DO THE WORK AGAIN OF IDENTIFYING THE AREAS THAT WE DON'T THINK THERE IS BROAD AGREEMENT TO.
HOWEVER, TO SAY THAT WE CAN GO TO THE OPERATIONAL PLAN AND THE BUDGET AND RELY ONLY ON THE OPERATIONAL PLAN UNTIL THERE'S A LITTLE MORE DETAIL GIVES ME PAUSE.
I HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS DOCUMENT SEVERAL TIMES.
AND, YOU KNOW, I READ THE PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS THAT THERE WAS A BOTTOM-UP BUDGETING PROCESS AND THE OBJECTIVES AND THE ACTIVITIES WERE DEVELOPED IN A BOTTOM-UP WAY.
AND THEN THE SENIOR MANAGEMENT REVIEWED IT AND THEY TRIMMED THINGS OUT.
THAT'S THE PROCESS I'M FAMILIAR WITH IN THE CORPORATE LIFE THAT I JUST LEFT.
SO I ASSUME THAT I CAN TAKE THE OPERATIONAL PLAN AND I CAN TAKE A CATEGORY AND I CAN FLIP TO THE BACK AND THE CATEGORY OR THE HEADING WHICH HAS A FIGURE TO IT WILL MATCH THE CATEGORY OR THE HEADING IN THE FRONT.
YOU KNOW WHAT?
TWO OF THEM DO.
YOU KNOW WHAT?
THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO.
I DON'T WANT A LOT MORE DETAIL.
AND I DON'T APPRECIATE IT WHEN PEOPLE TELL ME I'M MICROMANAGING.
I DON'T MICROMANAGE MY OWN LIFE.
BUT I DO THINK IT'S FAIR FOR THE COMMUNITY TO SAY, "GIVE ME ENOUGH DETAIL AND GIVE ME A PROCESS THAT I CAN COUNT ON SO I CAN HOLD MYSELF ACCOUNTABLE AS A COUNCILLOR AND I CAN HOLD THE ORGANIZATION THAT I'M SUPPORTING ACCOUNTABLE."
WE'RE WILLING TO HELP DO THIS WORK.
AND IN PARTICULAR, A FEW OF US HAVE BEEN HELPING TO DO SOME WORK ON IMPROVING THE STRATEGIC PLAN, WORKING IN A GREAT PARTNERSHIP WITH KURT PRITZ AND WITH SOME OF HIS TEAM.
SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO SAY TO THEMSELVES, SO IS THERE AN INTERIM PATH TO GET THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?
IS IT PERHAPS A CONTINUING RESOLUTION?
IS IT A THREE-MONTH OPERATIONAL PLAN WITH A FIRM SCHEDULED PERIOD OF WORK ITEMS TO GET THE REST OF THE HIGH-LEVEL DETAIL?
LET'S BE CREATIVE AND LET'S BE PRACTICAL.
BUT LET'S REBUILD THE TRUST FACTOR.
BECAUSE THIS IS PART OF THE TRUST, TOO.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MARILYN.
LET ME JUST ASK YOU ONE THING.
IF YOU'RE FOCUSING ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN WORK, IT MIGHT BE MOST PRACTICAL AND ALSO MOST HELPFUL IF YOU FOCUSED IT ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN THAT'S COMING UP AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO AMEND THE EXISTING DOCUMENT.
I JUST SUGGEST THAT THAT WILL TURN OUT TO BE MORE VALUABLE IN THE LONG RUN FOR US TO HAVE YOUR THINKING LOOKING TOWARDS THE FISCAL YEARS THAT FOLLOW.
>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK I HEARD THAT IN MAR DEL PLATA AS WELL.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: RAIMUNDO.
>>RAIMUNDO BECA: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THE STRAT PLAN.
I MAKE THE SAME COMMENT -- MADE THE SAME COMMENT AT MAR DEL PLATA.
AND THE COMMENT IS THE FOLLOWING.
IN THE STRAT PLAN, IN ALL THE BUSINESS SCHOOLS, I HAVE LEARNED THAT IN BUSINESS SCHOOL, I HAVE TAUGHT THAT IN MANY BUSINESS SCHOOLS AFTERWARDS, RULE NUMBER ONE OF A STRAT PLAN IS THAT THE PROCESS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE CONTENT.
AND IF YOU HAVE A BAD CONTENT, A BAD DOCUMENT, THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO DESTROY A GOOD PROCESS.
IT'S MY OPINION THAT WE HAVE COME THROUGH A VERY GOOD PROCESS.
THE DISCUSSION IN MAR DEL PLATA WAS A VERY GOOD DISCUSSION.
THE SCRIPT OF THE DISCUSSION IN MAR DEL PLATA IS A VERY, VERY GOOD DOCUMENT.
I REALLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE CONTINUE TO ASK TO THE COMMUNITY WHAT DOES THE COMMUNITY WANT TO SAY WHEN THEY SAY THAT THERE'S NO CONSENSUS.
THERE'S NO CONSENSUS BECAUSE THE WORDS WHICH WERE SAID IN MAR DEL PLATA HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD.
THE DOCUMENT WHICH WE HAVE WITH 7.3 IS ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE DOCUMENT 7.1.
IT HAS NOT INCLUDED THE INPUT FROM MAR DEL PLATA.
AND THE MAIN PROBLEM IS NOT A PROBLEM OF PERCENTAGE TO SAY IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS OF 70% OR 75%.
NO, IT'S A PROBLEM WITH THE WORDING.
THE PROBLEM IS THE WORDING IS THAT THE -- ALMOST ALL THE DOCUMENT IS MADE AS IF THE THREE SUPPORTIVE ORGANIZATIONS OF THIS INSTITUTION ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.
AND THEY ARE REALLY VERY DIFFERENT.
AND WHEN WE SPEAK OF COMPETITION, WE CANNOT SPEAK OF COMPETITION WITH THE SAME WORDS FOR ADDRESSING, FOR COUNTRY CODES, AND FOR GTLDS.
AND WHEN WE SPEAK WITH BOTTOM-UP PROCESS, WE CANNOT SPEAK WITH THE SAME WORDS FOR ADDRESSING, FOR GTLDS, AND FOR COUNTRY CODES.
AND WHEN WE SPEAK OF REGIONAL PRESENCE, WE CANNOT SPEAK IN THE SAME WORDS FOR COUNTRY CODES FOR REGIONAL PRESENCE AND FOR -- FOR COUNTRY CODES, FOR GTLDS, AND FOR ADDRESSING.
AND THAT'S THE MAIN PROBLEM.
IT'S NOT A PROBLEM OF PERCENTAGE.
BECAUSE I COULD SAY MAYBE AGREEMENT IS 100%.
BUT STILL THE WARNING IS THE PROBLEM OF THE NUANCE WHICH IS NOT -- WAS NOT INCLUDED BETWEEN THE THREE SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS.
THANKS.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, RAIMUNDO.
I HOPE THAT WE CAN REFLECT SOME OF THAT IN A REVISION, THE PREPARATION OF THE NEW PLANS.
AMADEU, WELCOME BACK.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: THANKS A LOT.
AMADEU ABRIL.
I CAN -- I ATTENDED ALL THE PAST MEETINGS.
BY THE WAY, THIS IS THE FIRST MEETING EVER THAT I HAVE SEEN VINT SERVE WITHOUT A JACKET.
SO IT MUST BE REALLY HOT INSIDE.
I HAVE THIS, BUT YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT WAY OF DOING THAT.
I HAVE TWO COMMENTS, ONE ON DOT NET AND THE OTHER ONE ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
AND THE SUMMARIES.
ON THE DOT NET, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE GENERAL COUNSEL WILL ASK ME NOT TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I WAS INVOLVED WITH ONE OF THE APPLICATIONS.
BUT I WON'T GIVE ANY DETAIL ON THAT.
THE ONLY THING IS THE IMPRESSION.
AND AS MARILYN SAID, THERE'S SOME SENSE OF FRUSTRATION.
THAT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME.
BUT EACH TIME, SOME OF US THAT ARE BORN OPTIMISTS THINK THAT THIS IS THE LAST TIME, YOU ARE PLAYING POKER WITH MARKED CARDS.
THE LAST TIME THERE WILL BE A SET OF RULES FOR VERISIGN AND A SET OF RULES FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD.
THE LAST TIME THAT SOME SHORT-TERM STRATEGIC GOALS WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROBABLY TRYING TO GUESS WHAT'S THE BEST FOR THE LONG-TERM DNS HEALTH.
AND THAT'S A CLEAR IMPRESSION WE HAD THIS TIME, AS MANY OTHERS.
HAVE WE LOST COMPLETE TRUST?
IN YOU PERSONALLY, NO.
I DON'T THINK IT'S A PROBLEM WITH ANY OF YOU AS INDIVIDUALS, SOMEHOW MORE ON THE MECHANICS AND THE COLLECTIVE LACK OF COURAGE AND COMMITMENT TO THE REAL GOALS OF HAVING A BETTER DNS FOR THE INTERNET USERS.
WE THINK TOO MUCH IN POLITICAL TERMS.
AND TOO EARLY IN DNS EFFICIENCY TERMS, IF YOU WANT.
THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY IS THAT THE PROCESS HAD THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU WERE HAVING A DINNER EVENT AND YOU WERE, YOU KNOW, JUST PRETENDING THAT YOU WERE SERVING WINE OR WHISKEY, AND YOU DECIDE TO ASK A SCOTSMAN WHETHER HE PREFERRED WINE OR WHISKEY.
AND THE ONLY POSSIBLE HONEST ANSWER FROM THE SCOTSMAN WAS WHISKEY.
SO I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE TELECORDIA REPORT WAS FABRICATED IN ANY WAY.
THEY DID AN HONEST JOB OF ANSWERING THE ONLY POSSIBLE QUESTION THAT WAS PUT THERE, THEM BEING CHOSEN.
BUT THE IMPRESSION IS STILL TODAY, IN 2005, THE RESULT OF SUCH THINGS IS INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO THE DISTANCE YOU HAVE WITH THE PENTAGON, BOTH THE MENTAL DISTANCE AND THE PHYSICAL DISTANCE. AND THAT'S ONLY A GAME FOR U.S. DEFENSE CONTRACTORS.
I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST U.S. DEFENSE CONTRACTORS, BUT IT CANNOT BE ONLY A GAME FOR THEM; CORRECT?
AND THIS IS COMPLETELY THE IMPRESSION WE AS PARTICIPANTS HAVE.
WE MIGHT BE WRONG. NEXT THING, STRAT PLAN. I WON'T SAY A WORD ABOUT THE STRAT PLAN BECAUSE I DO CONFESS THAT I LOST TRACK OF THAT, EVEN IF I AM ONE OF THE USUAL ATTENDANTS HERE, I LOST COMPLETELY TRACK. I THINK IT WAS THE THIRD OR FOURTH VERSION. I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE ARE. BUT I WOULD LIKE YOU AS THE BOARD TO THINK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.
WE HAVE TODAY ICANN WITH -- OKAY, NOT ENOUGH STUFF, BUT LOTS OF VERY GOOD BRILLIANT STUFF. WE HAVE A BUDGET THAT'S MANY, MANY TIMES WHAT IT WAS IN '99.
DO WE HAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THE PROCESS FOR, YOU KNOW, EVALUATING AND APPROVING OR NOT THE NEW STLDS, FOR ESTABLISHING A NEW PROCESS FOR GTLDS, FOR DEALING WITH THE DOT NET ISSUE HAS BEEN FASTER, BETTER, MORE EFFICIENT, WITHOUT PROBLEMS THAN THEY WERE IN '99?
IF THIS IS TRUE, AND I'M AFRAID THIS IS TRUE, I MEAN, THERE IS SOME IMPROVEMENT. BUT NOTHING THAT COMPARES WITH THE INCREASING RESOURCES, AND VERY GOOD RESOURCES. THIS IS NOT THE PROBLEM WE HAVE. THERE MUST BE A BOTTLENECK SOMEWHERE. ORGANIZATIONAL BOTTLENECKS. AND THERE MUST PERHAPS SOMETIMES LACK OF COURAGE FOR DOING THINGS AND TOO MUCH INTEREST IN ESTABLISHING ICANN AS A POLITICAL INTERNATIONAL PLAYER WITH EMBASSIES IN WHAT YOU WANT INSTEAD OF BEING THE COORDINATOR OF THE DNS FUNCTIONS.
THANKS.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, AMADEU, FOR YOUR USUAL CANDOR.
BECKY -- OH, I'M SORRY. MICHAEL, MOUHAMET, AND ALEX.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I JUST WANT TO COMMENT ON ONE OF THE THINGS THAT AMADEU SAID ABOUT DOT NET AND THE COMMUNITY LOSING FAITH. AND THIS IS SOMETHING I HAVE DISCUSSED WITH THE BOARD ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. I HAVE THE HIGHEST RESPECT FOR THE FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS THAT I SERVE WITH, AND WE DO ENGAGE IN RATHER SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSIONS.
THE ONE FRUSTRATION THAT I HAVE AS A BOARD MEMBER IS THAT OUR MINUTES DO NOT REFLECT THE INTELLIGENCE THAT WE PUT INTO MAKING OUR DECISIONS.
AND THAT IS THE ONE THING THAT I HAVE BEEN CONSTANTLY ENCOURAGING THIS ORGANIZATION DO, IS TO LET THE COMMUNITY SEE THAT WE'RE DOING OUR JOB THE RIGHT WAY.
AND I THINK IF THEY SEE THE JOB THAT WE'RE DOING, THEY MAY GAIN A LITTLE TRUST BACK IN US.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MICHAEL.
MOUHAMET.
>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU, VINT. MY COMMENT GOES TO THE -- ONE OF THE LAST COMMENT OF AMADEU. NOT SPECIFICALLY TO SOMEONE ISSUE, BUT TO -- TO A LARGER AND A BROADER ISSUE, LIKE I THINK THAT WE NEED, AS AN INSTITUTION, IN ORDER TO STRAIGHTEN OUR -- THE WAY WE WERE DOING THINGS, THAT WE MAKE SOME EVALUATION OF THE PROCESS WE'RE ENDORSING.
AND IF I'M LOOKING, FOR EXAMPLE, HOW MANY COMMITTEE WE HAVE CREATED FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE, WELL, WE HAVE TO GET THE COURAGE, IF YOU AREN'T READY FOR SOMETHING, TO SAY THAT WE ARE NOT READY.
IF WE TAKE THE DECISION NOT TO MOVE FORWARD, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD ALSO STATE THAT WE'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD. AND IT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR DECISION BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE CANNOT HANDLE EVERYTHING. WE DON'T HAVE UNDETERMINATE ASSOCIATES. BUT FOR EXAMPLE, TAKING MORE THAN ONE YEAR TO TAKE THE DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD ON IDN TO CREATE THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE AND NOTHING HAPPENED, I MEAN WE TAKE THE DECISION ON THE BOARD AND NOTHING HAPPENED, I MEAN, FOR ONE YEAR LATER, WE JUST HAD THE SAME POINT, IS NOT A GOOD IMAGE FOR AN INSTITUTION THAT -- THAT WANT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DECISION WE'RE TAKING.
IF WE THINK THAT -- I MEAN, ON IDN, WE'RE NOT READY OR IT'S GOING TO DAMAGE THE DNS STRUCTURE. SO LET'S SAY TO EVERYBODY THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANY IMPLEMENTATION OF IDN AND THAT'S ALL.
AND PEOPLE, I MEAN, WHO ARE CONCERNED BY IDN ARE GOING TO TAKE THEIR COURAGE AND TRY TO SEE IF THEY CAN HAVE ANOTHER SOLUTION RATHER THAN THE EXISTING ONE.
SO I THINK WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES, WE HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DECISION WE TAKE. IT WILL BE THE SAME THING, IF WE DECIDE ON THE BOARD FOR ANYTHING, I AM NOT GOING TO ASK MYSELF WHAT IS BEYOND THE REASON WHY WE CANNOT MOVE FORWARD ON T IT'S THE SAME THING FOR DOT CAT. I AM NOT GOING TO PUT ANYTHING ON THE TABLE, BUT SOMETHING HAVE BEEN DECIDE, I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER FOR WHY WE CANNOT MOVE FORWARD ON THESE THINGS.
SO TAKING THESE DECISIONS HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH MOVING FORWARD. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY WHY WE WEREN'T ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT IF YOU TAKE THE DECISION AS A BOARD MEMBER, I WANT TO SEE THINGS MOVE. IF THEY ARE NOT MOVING, IT'S JUST LIKE THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT I DID NOT UNDERSTAND OR SOMETHING THAT IS MISSING. AND IT MAKE ME REALLY FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE IN MY POSITION OF BOARD.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MOUHAMET.
LET ME JUST REMIND YOU OF ONE THING WITH REGARD TO IDNS. THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ADVICE THAT WE GOT WITH REGARD TO IDNA WAS NOT AN IMPLEMENTABLE AS THEY HOPED IT WOULD BE. AND NOW WE ARE REVISITING SOME OF THAT.
SO MY SUGGESTION HERE IS THAT THE PROBLEM WAS A LOT HARDER THAN WE THOUGHT. I DO BELIEVE PROGRESS IS NOW BEING MADE IN RECOGNITION OF SOME OF THOSE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS.
RAIMUNDO -- I'M SORRY, IT'S ROBERTO. YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP, BUT -- OR ALEX WAS NEXT AND THEN ROBERTO.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: VINT, I THINK THAT WE ARE HEARING -- STATIC.
I THINK THAT WE ARE HEARING SOME EXTREMELY IMPORTANT STATEMENTS MADE, BOTH BY THE COMMUNITY AND BY BOARD MEMBERS WHO HAVE TO SIFT THROUGH THIS VERY CAREFULLY.
I HEAR MARILYN VERY ATTENTIVELY WHEN SHE SPEAKS ABOUT THE BREAKDOWN IN THE TRUST CYCLE.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS A GENERAL, A WIDESPREAD PHENOMENON, BUT CERTAINLY THE MOMENT SOMEONE SAYS THERE IS A BREAKDOWN IN THE TRUST CYCLE, EITHER SHE IS NOT TRUSTING OR NOT BEING TRUSTED OR DETECTING SOMEONE NOT BEING TRUSTED AND THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT MOMENT WHICH WE HAVE TO ANALYZE. WE HAVE MADE ALL EFFORTS, AT LEAST I THINK SEVERAL OF US DIRECTORS HAVE MADE ALL EFFORTS TO SIFT -- TO -- WE HAVE TRIED TO MAKE ALL EFFORTS TO SIFT THROUGH THE COMMENTS, TO STUDY THEM, TO SQUEEZE THEM. WE KNOW CERTAIN COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE, FOR EXAMPLE, ABOUT THE STRATEGIC PLAN. SOME OF THEM ARE VERY WIDE RANGING, SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN QUITE SPECIFIC. IT HAS BEEN VERY HARD TO DRILL DOWN TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT LEVEL OF SUPPORT THEY HAVE, BECAUSE WE INDEPENDENTLY HEAR OF GREAT SUPPORT FOR THINGS, LIKE CONTACT WITH REGIONAL -- REGIONALLY ESTABLISHED ORGANIZATIONS, WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN PLACES OUTSIDE THE U.S. OR EUROPE, COMING DIRECTLY FROM THE ORGANIZATIONS THERE. AND THIS IS ONE OF TH!
E MOST CONTENTIOUS POINTS.
IT GETS TO THE POINT WHERE ONE WONDERS, ESPECIALLY IF YOU SEE THE CONCENTRATION OF SOME OF THE COMMENTS AGAINST REGIONAL PRESENCE, WHETHER THERE IS SOME PARTY THAT FEELS AFFECTED BY THE INCREASED TRANSPARENCY THAT CONTACT IN THE REGIONALS WOULD BRING.
SO I THINK WE HAVE TO SIT DOWN TOGETHER WITH THE COMMUNITIES THAT THESE CLAIMS, MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE CLAIMS PRO AND CON ANALYZED CAREFULLY, BROUGHT TOGETHER, AND CREATE A VERY CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE HERE.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MADE BY AMADEU. THERE IS, AS ALWAYS, GREAT WISDOM IN AMADEU'S VIEW, BROAD ENCOMPASSING PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW, AND ALSO VERY PRAGMATIC VIEW.
I WOULD SAY JUST ONE THING REGARDING THE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR GTLDS. WE HAVE SWUNG FROM A MODEL WITH AMPLE SUBJECTIVE INPUT FROM HONEST PARTIES WITH DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW WHICH WE USED IN 2000, WHICH CREATED SOME GOOD AND SOME SLOWLY PROGRESSING GTLDS, TO LET'S SAY AN OPPOSITE PENDULUM MOVEMENT WHERE WE HAVE TRIED TO ESSENTIALLY LIMIT THE POWERS OF THE BOARD IN THE DECISIONS, LIMIT THE SUBJECTIVITY THERE. AND WE HAVE TRIED THERE. AND PROPOSALS HAVE COME IN, LIKE DOT CAT, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH WERE HIGHLY NONCONVENTIONAL. AND I THINK THAT IF ONE NEEDS ANY MEASUREMENT OF THE IMPROVEMENT THAT WE HAVE IN THE PROCESS FOR GTLDS WHILE GROPING FOR A MORE FORMAL AND BETTER INFORMED AND MORE EXPERIENCED, BECAUSE IT'S YEARS AND YEARS OF EVOLVING THOUGHT. SO IF ONE WANTS TO ASSESS THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR NEW GTLDS, ONE HAS ONLY TO LOOK AT THE LATEST ONE WHICH HAS TAKEN US THROUGH THORNY ISSUES LIKE XXX AND DOT CAT AND TO SOME EXTENT BROUGHT SOME CLARITY INT!
O THIS PROCESS, AND CLARITY INTO THE DECISIONS, AND ACTUALLY ENABLED US TO MAKE THEM, IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE I THINK THE NEWS I HAVE FROM DOT CAT IS THAT NOW IT'S IN ITS OWN INTERNAL PROCESSES, WHICH ALSO FINDS SOME THORNY ISSUES.
BUT I THINK THAT WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS THERE, AND AN IMPORTANT POINT ALSO, WHICH IS THAT WE NOW HAVE A MUCH WIDER SAMPLE OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY CAN WISH, WHAT THE COMMUNITY CAN WANT TO DO WITH GTLDS. AND INPUT THAT INTO THE MORE GENERAL PROCESS THAT WE'RE CALLING FOR TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO REALLY CREATE SUSTAINABLE POLICY FOR THESE THINGS.
I THINK THAT THE -- FINALLY, AS MOUHAMET HAS SAID, A LOT OF DISCUSSION HAS BEEN GOING IN THE COMMUNITY BETWEEN BOARD MEMBERS AND THEIR CONSTITUENCIES AND THE BROADER COMMUNITY. AS MICHAEL AND MOUHAMET HAS SAID, THE DISCUSSIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, ON GTLDS OR ON DOT NET WERE EXTENSIVE. I AM WITNESS TO THE SOUL SEARCHING OF ALMOST EVERY DIRECTOR ON THIS BOARD ON EACH OF THOSE. THE PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT THEY HAVE MADE TO THEIR COMMUNITIES AND THE DISCUSSIONS WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN ENGAGED HAVE WEIGHED ALL ARGUMENTS AND COUNTER ARGUMENTS. THESE HAVE BEEN RATIONAL, WELL-INFORMED DECISIONS.
DIRECTORS THAT WERE IN A POSITION OF EVEN THE SUSPICION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR THE THOUGHT THAT THEY HAD JUMPED TOO LATE INTO THE PROCESS TO FEEL WELL INFORMED, RECUSED THEMSELVES OR ABSTAINED ACCORDINGLY. AND I THINK THE IMPACT OF THESE DECISIONS WILL STILL HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT, LISTENING TO THE INPUT WHICH IN SOME CASES I THINK USES THE LANGUAGE OF OVERDRAMATIZATION. IT MAY NOT BE OVERDRAMATIZED, BUT IT USES THE LANGUAGE OF OVERDRAMATIZATION. BUT THE FEEDBACK AND THE INPUT WE ARE GETTING HERE IS WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION, AND AS VINT HAS SAID, WE WILL GO ON TO IT.
BUT I WILL SAY THE NEGATIVE ASSESSMENT THAT WE HEAR USUALLY AT THE END OF A VERY HOT DAY HAS TO BE BALANCED WITH A VERY CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF ALL THAT'S GOING ON. AND THEN THAT WILL ALSO ALLOW FOR OTHER VOICES TO BE HEARD MORE PUBLICLY, AND NOT ONLY EXTREMELY DISCREETLY APPROACHING THE BOARD IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO ASK THINGS WHICH SEEM IMPOSSIBLE TO DO BY SHAME IN THE CONTEXT CREATED FOR THE PUBLIC FORUM.
>>VINT CERF: THANKS, ALEX. ROBERTO, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP EARLIER.
>>ROBERTO GAETANO: YES. MANY OF YOU KNOW THAT I'M THE LIAISON FOR THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SO THE PROCESS THAT THE BOARD IS HAVING NOW, FACING THE CRITICISM OF THE GENERAL COMMUNITY, I HAVE FACED AT THE EARLIER, DURING THIS MEETING, IN REPORTING THE DECISIONS OF THE RECORD TO MY CONSTITUENCY, TO MY COMMITTEE.
WELL, THE AT LARGE HAD ALSO SIMILAR EXPECTATIONS ABOUT, I WOULD SAY, SOME DIFFERENCES IN THE PROCESS AND ALSO IN THE OUTCOME, NOT FOR COMMERCIAL REASONS, I WOULD SAY, OR I WOULD SAY IN RELATIONSHIP TO THEIR BUSINESS, BUT IN TERMS -- I'M TALKING ABOUT, FOR INSTANCE, ABOUT THE DOT NET IN TERMS OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DIVERSIFYING GEOGRAPHICALLY OF INCREASING THE COMPETITION AND SO ON.
SO WHEN I WENT BACK EXPLAINING THE RESULT OF THE BOARD DECISION, I HAD IN FACT TO FACE THIS CRITICISM, AND A KIND OF SIMILAR COMMENTS BY AT LEAST A COUPLE OF MEMBERS WHO SAID, WELL, THE BOARD GLOBALLY IS -- YOU KNOW, IS FOLLOWING THE INTEREST OF SUCH AND SUCH OR, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO HOPE IN HAVING THINGS WORKING AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
WELL, TO BE HONEST, THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT I WOULD LICK TO SAY. FIRST OF ALL, THAT IT'S DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THIS TYPE OF CRITICISM IN RELATIONSHIP TO A PRE-DECIDED DECISION OF THE BOARD TO, I WOULD SAY, FAVOR ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE BIDDERS. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO.
I THINK THAT IF YOU FOLLOW THE VOTES -- AND THIS I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO TAKE THIS CHANCE TO AGREE WITH MIKE WHEN HE STATES THAT TO HAVE A MORE COMPLETE RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF WHAT THE BOARD -- THE DISCUSSION ON THE BOARD AND THAT PREPARED DECISIONS WILL PROBABLY BE BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND BETTER HOW DECISION ARE TAKEN AND WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE CONSTRAINING THE DECISION. AND IN PARTICULAR, THE FACT THAT IN THE BOARD, THERE ARE -- THERE IS A GEOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE, THERE IS A CULTURAL DIFFERENCE, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF INTEREST, AND SO ON.
AND WHEN WE HAVE THE FIRST DECISION, THE FIRST RESOLUTION ABOUT THE BIDDING ON DOT NET THAT DOESN'T GET A QUORUM, AND THE SECOND ONE THAT PASSES WITH A VERY SMALL, I WOULD SAY, MAJORITY, I DON'T THINK THAT I CAN ACCEPT THE CRITICISM THAT THE BOARD IS MONOLITHIC IN FAVOR ALREADY OF ONE OF THE PREDETERMINED SOLUTION.
AND I THINK THAT IT WOULD HELP IF WE COULD EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE DYNAMICS THAT HAPPENED. AND THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT POSITIONS AND DIFFERENT INTERESTS, AND THEN AT ONE POINT IN TIME, LIKE IN EVERY DEMOCRACY, WE COUNT. AND THERE'S ONE THAT HAPPENED TO BE -- ONE GROUP THAT HAPPENS TO BE THE MAJORITY, NOT NECESSARILY HOMOGENEOUS, AND ONE GROUP THAT HAPPENS TO BE THE MINORITY.
SO IT'S ONE OTHER POINT IN WHICH, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WAS HAPPY ABOUT THE DECISION AND SOMEBODY WAS NOT HAPPY ABOUT THE DECISION.
THE SECOND COMMENT THAT I WANTED TO MAKE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M -- I HAVE LOST A LOT OF FIGHTS DURING MY YEARS AT ICANN, AND EVEN BEFORE ICANN I'VE HEARD -- I'VE AMADEU, I'VE HEARD MARILYN. WE HAVE ALSO REMEMBERED ALL THE MERITS THAT CHRISTOPHER HAD. I AM QUOTING PEOPLE THAT STARTED ICANN BEFORE THIS PROCESS. AND I THINK WE ALL HAD THIS FRANK AND OPEN DISCUSSIONS, AS WE CAN QUOTE THEM, IN SEVERAL CIRCUMSTANCES. AND ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, WITH MANY PEOPLE I HAVE BEEN IN DIFFERENT -- I HAVE EXPRESSED THESE DIFFERENT POSITIONS, I THINK I HAVE A GREAT RESPECT FOR ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE REMAINED IN THIS PROCESS. AND I'M REALLY HURT WHEN I HEAR THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMEBODY SAYING, OKAY, I'M ABANDONING NOW. ABANDONING NOW CAN HAVE A CONNOTATION, AN UNEXPECTED SECONDARY EFFECT THAT WHOEVER DOESN'T THINK LIKE YOU WILL BE EVEN MORE A MAJORITY.
SO WHOEVER THINKS OF ABANDONING THE PROCESS OR CONTRIBUTING LESS TO THIS PROCESS PROBABLY IS NOT DOING A FAVOR NEITHER TO HIMSELF OR HERSELF NOR TO THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE INTERESTS THAT ARE CLOSE TO THEIRS. AND I THINK THAT -- WELL, I WOULD -- I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS IS JUST COMING FROM THE FRUSTRATION OF THE MOMENT FOR ONE FIGHT THAT HAS BEEN LOST. BUT THERE WILL BE MANY MORE IN THE FUTURE.
AND I THINK THAT ALTHOUGH THE MESSAGE THAT I GET FROM ALL THIS CRITICISM THAT I HEAR IS UNDOUBTEDLY ORIENTING THE BOARD TO A REFLECTION ON HOW TO OPERATE BETTER AND IN A MORE TRANSPARENT WAY AND MORE EFFECTIVELY, I THINK THAT TO RENOUNCE NOW IS PROBABLY THE WORSE THING THAT ONE CAN DO.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU. MOUHAMET, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR.
>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU, VINT.
I JUST COME NOT ON A CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE -- ESPECIALLY ON THE IDN, BUT WHAT I WANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT WE, AS AN INSTITUTION -- IF WE UNDERSTAND WE ARE NOT UNIQUE AND EMOTIONLESS IN TERMS OF HISTORY, IN TERMS OF AGENDA, IN TERMS OF INTEREST, I THINK IN ICANN WE HAVE A CHANCE, WE HAVE A DIVERSE GROUP, WE HAVE DIFFERENT SUPPORTIVE ORGANIZATION, AND I CAN TELL YOU IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT FROM JUST THE STRATEGIC PLAN DOCUMENT THAT WE'RE EXPECTING TO GET, WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CONSCIOUS AND TAKE THE ADVICE THAT VERISIGN CEO HAVE GIVEN TO US THAT WE MIGHT BE AGAIN IN A PROCESS THAT'S GOING TO LAST IN THE FUTURE. IT'S JUST AN ADVICE BECAUSE BASED ON THE DISCUSSION I HAVE WITH DIFFERENT SOS AND WITH DIFFERENT GROUPS, THE ONLY THING WE HAVE IN COMMON AND THAT EVERYBODY AGREE UPON IT IS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A SECURE AND STABLE INTERNET AS AN INFRASTRUCTURE.
ON THE TECHNICAL MATTER WE HAVE NO DIFFERENCES ON OPINION. THE DIFFERENCE OF APPROACH CAME WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MARKET APPROACH, POLICY. AND I JUST WANT TO -- I MEAN, JUST TO RAISE THAT POINT THAT A STRATEGIC PLANNING APPROACH IS BASED UPON A VISION, UPON THE SAME APPROACH YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ON THE MARKET, AND EVEN IF I ASK HERE IN THAT ROOM THE MEANING WE'RE GOING TO GIVE TO CHOICE AND COMPETITION, YOU AND I AGREE THAT WE WILL HAVE DIFFERENT ANSWERS HERE. BECAUSE MY DEFINITION AND MY VISION OF COMPETITION AND CHOICE AS AN INTERNET USER, AS AN AFRICAN, IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM SOMETIME WHAT I HEARD THAT IS EXPLAINED AS THE CHOICE AND COMPETITION.
SO IF WE FOCUS ON THE TECHNICAL THINGS THAT WE ALL SHARE AS OUR COMMON VALUES AND WE KNOW THAT WE NEED TO PRESERVE THAT, WE WILL HAVE NO DIFFERENTIATION OF APPROACH AND WE WILL HAVE NO DIVERGENCE ABOUT WHAT ICANN HAS THE PERCEPTION ABOUT THESE THINGS.
BUT WHENEVER WE GO ON A PUBLIC POLICY OR ON A VISION OR ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE STRUCTURE, TO BE HONEST, JUST ON THE GTLD APPROACH, WE WILL HAVE SEVERAL AND THOUSAND APPROACH TOTALLY DIFFERENT FOR WHERE WE WANT TO GO.
AND THE STRATEGIC PLAN HAVE TO COME FROM THE VISION FIRST, AGREED UPON WHERE WE WANT TO GO, AND THIS IS THE PLAN, INTO AN OPERATIONAL PLAN AND SO ON AND SO ON.
SO WE WILL DEFINE A PROCESS. AND I AGREE THIS DOCUMENTATION THAT WE HAVE ABOUT THE STRUCTURAL PLAN IS NOT THE ONE THAT WE ALL AGREE UPON. BUT I JUST WANT TO TELL TO PEOPLE HERE THAT WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CAREFUL THAT ACHIEVING A COMMON DOCUMENT ON A COMMON VISION AND A COMMON DIRECTION ABOUT WHAT WE WANT THIS INSTITUTION TO SERVE IN THE FUTURE WILL BE A VERY TOUGH JOB FOR THE NEXT COMING YEAR.
WE HAVE ALREADY SPENT MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND HALF ON THAT DOCUMENTATION AND NOBODY AGREE ON IT.
SO I'M THINKING THAT MAYBE THE NEXT TWO YEARS WILL HELP TO COME OUT WITH ONE DOCUMENT THAT CAN BE THE FINAL ONE.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MOUHAMET.
LET'S MOVE ON NOW TO BECKY.
>>BECKY BURR: MY NAME IS BECKY BURR. I'M NOT REPRESENTING ANYBODY.
I -- SOME OF US IN THE ROOM, A LOT OF YOU UP THERE, HAVE BEEN AT THIS TABLE FOR A VERY LONG TIME, AND LIKE YOU, VINT, AND ALEJANDRO, I HAVE BEEN VERY DISTURBED BY THE LEVEL OF UNHAPPINESS THAT I HAVE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY HERE. AND ON -- I'M TALKING SPECIFICALLY ON THE DOT NET ISSUE.
YESTERDAY AT THE GNSO COUNCIL, I TALKED ABOUT MY CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH A DIFFERENT APPROACH. BUT IN THE AFTERMATH OF THAT MEETING, I DID WHAT ALEJANDRO SUGGESTED. I WENT BACK AND PUT TOGETHER A VERY CAREFUL FACTUAL ANALYSIS OF A COMPARISON, SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON OF THE DEFINITION OF CONSENSUS POLICY OVER TIME FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME, AND A COMPARISON OF THE DEFINITIONS OF WHAT THINGS ARE POLICIES AND CONSENSUS POLICIES AND HOW YOU MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THAT.
I WILL MAKE THAT AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD, AND ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, IT'S THE KIND OF DOCUMENT THAT YOU HATE LAWYERS FOR. BUT IT DID NOT CAUSE ME TO CHANGE MY MIND.
I REMAIN CONVINCED THAT BOTH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DOT NET DECISION AND THE PROCESS WAS APPROPRIATE IN LIGHT OF THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS -- THAT'S NOT A LEGAL OPINION, BY THE WAY -- AND THE HISTORY OF THIS INSTITUTION.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU FOR YOUR BREVITY, BECKY.
THOMAS.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: I HAVE NOT ATTENDED ICANN MEETINGS SINCE ROME AND GOT A LITTLE DISTANCE FROM THE ICANN MEETINGS. COMING INTO THIS SPLENDID CONFERENCE CENTER, IT WAS GOOD SEEING A LOT OF FAMILIAR FACES AND GOOD MEETING NEW PEOPLE. WHAT WAS LESS GOOD IS THAT I'M MISSING SOME PEOPLE HERE. I'M MISSING, TO BE MORE PRECISE, THE GTLD POLICY FOLKS FROM ONE GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN REGISTRY.
THESE PEOPLE HAVE IN THE PAST CONTRIBUTED GREATLY TO THE GNSO. THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTE CONTRIBUTED GREATLY TO TASK FORCES. THEY ARE NOT HERE. THEY ARE NOT MAKING A FUSS ABOUT IT. THEY ARE SILENT ABOUT IT. THAT MAKES ME NERVOUS. IT IS GOOD WHEN YOU HEAR A LOT OF NEGATIVITY IN THE ROOM, IT IS GOOD WHEN PEOPLE ARE TELLING YOU THAT THERE IS A BREACH OF TRUST. IT IS DANGEROUS WHEN PEOPLE DON'T TELL YOU AND JUST STAY AWAY. IT IS REALLY DANGEROUS, AND IT MAKES ME NERVOUS, BECAUSE IN PARTICULAR WITH GTLD REGISTRIES STAYING AWAY FROM ICANN, THIS UNDERMINES THE LEGITIMACY OF THE CONSENSUS POLICY PROCESS.
SO THIS IS A DANGEROUS DEVELOPMENT AND I THINK THE BOARD SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF THAT.
THAT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO, VERY BRIEFLY, GO -- VERY BRIEFLY FOLLOW UP TO A REMARK THAT ROBERTO MADE. HE SAID, WELL, LIKE IN ANY DEMOCRACY, THERE WILL BE TIGHT VOTES, TIGHT MAJORITIES, AND THEN YOU MOVE ON.
THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. IT IS NOT DESIGNED TO BE A DEMOCRACY.
MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN SENT HERE BY THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE. THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS BOARD AND OF THIS BOARD'S DECISIONS TO A LARGE EXTENT DERIVES FROM PEOPLE'S VERY DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS WITH VERY DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES COMING TOGETHER AND AGREEING. WHEN PEOPLE WHOSE LEGITIMACY DERIVES FROM THIS DIVERSITY START MAKING TIGHT DECISIONS WITH SMALL MAJORITIES, THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT MAKES ME NERVOUS. THE LEGITIMACY OF THESE DECISIONS IS, FOR THE VERY REASON -- FOR THE VERY REASON OF THE PROCESS BY WHICH THIS BOARD IS APPOINTED, QUESTIONABLE. THAT IS, ONCE AGAIN, DANGEROUS AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE THE BOARD TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT POINT.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, THOMAS. VITTORIO, I THINK YOU GET THE LAST WORD BECAUSE WE'RE NOW RATHER OVER TIME.
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: WELL, I THINK THAT ROBERTO AND THOMAS IN FACT MADE MOST OF THE POINTS I WANTED TO MAKE, SO I DON'T HAVE A FORMAL COMMENT AS COMMITTEE. I CAN ONLY YOU TELL YOU THAT THERE WAS SOME CONCERN IN THE COMMITTEE AFTER WE SUBMITTED THE STATEMENT WHICH REFLECTED ACTUALLY A LOT OF COMMENTS THAT ARRIVED FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC. AND WHAT MISTED TO US WAS SORT OF FEEDBACK. NOBODY CAME BACK AND TOLD US OKAY, WE CONSIDERED YOUR STATEMENT, WE CONSIDERED THAT THE ENTIRE PUBLIC IS CONCERNED ABOUT DOT NET AND ABOUT SITE FINDER AND WHY IT WASN'T TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND THAT. SO POSSIBLY THAT'S IN THE MINUTES. I THINK IT BOILS DOWN TO THE POINT THAT MICHAEL WAS MAKING. BUT A PART, I THINK, OF THE BREACH OF TRUST THAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE PERCEIVED DAIS TIES BACK TO THE FACT THAT -- I MEAN, I KNOW THAT BY THE WAY, BY HAVING A LIAISON, WE GOT SOME -- I MEAN, SOME INSIGHT ON THAT. BUT THERE WAS NO SORT OF FORMAL REPLY TO THE COMMUNITY ON WHY YOU IN THE END DECIDED TO GO!
THAT WAY, EVEN AFTER ALL THE POINTS THAT HAD BEEN MADE IN MAR DEL PLATA. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK I CAN ASCRIBE TO MANY OF THE FEELINGS THAT THE REGISTRAR COMMUNITY, PERSONALLY SPEAKING, HAVE POINTED OUT. AND PERHAPS I CAN TELL YOU IN THIS ROOM MAYBE ONLY 90 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE THINK THAT IT WAS A SOMEWHAT DEBATABLE DECISION. I THINK THAT OUTSIDE OF ICANN IT'S 99.99 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT DOT NET SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REWARDED TO THAT SAME COMPANY. AND NOW THE FACT WE'LL SEE AN EVEN -- I MEAN, IN TERMS OF NEW TERMS OF CONTRACT ARE EVEN LESS FAVORABLE TO THE REGISTRARS AND THE COMMUNITY THAN PREVIOUS ONES IS EVEN MORE WORRYING. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I DON'T FEEL LIKE POINTING FINGERS AT YOU. I THINK YOU'RE JUST DOING THE SAME THING I DO, AND YOU'RE SPENDING A LOT OF UNPAID VOLUNTEER TIME TO DO THE BEST TO GET THE BEST DECISION YOU CAN. SO I THINK I WOULD MAYBE ASK YOU OF COURSE DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO FIX THINGS AT THIS VERY LAST MINUTE AND MAYBE EN!
SURE THAT WE GET TO THE NEW CONTRACTUAL TERMS IN THE NEW DOT NET AGREEMENT THAT ARE AT LEAST AS FAVORABLE AS THE OLD ONES. BUT PERHAPS YOU SHOULD DO SOME POST ASSESSMENT OF HOW DID THIS GO SO WRONG. HOW DID THIS END UP BEING CONTRARY TO WHAT EVERYONE EXPECTED FROM YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, VITTORIO. I THINK WE WILL CALL THIS AN END TO THE AFTERNOON SESSION. I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR TAKING THE TIME TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS, EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THEM WERE A LITTLE HARD TO HEAR. AS A BOARD MEMBER, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH VITTORIO AND THOMAS THAT WE HAVE TO HEAR, LISTEN, AND DO WHAT WE CAN WITH THOSE FEEDBACKS. SO WE WILL RESUME TOMORROW AT 8:30 IN THIS ROOM. SO I HOPE YOU HAVE A PLEASANT EVENING AND WE'LL SEE YOU IN THE MORNING.

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers