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 Links and information may be outdated or incorrect.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 II

Thursday, 14 July 2005

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Public Forum Part II held on 14 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: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY IN GETTING STARTED, BUT YOU CAN BLAME IT ON MR. GATES AND THE SLOW XP SYSTEM HERE.
THIS IS THE SECOND HALF OF THE PUBLIC FORUM. AND WE HAVE A SERIES OF BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS FOR YOU. AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO SOME OTHER MATERIAL.
SO LET ME START WITH ALEJANDRO PISANTY, WHO IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, AND ASK HIM TO PRESENT HIS REPORT.
AND WHILE HE'S GETTING HIMSELF SET UP AT THE LECTERN, LET ME REMIND YOU THAT THE OMBUDSMAN, FRANK FOWLIE, HAS AN ANNUAL REPORT WHICH IS ON A TABLE OUTSIDE OF THIS ROOM. I WILL MENTION THIS SEVERAL OTHER TIMES, FRANK, SINCE WE HAVE A FAIRLY LIGHT ATTENDANCE THIS MORNING.
I'M ASSUMING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THIS ROOM ARE EITHER PEOPLE WHO WERE UNABLE TO SLEEP LONGER, FOR SOME REASON, OR WHO ARE SOMEHOW OBSESSIVE AND COMPULSIVE ABOUT COMING TO COMMITTEE REPORTS.
BUT I THANK YOU FOR COMING IN AT THIS HOUR.
SO ALEX, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: GOOD MORNING, CHAIR. EVERYBODY. THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE HAS CONTINUED AND ITS ACTIVITY STARTED WITH THE PLAN AT THE LATEST MEETING IN MAR DEL PLATA. WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY CONTINUED WITH E-MAIL DISCUSSIONS AND FACE TO FACE MEETINGS HERE. WE HAVE BOARD COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP, NEW BOARD COMMITTEE FORMATION, ALTERATION OR ADJUSTMENT OF BOARD COMMITTEE, AND GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES.
.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE -- WE HAVE CONSIDERED DRAFTS FOR CHARTERS FOR TWO POTENTIAL NEW COMMITTEES WHICH NEED TO BE FORMED, ONE OF THEM IS A COMPENSATION COMMITTEE AT THE BOARD LEVEL, AND THE OTHER IS A COMMITTEE FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING.
THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE IS NEEDED, REQUIRED, DEMANDED FOR MANY REASONS, AND IT WILL LOOK AT THE COMPENSATION STRUCTURE FOR THE ORGANIZATION. IT'S PLANNED TO HAVE IT LOOK AT -- MAKE DECISIONS ON THE PRESIDENT, CEO COMPENSATION AND ON THE STRUCTURE AND INCENTIVES FOR THE -- FOR COMPENSATION OF THE OFFICIALS OF ICANN.
THE COMMITTEE FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING IS INTENDED TO ASSIST THE BOARD IN PARTICULAR IN THE FUNCTIONS THAT THE BOARD WILL INCREASINGLY HAVE IN RELATION TO STRATEGIC PLANNING.
WE HAVE ALSO ASKED THE GENERAL COUNSEL TO ASSIST IN DRAFTS, IN REVIEWING THEM AND PUTTING THEM IN CLEAN LEGALESE AND LINE THEM WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, ESPECIALLY THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE, WHICH IS A SOLID JOB. WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE SEAT OF THE COMPANY -- OF THE CORPORATION, OF THE ORGANIZATION. I HATE TO USE THIS WORD "COMPANY" HERE. AND ALSO TO LEAD THE NATIONAL, NONPROFIT, PUBLIC SERVICE CHARACTER OF ICANN.
SO THIS IS A SOLID TASK. AND WE HAVE HAD INTENSE DISCUSSION OF THIS WITH BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, AND THESE WILL HAVE TO STILL CONTINUE.
SINCE WE HAVE ALSO BEEN WORKING FOR SOME TIME ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES, WE HAVE STARTED WITH A CLEAN DRAFT, CLEAN-SHEET DRAFT, NOT CONTINUING THE CONTROVERSIAL ONE WE HAD BEFORE, AND WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS ONE, TOO.
WORK IS ALSO CONTINUING ON THE FUNCTION THAT THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE HAS IN THE OVERSIGHT OF THE OMBUDSMAN FUNCTION AND HIS CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ICANN, AND THAT'S BEING PREPARED FOR THE NEXT BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE MEETING.
WE HAVE ALSO RECEIVED REQUESTS FROM THE CHAIR OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, NJERI RIONGE, TO DO SOME CHANGES IN THE CHARTER OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE. THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION. THERE APPEAR TO BE SOME INTERPRETATIONS THAT MAY NEED TO BE ALIGNED OF HOW TO READ THIS.
IT SEEMS THAT THE DRAFT GIVES RISE TO QUITE DISPARATE READINGS, AND WE'RE WORKING ON IT AS INTENSIVELY AS WE CAN.
AND THAT'S IT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO HAVE QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW OR COMMENTS.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALEX. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ALEX AT THIS POINT?
KNOWN WHERE THE HUM IS COMING FROM.
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALEX.
LET ME CALL UPON VENI MARKOVSKI, THEN, TO GIVE THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE REPORT. IS VENI HERE?
>>VENI MARKOVSKI: I'M HERE.
>>VINT CERF: THERE YOU ARE. SEE I'M LOOKING ALL OVER THERE AND I CAN'T EVEN SEE YOU.
>>VENI MARKOVSKI: OVER THERE IS JOICHI ITO WHO SWITCHED SEATS FROM YESTERDAY, AND WE STILL ARE INVESTIGATING WHY.

SO THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE HAD A TWO-HOUR MEETING ON JULY THE 12TH. DURING THE DISCUSSION, MANY ITEMS WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, AMONG THEM TIME OF THE MEETINGS, DURATION OF MEETINGS, NEED FOR BETTER PROGRAMMING FOR MEETINGS.
THERE WERE SUGGESTIONS FROM THE GNSO TO HAVE FACE-TO-FACE FOUR- TO SIX-HOUR MEETINGS WITH THE BOARD BEFORE/AFTER THE ICANN MEETINGS. WE'RE CONSIDERING THAT, KEEPING IN MIND THE GNSO PROPOSAL TO HAVE THEMATIC SESSION MEETINGS ALSO, AND WE'RE THINKING HOW TO CREATE IT IN A SUITABLE FORM.
ALTHOUGH WE CANNOT HANDLE SUCH A MEETING IN VANCOUVER, WE'RE DOING THE BEST WE CAN FOR THE BOARD TO BE AVAILABLE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE DURING THE COMING MEETING IN CANADA. WE ALSO DISCUSSED POSSIBLE ORGANIZATION OF FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS AROUND TOPICS WHICH ARE OF INTEREST FOR OTHER CONSTITUENCIES SO THEY CAN ALSO JOIN.
THAT IS THE GNSO MEETING WITH THE BOARD MAY BE ALSO OPEN FOR OTHER CONSTITUENCIES.
IN MAR DEL PLATA WE PROMISED TO MAKE A POLL ABOUT THE WAY ICANN MEETINGS ARE BEING DONE. WE COULDN'T DO THE POLL FOR THAT MEETING DUE TO SEVERAL REASONS. FIRST, WE APPROACHED GALLUP, AND THEIR RESPONSE WAS RELATIVELY SLOW BUT NOW WE HAVE THE RIGHT CONTACTS THERE AND WE WILL DO THE FOLLOW-UP.
AND SECOND ISSUE WAS THAT THERE IS A NEED TO CHANGE THE STRUCTURE OF THE MEETING, SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT GALLUP KNOWS ABOUT THAT.
THE COMMITTEE HAS HAD ALSO EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS ON THOSE ISSUES, AND WILL CONTINUE TO PUT EFFORTS -- AND WE'LL SPEND SOME MORE TIME DISCUSSING THEM BEFORE VANCOUVER.
WE ALSO DISCUSSED PARTICIPATION OF THE ATTENDEES WITH MORE EXPERIENCE? THE PLANNING OF THE FUTURE ICANN MEETINGS AND WE THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD ADDITION TO THE ICANN COMMITTEE MEETINGS WORK.
AND THERE IS ONE ITEM ON THE AGENDA AND WHICH WE WILL BE WORKING IN THE NEXT MONTH. THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONFLICT OF DATES WITH THE IETF MEETING NEXT YEAR, 2006, IN -- FOR THE ANNUAL ICANN MEETING.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIX THAT PROBLEM WITH THE DATES, AND WE HOPE TO BE ABLE TO INFORM THE COMMUNITY BY END OF AUGUST ABOUT POSSIBLE CHANGES IN THE DATES OF THE ANNUAL 2006 MEETINGS.
THAT'S ALL.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VENI.
BEFORE I ASK IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, LET ME ASK THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN THE ROOM, WE ARE PLANNING TO HAVE A KIND OF POLL. I HOPE THAT WE CAN WORK THIS OUT WITH GALLUP, TO GET FEEDBACK ABOUT THE MEETING STRUCTURE. BUT VENI, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ACCEPT E-MAIL FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE IDEAS ABOUT CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE RATHER THAN WAITING STRICTLY FOR THE GALLUP POLLS?
>>VENI MARKOVSKI: I THINK THAT WOULD BE PERFECTLY WELL. MY ONLY REQUEST IS TO SEND AN E-MAIL TO ME AND CARBON COPY DIANE SCHROEDER JUST IN CASE OF THE MANY ANTISPAM FILTERS AND SOME OF THE MESSAGES MAY GET LOST. AND IF YOU SEND A MESSAGE, I ALWAYS RESPOND TO MESSAGES, SO MAKE SURE YOU GET A RESPONSE. THAT MEANS I HAVE RECEIVED YOUR MESSAGE.
>>VINT CERF: BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN YOU READ IT YET.
>>VENI MARKOVSKI: NO, I USUALLY READ MESSAGES BEFORE I RESPOND. SORRY.
>>VINT CERF: SO I THINK WE NEED TO FIND ANOTHER WAY OF CONVEYING THIS IDEA, GETTING RESPONSES TO YOU BECAUSE THERE'S A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE RIGHT NOW, AND THERE WILL BE A BIGGER NUMBER LATER. SO ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, LET'S MAKE SURE THE BROADER COMMUNITY IS AWARE OF THAT.
MY BIG CONCERN, QUITE HONESTLY, IS THAT AS THE ICANN MEETINGS HAVE UNFOLDED, THERE HAVE BEEN AN INCREASING NUMBER OF MEETINGS BETWEEN BOARD AND SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS OR BOARD AND OTHER COMMITTEES, AND GAC AND SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS. AND AS AN OLD MATHEMATICIAN, I GET WORRIED ABOUT WHAT'S CALLED THE N-SQUARED PROBLEM WHERE YOU HAVE N DIFFERENT GROUPS, AND THEY ALL WANT TO INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER. AND IT'S EITHER N-SQUARED -- GROWS AS N-SQUARED OR WORSE, IT GROWS AS 2 TO THE "NTH."
SO I'M LOOKING FOR IDEAS THAT WILL HELP US BE MUCH MORE EFFICIENT ABOUT DISCUSSING TOPICS ACROSS MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS AND ACROSS THE BOARD.
SO THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF CONSIDERATIONS THAT I HOPE THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE TO. THANK YOU, VENI.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OTHER THAN THAT FOR VENI?
ALL RIGHT. THEN LET'S MOVE ON.
THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMITTEE, AND I'LL CALL UPON HAGEN HULTZSCH TO MAKE THAT PRESENTATION.
>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: OH, I HAVE THE FLOOR ALREADY. I WAS WAITING FOR THE CHAIRMAN BUT MAYBE I WAS NOT CAREFULLY LISTENING.
GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU THE NAMES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THE BOARD COMMITTEE ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. IT'S MYSELF CHAIRING THE COMMITTEE, ALPHABETIC SEQUENCE, MIKE PALAGE, HUALIN QIAN, NJERI RIONGE, AND VANDA SCARTEZINI.
THE COMMITTEE FOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOCUSES, AND ESPECIALLY THE CHAIRMAN IN HIS FUNCTION, ON THE POTENTIAL, LET'S SAY, CONFLICTS HAVING EFFECT ON THE ORGANIZATION. AND WE, MYSELF AND THE COMMITTEE, WERE CONTINUOUSLY INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT DIALOGUE WITH THE FULL BOARD, AS WELL AS WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND ALSO SOME INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION. THUS -- AND THAT'S THE CONSEQUENCE OF IT. THUS ENSURING THAT EITHER NO CONFLICT SITUATION WAS ARISING OR, IF SO, IT WAS PROPERLY MANAGED. AND THAT'S OUR TASK.
A FULL SET OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENTS HAS BEEN ON FILE FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS AND THE PEOPLE WORKING ON THE BOARD, INCLUDING THE LIAISONS. AND THAT'S AN ISSUE WE WILL COME BACK LATER.
THE EVALUATION BY MYSELF, BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND BY LEGAL COUNSEL WAS DONE, AND WE ALSO OBTAINED FROM THESE EVALUATIONS SUGGESTIONS FOR THE REVISION OF THE CURRENT CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST POLICY, WHICH WE WILL REPORT A LITTLE LATER.
THERE'S ALWAYS DETAILED DISCUSSION, BECAUSE THAT'S SO IMPORTANT FOR AN ORGANIZATION, IN THE COMMITTEE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
WE HAVE DISCOVERED NO MAJOR CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST SITUATION WITHIN THE BOARD. AND IF THERE WERE MINOR SITUATIONS, IT WAS PROPERLY MANAGED.
AS I SAID, THERE IS A CONTINUOUS DISCUSSION ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE REPORTING OF SUCH CONFLICTS, SHOULD THEY ARISE.
THE REVIEW OF THE CURRENT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST POLICY, WHICH WAS ADOPTED ON MARCH 4, 1999, PURSUANT TO ICANN BYLAWS AND THE ARTICLES, ET CETERA, ARE GIVEN HERE, IS UNDERWAY. RECENTLY THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONDUCTED A REVIEW OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE CURRENT POLICY AND SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE COMMITTEE TO ENHANCE THE POLICY AND BROADEN THE SCOPE OF THIS POLICY.
THIS WEEK, THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSED THE SUGGESTED REVISIONS AND MADE ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE POLICY.
AND THEY ARE, IT'S ADDING LANGUAGE TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF "PERSONAL CONFLICTS" WHICH MAY BE DEFINED AS GIVEN HERE. "PERSONAL INTEREST" SHALL MEAN ANY ARRANGEMENT, UNDERSTANDING, OR PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP WHEREBY A PERSON SHALL HAVE A MATERIAL INTEREST IN ANY PARTICULAR ACTION, CONTRACT, RELATIONSHIP, OR OTHER MATTER BEING CONSIDERED BY THE CORPORATION.
WE ALSO SAY THAT THESE CONTRACTS SHOULD EXTEND TO EXPECTATIONS OF FUTURE FINANCIAL BENEFITS, AS WELL AS SUCH COMPENSATION.
WE ALSO SAY THAT BOARD LIAISONS HAVE -- SHOULD PROVIDE A CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENT AS WELL. CURRENTLY, ALL LIAISONS HAVE PROVIDED THIS CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENT VOLUNTARILY.
WE ALSO SUGGEST THAT REASONS FOR ANY ABSTENTION DURING VOTES SHOULD BE CAPTURED IN THE MINUTES, AND THAT IS ALREADY DONE.
NEXT, PLEASE.
THE COMMITTEE ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WILL PROPOSE FORMALLY TO THE BOARD THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CONFLICTS POLICY SHOULD BE POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR A PERIOD OF NO LESS THAN 21 DAYS. AND I ASSUME THAT WILL BE DONE TOMORROW.
AND ALSO, ANOTHER SUGGESTION, AFTER CONSIDERING COMMENTS TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND MAKING ANY REVISIONS, THE CONFLICTS POLICY WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE FULL BOARD FOR ADOPTION TOMORROW.
NEXT, PLEASE.
THERE ARE SOME CONCLUSIONS OF THE MEETING EARLIER THIS WEEK HERE IN LUXEMBOURG. THE CONFLICT POLICIES CONTINUE TO BE CLOSELY FOLLOWED BY THE COMMITTEE. THAT'S OUR NATURAL TASK. THE EXISTING CONFLICTS POLICY CAN BE ENHANCED, AND STEPS WILL BE TAKEN TO SEEK PUBLIC COMMENTS AND MAKE CHANGES TO THE POLICY, 21-DAY PERIOD, AND THERE'S ANOTHER SUGGESTION. THE COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE ICANN'S SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS TO REVIEW THEIR OWN CONFLICTS POLICIES SO THAT ALL CONFLICTS WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND DISCLOSED.
THAT'S IT.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HAGEN. I THINK THAT IT MIGHT BE USEFUL, EVEN IF YOU CAN'T DO IT RIGHT THIS MOMENT, TO PRODUCE SOME EXAMPLES OF PERSONAL CONFLICT AS OPPOSED TO THE PREVIOUS SORT OF MATERIAL FINANCIAL CONFLICT, JUST SO PEOPLE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THOSE MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
IF THERE ARE NEW KINDS OF CONFLICTS TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT, WE EACH OF US ON THE BOARD, AND THE LIAISONS, NEED TO BE AWARE OF WHAT THEY MIGHT BE.
SO MAYBE TOGETHER WITH COUNSEL YOU COULD OFFER SOME EXAMPLES.
AND I THINK WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE THOSE EXAMPLES VISIBLE TO THE REST OF OUR COMMUNITY SO EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT WE UNDERSTAND TO BE A CONFLICT. I SEE SEVERAL QUESTIONS, ONE FROM PETER, ONE FROM MOUHAMET. ANYONE ELSE? AND THE FLOOR IS WELCOME TO ASK QUESTIONS ON THIS MATTER AS WELL. PETER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO BEGIN BY COMMENDING THE WORK OF THE CONFLICTS COMMITTEE. IT MAY SEEM, PERHAPS, TO NON-LAWYERS, AN ARCANE AND MYSTERIOUS AND EVEN UNNECESSARY ACTIVITY, BUT LET ME ASSURE YOU IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ENSURING TRUST IN THE BOARD AND THE BOARD'S PROCESSES.
JUST A QUESTION. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT THE SITUATION THAT HAS ARISEN IN DISCUSSION ON THE BOARD LIST IN TERMS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CONFLICTED FROM VOTING ON AN ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALSO CONFLICTED FROM SPEAKING ON AN ISSUE? THIS IS OFTEN EXPRESSED NOT WITH ANY PERSONAL POINT BUT BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, TAKE THE CHAIR WHO IS OFTEN A VERY INFLUENTIAL PERSON IN TERMS OF RUNNING THE MEETING AND OPENING AND CLOSING OF DISCUSSION. IF THAT SORT OF PERSON IS UNABLE TO VOTE, THEY CAN NEVERTHELESS EXERCISE A LOT OF INFLUENCE ON OTHER MEMBERS, AND WOULD YOU -- HAVE YOU GOT A VIEW ON THAT? HAS THE COMMITTEE LOOKED AT THAT, AND IF THEY HAVEN'T, PERHAPS YOU COULD.
>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO COMMENT ON THIS?
>>VINT CERF: YES.
>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: ACTUALLY, THIS IS A, LET'S SAY, POTENTIAL CONCERN AND WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION. IN THE BOARD, AS IN SOME CASES YOU KNOW, SINCE THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT WAS COMMUNICATED BEFOREHAND, THAT'S WHY I SAID EARLIER IN MY STATEMENT IT WAS PROPERLY MANAGED. AND WE ALSO REALIZED THAT IF THERE WOULD BE SUCH CONFLICTS, WE FOUND A WAY THAT THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE DIALOGUE WAS A KIND OF WEAKER THAN OTHERWISE IN THE NORMAL SITUATION IT WOULD BE, THAT THE INDIVIDUALS MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY POTENTIALLY HAD CONFLICTS IN THIS SITUATION.
AND IN THIS CASE, IN SUCH SITUATION, I THINK WE SHOULD NOT DISALLOW PEOPLE TO SPEAK UP, BUT WE SHOULD KNOW BEFOREHAND THAT THEY HAVE A CERTAIN CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS WHICH THIS ORGANIZATION IS RATHER SPECIAL. EVERYBODY HERE, MYSELF INCLUDED, YOURSELF INCLUDED, HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BECAUSE WE WANT TO PROMOTE INTERNET. THAT'S -- SOME OF US EVEN MAKE THEIR BUSINESS OUT OF IT.
I, FOR EXAMPLE, GET PAID MY RETIREMENT PENSION FROM A COMPANY WHO ALSO MAKES MONEY OUT OF THE INTERNET.
THE STATE OF MALAYSIA BENEFITS FROM THE INTERNET, AND IN THAT SENSE, WE COULD -- WE COULD SAY THIS IS A CONFLICT, BUT I THINK THIS IS THE LIFE OF THIS ORGANIZATION.
BUT WE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT PERSONAL CONFLICTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE HAVE A MOTION TO TAKE AND MYSELF OR SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD PERSONALLY BENEFIT FROM IT, THEN IT'S NATURAL, AND THAT'S DONE BY THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENT, THAT I MUST ABSTAIN AND MY COLLEAGUES MUST KNOW BEFOREHAND MY PERSONAL INTEREST ON IT. AND I TAKE MYSELF AS AN EXAMPLE, BUT THAT APPLIES POTENTIALLY TO EVERYBODY OF US, AND ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO MAKE THEIR BUSINESS OUT OF THE THINGS WE DECIDE HERE.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, HAGEN. IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY I COULD GET DEUTSCHE TELEKOM TO PAY MY RETIREMENT, TOO?
(LAUGHTER.)
>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: THAT IS DISPUTABLE. YOU JUST GO FOR A CONTRACT LIKE I DID TEN OR 12 YEARS AGO, AND THAT PART OF THE CONTRACT WAS THEY PAY ME GOOD RETIREMENT.
>>VINT CERF: LET ME -- MOUHAMET, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP AND THEN I'LL TAKE A COMMENT FROM THE FLOOR.
MOUHAMET.
>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU, VINT. I THINK THAT PART OF THE COMMENT I WANT TO MAKE HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY HAGEN. LIKE WE ARE A VERY SPECIALIZED ORGANIZATION, IN WHICH IT'S VERY HARD TO SAY ANYBODY DIDN'T HAVE SOME TYPE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
IF YOU TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CASE OF THE REGULATORY BODY IN THE TELECOMMUNICATION, IF THEY WANT TO HAVE A BOARD LIKE US OR A BOARD OF TRUSTEES, YOU HAVE TO SIGN A CONTRACT THAT YOU HAVE NO SHARE OR NO COMPANY DEALING WITH THE TELECOMMUNICATION FOR THE TIME YOU'RE ON BOARD. AND SOMETIME FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS AFTER YOU STEP DOWN FROM THE BOARD.
JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT, I MEAN, THE -- I WANT US TO BE REALLY CONSCIOUS ABOUT THE PRECAUTION WE WANT TO TAKE FOR FUTURE POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. WE'RE MOVING THE BATON SO FAR BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT HERE, IF WE -- IF WE SAW THE WAY THAT ICANN IS CONSTITUTED, I THINK IT'S ONLY THE NONCOM MEMBERS THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED MAYBE IN SOME CASE NOT BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE BUSINESS, BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO ARE FROM THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, INDEED, THEY ARE HERE BECAUSE THEY GOT THEIR BUSINESS RUNNING AND THEY HAVE DIRECT INTEREST IN IT.
SO GETTING A DIRECT INTEREST IN A BUSINESS MEAN A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IN SOME CASES, YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THE EVOLUTION OF THINGS.
SO WE HAVE TO BE NOT SO STRONG ABOUT THE STATEMENT ON THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST BECAUSE BASED ON THE NATURE OF THIS ORGANIZATION, TALKING ABOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST MAY GIVE SOME CONFUSION IF YOU JUST MAKE IT SO STRONG, BECAUSE IT'S THE NATURE OF THE BOARD AND IT'S THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. SO ASKING ALSO THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST BASED ON THE WAY THEY ARE STRUCTURED IS ALSO, FOR ME, MOVING SO FAR IN THE PROCESS WHERE WE KNOW THAT EVERYBODY IN THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION HAVE A STRONG INTEREST OF PRESERVING, AND THEY HAVE A CORPORATION IDEA ON HOW TO PRESERVE. I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO BE THE CASE FOR THE GNSO, IT'S GOING TO BE THE CASE FOR THE CCNSO, IT'S GOING TO BE THE CASE FOR THE REGISTRY.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE REALLY CAREFUL FOR ASKING TOO MUCH ABOUT THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. AND WHAT IS IMPORTANT, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT WE ASK OF ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS, IS THAT WHENEVER WE TAKE A DECISION, WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE FOR THE WHOLE INTEREST OF THE WHOLE INTERNET COMMUNITY. BUT IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER, I MEAN, WE WILL HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE DECISION WE ARE TAKING.
SO WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS TO TRY TO DEFINE A LEVEL OF -- JUST LIKE MINOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR CRITICAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IF YOU ARE INVOLVED IN A CONTRACT AND AS A BOARD MEMBER, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE TO SIGN FOR THAT CONTRACT TO BE GIVEN DIRECTLY TO THE COMPANY YOU ARE WORKING WITH. THIS IS THE NATURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST WE CAN STRONGLY TRYING TO SAY THAT, OKAY, IN THAT CASE, YOU MIGHT BE -- THE BOARD CAN DECIDE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT NO BOARD MEMBERS CAN VOTE ON SOME CONTRACT IN WHICH YOU ARE DIRECTLY INVOLVED.
BUT IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER, I MEAN, THEM HAVE INDIRECT IMPACT ON THE DECISION WE'RE GOING TO TAKE, BECAUSE, I MEAN, THAT WAS MY STATEMENT ON THAT.
SO ON THE TEXT OF THE DOCUMENT, I REALLY WANT TO KNOW, HAGEN, IF YOU TALK ABOUT FUTURE POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, ARE WE GOING TO FIX A DATE FOR IT OR IS IT -- BECAUSE, I MEAN, ANYBODY HERE WHO STEP DOWN FROM HIS POSITION OF BOARD, I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING PREVENTING HIM FROM STARTING A NEW BUSINESS SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FUTURE BOARD CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IT'S LIKE WE ANTICIPATE SOMETHING TO PREVENT SOMEBODY FROM STEPPING DOWN FROM HIS POSITION AS A BOARD, AND THEN ASK HIMSELF CAN HE DO SOMETHING WITH A CONTRACTOR OR NOT? WE SHOULD DECIDE IF THERE IS A DURATION FOR FUTURE POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR NOT, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR ON THAT.
>>VINT CERF: HANG ON, MICHAEL, I WANT TO TAKE A QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR FIRST.
GO AHEAD.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: GOOD MORNING. THOMAS ROESSLER. I WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT CONTRIBUTIONS OF CONFLICTED BOARD MEMBERS TO DISCUSSIONS ON THE BOARD.
PART OF THE PURPOSE OF HAVING A CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST POLICY IS NOT JUST AVOIDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, BUT AVOIDING ANY PERCEPTION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, EVEN IF THESE CONFLICTS MAY NOT BE THERE.
WHEN I LOOK AT THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU JUST HAD, THE ARGUMENT BOILED DOWN TO WE DISCLOSE THE CONFLICT BEFORE, SO INSIDE THE BOARD, WE SEE -- WE KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CONFLICTED MEMBERS AND WE KNOW HOW TO WEIGH THEM.
THE PUBLIC DOES NOT GET TO SEE DETAILED MINUTES OF MOST OF THE BOARD'S MEETING. THE PUBLIC IS NOT ABLE TO MAKE THAT ASSESSMENT.
I THINK THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP HERE BETWEEN A CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST POLICY WORKING TO AVOID CONFLICT, WORKING TO AVOID THE PERCEPTION OF CONFLICTS, AND THE AMOUNT OF TRANSPARENCY THAT THE BOARD CAN PROVIDE.
I THINK WITH THE KIND OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST POLICY YOU SEEM TO BE GOING FOR, THERE IS AN URGENT NEED FOR MUCH MORE DETAILED MINUTES AND FOR A WAY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO ACTUALLY SEE HOW THESE DISCUSSIONS PLAY OUT.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE DISCUSSIONS AREN'T PLAYING OUT PROPERLY. I'M SAYING YOU DON'T WANT A PERCEPTION THAT THEY AREN'T PLAYING OUT PROPERLY. YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE THE TRANSPARENCY IN THERE IF YOU GO FOR THIS KIND OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST POLICY.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, THOMAS. LET ME GET MICHAEL AND THEN MARILYN.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: I FULLY AGREE WITH THOMAS, AND THOMAS, ONE OF THE THINGS I'M TRYING TO DO, BECAUSE I'M ONE OF THE DIRECTORS, BECAUSE OF MY VARIOUS TIES TO THE COMMUNITY, TRYING TO PUT MY STATEMENTS IN WRITING WHICH NOT ONLY I -- IT'S MY INTENT IN THE FUTURE TO TAKE THOSE STATEMENTS, NOT ONLY SHARE THEM WITH THE BOARD, SHARE THEM WITH THE COMMUNITY IN THAT EFFORT OF OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT MOUHAMET RAISED. ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT I HAD RAISED DURING THE CONFLICTS COMMITTEE EARLIER THIS WEEK WAS THE IDEA OF HAVING SOME TYPE OF FIXED TIME FRAME WHERE ONE WOULD AGREE NOT TO ENGAGE IN FUTURE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH AN IMPACTED PARTY FOR SOME SET PERIOD OF TIME. AND THE REASON THAT I HAD ADVOCATED A FIXED, SET PERIOD OF TIME IS IT PROVIDED A CLEAR BENCHMARK.
AGAIN, IT'S -- SOME OF THESE DECISIONS OF SUBJECT -- IT'S A VERY SUBJECTIVE DETERMINATION. DID YOU INTEND TO HAVE FUTURE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS? YOU KNOW, SO I THINK THE IDEA OF HAVING A FIXED WINDOW, IF YOU WILL, PROVIDES CLARITY. AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THIS ORGANIZATION WOULD BENEFIT AND WHICH I THINK THE COMMUNITY WOULD HAVE INTEGRITY IS KNOWING THAT THERE WERE CLEAR GUIDELINES THAT WE WERE FOLLOWING.
SO AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE COMMENTS THAT THOMAS HAD MADE. I AGREE WITH THEM WHOLLY, AS WELL AS THE COMMENT RAISED BY MOUHAMET.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MICHAEL.
LET ME ASK MARILYN, AND THEN I THINK I SAW SHARIL.
>>MARILYN CADE: CAN I JUST ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE COMMENTS ON THE EARLIER REPORTS LATER?
>>VINT CERF: YES, I WILL.
>>MARILYN CADE: SO MY COMMENTS RIGHT NOW ARE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST WORK.
I DON'T SEE THE CHAIR OF THE GNSO HERE, BUT I WOULD URGE THAT SINCE WE'RE NOW IN THE DRAFT STAGE THAT WE HAVE SOME INTERACTION WITH THE SOS ABOUT -- NOT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT WE DO EXAMINE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, BECAUSE WE DO, BUT REALLY WHAT WORKS IN THE DIFFERENT ENTITIES, AS WELL AS THE ALAC.
I WOULD SUPPORT, I THINK, AND ASSOCIATE MYSELF, AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT THAT I -- WITH MOUHAMET'S STATEMENTS. AND I WANT TO ALSO SAY THAT I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US IN THE COMMUNITY TO REMEMBER HOW UNIQUE ICANN REALLY IS. AND THAT ON THE BOARD, EACH OF YOU HAVE UNIQUE UNDERSTANDINGS. IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU BE ABLE TO SPEAK, EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO VOTE. AND IF, IN FACT, YOU THINK THAT THE POWER OF A PARTICULAR ROLE, SUCH AS CHAIRING A POSITION, CREATES TOO MUCH INFLUENCE, THEN OBVIOUSLY YOU DO WHAT YOU HAVE DONE BEFORE AND THAT IS PASS THE CHAIR FOR THAT PARTICULAR FUNCTION.
BUT I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT WE HAVE TO, I THINK, BE VERY SENSITIVE ABOUT THE FOCUS BEING ON DISCLOSURE AND RECOGNITION OF CONFLICTS AND NOT TRY TO DRIVE ALL CONFLICTS OUT OF THE SYSTEM OR ICANN WILL BE EVEN MORE FRAGILE.
THE CONFLICT IS REALLY ABOUT US; RIGHT?
I WANT TO JUST ASK VINT IF WE COULD, BEFORE THINGS BECOME FINAL, HAVE A DIALOGUE BETWEEN PERHAPS THE CHAIRS OF THE SOS ON THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST APPLICABILITY.
>>VINT CERF: ABSOLUTELY.
AND I THINK WE CERTAINLY WOULD POST WHATEVER CHANGES ARE PROPOSED SO THAT THERE COULD BE SOME COMMENT ON THAT.
LET ME JUST MAKE ONE OBSERVATION ABOUT ANOTHER ORGANIZATION THAT FACES SIMILAR KINDS OF CHALLENGES.
THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL IN THE U.S. OFTEN PRODUCES REPORTS ABOUT HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL TECHNICAL MATTERS.
AND WHEN THEY FORMULATE THE COMMITTEES TO PREPARE THE REPORTS, THEY ASK EVERY MEMBER TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT ABOUT POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
THAT STATEMENT GOES TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
SO THEY DON'T TRY TO SUPPRESS PEOPLE FROM BEING ON THE COMMITTEE.
THEY JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BIASES AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS ARE KNOWN TO ALL THE PARTIES.
AND SO THAT IN THE COURSE OF REACHING CONCLUSIONS, IT'S UNDERSTOOD THAT SOME PEOPLE'S POSITIONS MAY BE INFLUENCED BY THEIR PAST HISTORY OR CURRENT SITUATIONS.
AS I LOOK FORWARD TO FINDING A PATH FORWARD ON THIS, WE CAN'T DO IT AT THIS VERY MOMENT, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE COMMUNITY FEELS THAT THEY ARE ENGAGED AS WELL AS THE REST OF THE BOARD.
SHARIL IS NEXT, AND THEN MICHAEL, AND RAIMUNDO AND THAT'S IT.
SHARIL.
>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I JUST WANTED TO SHARE SOME PERSPECTIVES PUBLICLY.
I WORK FOR A REGULATORY AGENCY BACK HOME.
WE LICENSE PEOPLE.
WE ARE ALWAYS IN CONFLICT SITUATIONS WHERE YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHETHER YOU CAN HAVE A CUP OF COFFEE WITH THIS PARTICULAR PERSON BECAUSE YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS GIVEN A LICENSE TO THIS PARTICULAR PERSON.
SO I UNDERSTAND FULLY WELL WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS LOOKING AT, AND I AM VERY SUPPORTIVE OF HAVING A FULL DECLARATION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT.
BUT I THINK IN ENSURING THAT THE ORGANIZATION IS ABLE TO MOVE AND NOT PARALYZED BY WHAT I WILL CALL BUREAUCRACY, COMING FROM A GOVERNMENT PERSON, THERE NEEDS TO BE A BALANCE.
AND I THINK EVERYONE ON THE BOARD HERE IS AWARE THAT THEIR DUTIES IN RELATION TO THEIR FUNCTIONS ON THE BOARD IS A FIDUCIARY ONE.
AND I THINK SOME DEGREE OF BALANCE NEEDS TO BE KEPT IN ORDER FOR THE ORGANIZATION TO FUNCTION.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: I THINK MANY WOULD AGREE WITH YOU.
MICHAEL.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON MARILYN CADE'S COMMENTS.
AND, MARILYN, THE COMMITTEE DID DISCUSS THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, PARTICULARLY THE GNSO, WHICH HAS THE USERS, PROVIDERS, REGISTRARS, REGISTRIES.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE UNIQUE DYNAMICS OF THAT PARTICULAR CONSTITUENCY.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WAS TRYING TO REACH OUT, AGAIN, MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT IT IS IMPORTANT, AND SEE HOW THE, IF WILL YOU, THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS MIGHT BE ABLE TO HANDLE THAT, COME UP WITH SOME PROPOSALS.
SO, AGAIN, I JUST THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED BY THE CONFLICTS COMMITTEE.
>>VINT CERF: RAIMUNDO.
>>RAIMUNDO BECA: THANK YOU, VINT.
I WAS DURING THE LAST PART OF LAST YEAR A MEMBER OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE.
AND AT THAT MOMENT, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH THE STATEMENTS OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHICH EVERY MEMBER OF THE BOARD HAS TO STATE.
AND I WAS SURPRISED THAT THEY HAVE MADE SO DIFFERENT.
YOU HAVE SOME VERY DETAILED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
AND YOU HAVE OTHERS THAT SAY, "TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I HAVE NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST."
I THINK THE -- THERE SHOULD BE A TEMPLATE, A TEMPLATE FOR THE STATEMENT.
AND THE TEMPLATE WOULD INDICATE ALL THE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND NOT THE PARTICULAR WHICH APPEAR FOR A PARTICULAR ISSUE.
AND THOSE TEMPLATES SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW WHERE THERE IS A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
NOT SAYING, FOR EXAMPLE, WELL, THIS GUY -- WHICH COULD BE MY CASE -- HE HAS A BUSINESS WITH ALL THESE CUSTOMERS.
I DON'T HAVE TO DECLARE ALL MY CUSTOMERS.
BUT I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW THAT I AM THE MARKET AND I AM COUNSELING SOME COMPANIES, AND SO THERE COULD BE A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
I THINK THAT IT'S A GOOD IDEA THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE AWARE OF THAT AND TAKE SOME MEASURES ABOUT IT.
>>VINT CERF: I WAS HOPING THAT WOULD BE THE LAST COMMENT, BUT I SEE JOI HAS HIS HAND UP.
COULD WE MAKE THIS SHORT?
>>JOICHI ITO: I'LL JUST ADD A PERSPECTIVE AS A NON-COM PERSON WHO RARELY HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
THE ONE THING THAT I FEAR, THOUGH, IS THAT CONFLICT OF INTEREST SHOULD BE TO NOT USE YOUR BOARD POSITION TO UNFAIRLY GAIN SOME ADVANTAGE.
BUT IF YOU HAVE DISCLOSED IT, ON THE OTHER HAND, I WOULD RATHER HEAR THE OPINION OF THE PEOPLE FROM THE SOS.
SO ONE OF THE PROBLEMS I'VE HAD IN THE PROCESS IS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE MOST DON'T SAY ANYTHING.
AND FOR ME, I'D RATHER HAVE THEM SAY IT, BUT THEN I'LL CALCULATE IN MY OWN CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST PARAMETER.
NOW, FROM THE OUTSIDE, IT MAY NOT LOOK RIGHT, BUT FOR ME, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
AND THEN I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST, LOOKING FORWARD -- AND AGAIN, I'M TOOTING MY OWN HORN -- BUT I THINK THE INDEPENDENT NON-COM MEMBERS ARE, I THINK, INCREASING THE NUMBER AND MAKING SOS -- BECAUSE I THINK AS LONG AS THE SOS HAVE A VOICE, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN A VOTE.
AND WE'RE NOT A DEMOCRACY, AS SOMEBODY MENTIONED YESTERDAY.
WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A CONSENSUS PROCESS.
AND SO I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT WE NEED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT IS THE DISCUSSION CONSENSUS PROCESS VERSUS THE BOARD VOTING PROCESS.
WE MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT THIS AT THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE LEVEL.
>>VINT CERF: AS LONG AS WE'RE ABLE TO MAKE PROGRESS.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
WERE YOU WAITING TO MAKE A COMMENT ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
ALL RIGHT.
>> ANNETTE MUEHLBERG: ANNETTE MUEHLBERG, MEMBER OF THE ALAC, THE NEW EUROPEAN MEMBER.
>> CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE.
>> ANNETTE MUEHLBERG: ANNETTE MUEHLBERG, THE NEW EUROPEAN ALAC MEMBER.
I THINK THE PUBLICATION IS VERY HELPFUL FOR TRANSPARENCY.
BUT, OF COURSE, YOU HAVE TO TELL WHICH COMPANIES YOU CONSULT, FOR EXAMPLE. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO JUST SAY, "I AM CONSULTING SOME COMPANIES."
THE ONLY TRANSPARENCY HELPS WHERE YOU REALLY NAME IT.
BECAUSE THEN IT'S CLEAR WHERE THERE MIGHT BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
WE HAVE THIS DEBATE IN GERMANY RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT GOING ON.
AND I JUST HAVE TO -- OUR COLLEAGUE FROM THE GAC -- I MEAN, WE HAVE VERY STRICT RULES ON GOVERNMENT PEOPLE, AND NOT JUST GOVERNMENT PEOPLE, BUT JUST ANYONE IN THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT ALLOWED TO REALLY HAVE A DINNER WITH SOMEONE ELSE.
YOU DON'T EVEN GET A BOTTLE OF BRANDY.
IT'S JUST ALL NOT ALLOWED.
YOU KNOW, EVEN, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S JUST A NICE GESTURE, YOU'RE JUST NOT ALLOWED TO RECEIVE THAT.
AND THERE IS -- IT'S -- IT'S EXTREMELY STRICT, BUT THERE IS A GOOD IDEA BEHIND IT.
SO IF YOU ARE NOT -- IF YOU STILL SAY, OKAY, IT MIGHT BE ALLOWED, BUT THEN AT LEAST YOU REALLY HAVE TO SHOW WHERE YOU'RE INVOLVED IN, YOU KNOW, AND NAME IT, NOT JUST A GENERAL SAYING, "I DO THAT."
WE EXPECT YOU ALL TO DO IT.
BUT WE WANT TO KNOW WHERE YOU ARE INVOLVED AT.
THANKS.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LET'S MOVE ON, ALTHOUGH I THINK THAT DISCUSSION WAS HELPFUL, AND I'M SURE, HAGEN, YOU'LL TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT AS YOU WORK YOUR WAY THROUGH THESE NEW GUIDELINES.
THE NEXT REPORT IS THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE, WHICH THOMAS NILES CHAIRS.
SO I'LL ASK THOMAS TO MAKE THAT REPORT.
>>THOMAS NILES: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE COMMITTEE MET ON JULY 12.
MEMBERS PRESENT IN ADDITION TO MYSELF WERE RAIMUNDO BECA, MOUHAMET DIOP, JOICHI ITO, AND VENI MARKOVSKI.
WE HAD ONE REQUEST ON OUR AGENDA, RECONSIDERATION REQUEST, 05-1, FILED BY MR. FAUCET, CONCERNING THE LATE POSTING OF BOARD DECISIONS.
THE SPECIFIC COMPLAINT OR QUESTION INVOLVED THE PRELIMINARY REPORT OF BOARD ACTIONS FROM THE MAY 3, 2005 MEETING, WHICH WERE POSTED SEVERAL DAYS LATER THAN THE FIVE BUSINESS DAYS AS SPECIFIED IN THE BYLAWS.
THE COMMITTEE EXAMINED THE REQUEST AND DETERMINED THAT THERE WERE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE.
AND THAT ANY PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE DELAY WAS ADDRESSED BY THE EXTENSION OF AN AFFECTED PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
THERE WAS A RELATED PROPOSAL PUT FORWARD WITH THE REQUEST TO THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE DESIGNED TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY OF BOARD MEETINGS.
IN ORDER TO FACILITATE PROMPT POSTING AND INCREASE TRANSPARENCY, THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THAT THE FULL BOARD CONSIDER USING REAL-TIME SCRIBES TO RECORD ALL BOARD MEETINGS, INCLUDING THOSE SPECIAL MEETINGS HELD BY TELECONFERENCE.
THE PUBLIC COULD THEN REVIEW TRANSCRIPTS OF ALL VOTING AND BOARD MEMBERS' STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH VOTES, CONSISTENT WITH PROCEDURES TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED INFORMATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, TOM.
I ASSUME THAT MATTER WILL COME BEFORE THE BOARD AS A SPECIFIC RESOLUTION AT A LATER TIME.
WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT REPORT?
MICHAEL.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: AT A LATER TIME. POSSIBLY TOMORROW?
>>VINT CERF: I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ON THE -- ON THE AGENDA.
BUT IF IT IS, WE'LL CERTAINLY TAKE IT UP.
ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
AND ONCE AGAIN I'LL CALL ON HAGEN HULTZSCH TO MAKE THAT REPORT.
>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: THANK YOU, VINT.
THE MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ARE RAIMUNDO BECA, AND JUST WAIT AND IT COMES UP -- MYSELF, BEING THE CHAIR, JOICHI ITO, TOM NILES, MIKE PALAGE, AND ALEX PISANTY.
MAYBE I'LL WAIT A LITTLE.
I JUST WANTED TO COMMUNICATE TO YOU THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES.
WE HAD TO WORK ON THE MOST IMPORTANT TASK OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, TO HELP TO BUILD THE BUDGET.
AND THESE ARE THE -- LET'S CALL IT THE MILESTONES, BECAUSE THERE'S CONTINUOUS DIALOGUE BETWEEN STAFF, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AND MYSELF WITH THIS, FORTUNATELY, VERY EFFECTIVE WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE SPECIFIC MILESTONES WERE THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE CONSULTATION STARTED ON 15TH FEBRUARY.
WE HAD CONSULTATION WITH THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP ALSO ON 15TH FEBRUARY.
WE HAD COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS FROM THEREAFTER CONTINUOUSLY.
STAFF WAS PREPARING PRELIMINARY BUDGET FIGURES.
WE HAD THE FINANCE COMMITTEE REVIEW AND CONSULTATION ON 3RD APRIL.
THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP CONSULTATIONS THE SAME DAY.
THAT'S WHY WE CAME TOGETHER.
COMMUNITY COMMENTS REGARDING OPERATIONAL PLAN ALSO ALREADY BY THE 3RD APRIL AND THEREAFTER.
AND THE MAR DEL PLATA FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT REGARDING BUDGET ON 7TH APRIL.
WE LATER ON HAD A FINANCE COMMITTEE REVIEW, AND THE FINANCE COMMITTEE PROPOSED TO PRESENT THE BUDGET TO THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP.
AND IT WENT TO CONSULTATION.
AND EVENTUALLY, ON 17TH MAY, IT WAS POSTED, AS YOU HAVE SEEN.
FROM THERE ON, THERE WERE CONTINUOUS COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS, LIKE THERE ARE HERE IN LUXEMBOURG.
WE HAD ANOTHER FINANCE COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL ON 10TH JULY, EARLIER THIS WEEK.
AND WE HAD BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP CONSULTATION ALSO DURING THIS WEEK.
AND THERE IS A PROPOSAL THAT THE BOARD ADOPTS THE BUDGET AS IT IS NOW, WITH MINOR FLUCTUATION AND CHANGES BEING PRESENTED BY TOMORROW.
AND THERE WILL BE CONTINUOUS DIALOGUE WITH CONSTITUENCIES, AS WE ALL HAVE SEEN DURING THIS WEEK.
NEXT FOIL.
HOW DID WE DO THE BUDGET APPROACH?
ONE ISSUE WHICH IS MISSING IN THIS LIST IS THAT THIS ORGANIZATION MUST HAVE A RESERVE, WHICH IT CURRENTLY DOESN'T.
AND OVER THE -- LET'S CALL IT THE YEARS, THE ORGANIZATION MUST BUILD A RESERVE OF ABOUT THE ANNUAL EXPENDITURE IN ORDER TO PROTECT IT AGAINST WHATEVER KIND OF SITUATION MAY ARISE.
SO THIS IS A TOP-LINE BEHIND THESE LINES WHICH ARE LISTED HERE.
SO HOW DID WE PROCEED TO FIND A WAY TO GET THE BUDGET?
WE TALKED ABOUT THE OPERATING GOALS, WHAT SHOULD THE COMPANY DO.
AND THE OBJECTIVES ARE MAINLY BASED ON THE OPERATION PLAN.
THEN WE -- BECAUSE THIS AMOUNT OF LIST ASKED FOR A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY, WE HAD TO PRIORITIZE THESE OBJECTIVES BASED UPON CONSULTATIONS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUPS.
AND FROM THERE ON, WE CALCULATED BUDGET REQUIREMENTS FOR VARYING LEVELS OF ACTIVITY.
ACTUALLY, WE CAME TO A WHOLE LIST.
AND THEN WE FOUND OUT THAT WITH RESPECT TO WHAT KIND OF MONEY REASONABLY COULD BE COLLECTED FROM THE ORGANIZATION, WE SAID THERE'S A THRESHOLD FOR THINGS WE CAN POSSIBLY DO AND FOR THINGS WHICH WE HAVE TO DEFER OR JUST KEEP INACTIVE.
AND THAT WAS THE PLATFORM FOR DETERMINING THE FUNDING MODEL BASED ON THE EXPECTED FUNDS LEVELS.
SO WE DEVELOPED A CLASS OF ACTIVITIES WHICH WE SAY IN DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE, BASICALLY, WE REMAIN COMMITTED TO DO THEM, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT.
AND THAT'S BOTH, IN THE END, THE PLATFORM FOR COMPOSING THE BUDGET BASED ON THESE OBJECTIVES, THE PRIORITIZATION, AND THE CONTINUOUS MANAGEMENT REVIEW.
NEXT, PLEASE.
SO, AGAIN, I WILL -- SHOULD STATE HERE THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RESERVE CURRENTLY IS STILL LACKING.
MANY OF THE PROPOSED OPERATIONS AGAIN WERE DISCUSSED IN MAR DEL PLATA, ALSO HERE.
THE OPERATIONAL PLAN WAS POSTED AS PART OF ICANN'S PROPOSED BUDGET ON 17TH MAY, AS YOU SEE WITH THIS URL.
AND WE ARE CONTINUOUSLY IN A DIALOGUE, AND, NATURALLY, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT MONEY, LIKE IN ANY GOVERNMENT TAX DISCUSSION, THERE'S A KIND OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
THE ORGANIZATION NEEDS THE MONEY TO RUN, AND THOSE WHO ARE CONTRIBUTING TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN THINK THAT THEY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE AS LOW AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KEEP IT IN THEIR ORGANIZATION.
SO KIND OF NATURAL CONFLICTS.
THE NUMBERS WHICH CAME UP IN THIS PROCESS OF THINKING WHAT IS THE REASONABLE WAY, AND THEY COMMUNICATED THEM ALREADY LAST NIGHT, MAYBE IN MAR DEL PLATA, THAT THE PLANNED EXPENDITURES WOULD BE CLOSE TO $23 MILLION U.S., AND THE PLANNED REVENUES WOULD BE A LITTLE ABOVE $23 MILLION.
SO POSSIBLY EVEN CONTRIBUTING A MINOR AMOUNT OF MONEY TO THE RESERVES.
PERCENTAGE-WISE, AND KURT PRITZ WILL GO INTO THIS IN MORE DETAIL IN HIS PRESENTATION LATER, 29% GO INTO ENSURING THE STABILITY AND SECURITY OF THE DNS, WHICH IS THE CORE OF INTERNET.
ANOTHER PERCENTAGE IS GOING INTO PROMOTING COMPETITION, WHICH IS OUR MANDATE.
THE -- MORE THAN 19% GOING TO SUPPORT OF BOTTOM-UP POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
AND THE ALSO SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT GOES TO ENSURE GLOBAL STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION.
AGAIN, THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO BUILD THE RESERVES ARE STILL MISSING.
NEXT, PLEASE.
CONCLUSION: THE FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOGNIZES THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE IN THE BUDGETING PROCESS, AND STAFF HAS DONE A SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF WORK.
THE MORE DETAILED OPERATION PLAN AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECTS ESSENTIAL TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ICANN'S MISSION.
WE HAVE A GLOBAL MISSION, AS WE HAVE ALSO LEARNED FROM THE DIALOGUE YESTERDAY MORNING, WHICH I THINK WAS A VERY IMPORTANT ONE FOR OUR, LET'S SAY, HISTORY.
THE COMMITTEE ALSO REQUESTS THAT ICANN STAFF CONTINUES TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS BY TAKING ACTIONS TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP, THE DIVERSIFICATION OF FUNDING SOURCES, AND THE LINKAGE BETWEEN THE STRATEGIC AND THE OPERATIONAL PLANNING PROCESSES.
AND THAT, ALL OF US KNOW, IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR WORK TOGETHER.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, HAGEN.
WE WILL BE HAVING A MORE DETAILED REPORT ON THE BUDGET SHORTLY.
SO SOME OF THE RATHER GROSS FIGURES THAT YOU PUT UP, HAGEN, I HOPE WILL BECOME MORE -- RICHER IN THEIR DETAIL WHEN WE HEAR FROM KURT PRITZ.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HAGEN?
YES, PETER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU, HAGEN FOR THE REPORT.
I WONDER IF I COULD EXPLAIN SOMETHING TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE SO IF THEY UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT THE LATER DISCUSSION ON THE BUDGET IS GOING TO BE.
THE BUDGET AS IT WAS RELEASED IS NOT THE BOARD'S BUDGET.
THE BOARD HAS NOT APPROVED THIS.
IT'S BEEN PRODUCED, AS HAGEN HAS EXPLAINED, BY THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND THE STAFF.
SO BECAUSE I WASN'T A MEMBER OF THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP AND BECAUSE I'M NOT A MEMBER OF THE BUDGET FINANCE COMMITTEE, I ONLY SAW THE BUDGET AT THE (INAUDIBLE) LEVEL OF THOSE 16 STEPS ON THE 17TH OF MAY.
IT'S GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT TO ME IN DETERMINING WHETHER THIS BUDGET GETS APPROVED THAT THERE BE FULL COMMUNITY CONSENSUS OR AS MUCH AS WE CAN GET ON AN AREA, AS HAGEN HAS INDICATED WILL BE ALWAYS CONTENTIOUS.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME TO KNOW THAT THE BUDGET HAS CONSENSUS.
SO I'M URGING YOU TO TAKE PART IN THE DISCUSSION WHEN IT COMES UP AT A LATER STAGE.
THANKS.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PETER.
IS THERE A COMMENT FROM THE FLOOR?
>>MARCUS FAURE: I'M MARCUS FAURE, AND I'M WITH CORE COUNCIL OF REGISTRARS.
AND THERE'S ONE SPECIFIC ISSUE ABOUT THE BUDGET THAT I NEED TO KEEP HAMMERING, AND THAT IS THE 75-CENT-PER-DOMAIN REGISTRY FEE.
IT NOW CRYSTALLIZES THAT ICANN WANTS ALL GTLD REGISTRIES TO PAY THOSE FEE.
WHILE THIS SOLVES THE ISSUE OF EQUALITY AMONG REGISTRIES, IT WILL ALSO MEAN THAT ICANN WILL END UP ON A $50 MILLION BUDGET, AT LEAST.
AND I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
WE ARE WORKING WITH YOU IN THE BUDGET COMMITTEE BECAUSE WE THINK THAT WE ALREADY HAVE CERTAIN AREAS WHERE THE MONEY IS NOT PROPERLY SPENT.
BUT I WANT TO EXPRESS THAT WE HAVE PUT FORWARD A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS AND WANT TO PROVIDE INPUT FOR THAT PROCESS, BUT, ACTUALLY, THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE REMAIN UNANSWERED FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW.
INSTEAD, WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS THAT THE ICANN STAFF CONTACTED THE REGISTRARS AND ASKED THEM, "OH, COULD YOU PLEASE APPROVE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET."
AND IF WE TALK ABOUT REGAINING TRUST, THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO GO FORWARD.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU.
IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT, I'M GOING TO GO ON TO THE NEXT REPORT AND CALL UPON NJERI RIONGE, WHO CHAIRS THE AUDIT COMMITTEE.
NJERI.
>>NJERI RIONGE: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
I JUST HIGHLIGHT WHO THE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE ARE.
AND THEY ARE RAIMUNDO BECA, VENI MARKOVSKI, AND JOICHI ITO, AND MYSELF AS CHAIR.
THE AUDIT COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED THE ACTION POINTS AND SUGGESTIONS OF THE LAST MEETING, HELD IN MAR DEL PLATA IN ARGENTINA.
FURTHER TO THE ACTION POINTS OF OUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS, WE HAVE REVIEWED IN THIS LUXEMBOURG MEETING AND UPDATED THE SCHEDULES FOR ALL THE DELIVERABLES WITH DEFINITE TIME LINES IN ORDER TO MEET ICANN'S EXPECTATIONS SET WITHIN THE MANDATE OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE.
OVERVIEW OF THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE AUDITORS.
THE AUDIT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT AFTER FIVE AUDITS BY KPMG, NEW AUDITORS BE ENGAGED.
AFTER INTERVIEWING SEVERAL CANDIDATES, MOSS ADAMS WAS CHOSEN AS THE AUDITOR FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 05-06.
THE MANAGEMENT WAS INSTRUCTED TO NEGOTIATE AN ENGAGEMENT LETTER WITH MOSS ADAMS.
THE LETTER HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AND MANAGEMENT AND MEETS THE NEEDS OF STAFF AND ICANN AS A WHOLE.
THE AUDIT COMMITTEE HAS APPROVED THE ENGAGEMENT LETTER.
HOWEVER, THE MANAGEMENT MUST PUT IN PLACE MEASURES TO CONFORM TO THEIR REQUIREMENTS.
WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT THIS IS IN PLACE, BUT CAUTION SHOULD BE TAKEN THROUGH THE MAKING SURE THAT WE ACHIEVE THE ORIGINAL OBJECTIVES OF MAXIMIZING ON THE NEW AUDIT FIRM'S OUTPUT ON THEIR EXPERTISE.
THE AUDIT COMMITTEE RESOLVED DURING THE JUNE 28TH, 2005 MEETING -- THE BOARD RESOLVED DURING THE JUNE 28TH, 2005 MEETING, THAT PAUL TWOMEY ENTER INTO ENGAGEMENT.
IN ADDITION, ICANN IS DEVELOPING AN ORIENTATION BRIEF FOR THE AUDITORS DESCRIBING ICANN'S ROLES, OPERATIONS, AND OTHER INFORMATION NECESSARY TO EFFECTIVELY AND KNOWLEDGEABLY CONDUCT THE AUDIT.
THIS WILL HELP GREATLY IN REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THEIR ENGAGEMENT LETTER, WHERE THEY HAVE CLEARLY DEFINED THEIR ROLE AND OBJECTIVES.
THE BRIEF WILL DESCRIBE OUR EXPECTATIONS IN THE RESPONSE TO THIS AGREEMENT -- OR THIS AGREEMENT.
DURING THE EVALUATION PROCESS, THE ICANN BOARD RAISED CONCERNS ON THE ISSUES RELATED TO THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION QUESTION.
MANAGEMENT CONFIRMED THAT THE MOSS ADAMS LLP SENT A REVISED COPY INDICATING THAT CALIFORNIA WAS THE FORUM FOR DISPUTES.
WE PLAN TO BEGIN THE AUDIT PROCESS CLOSELY AFTER INVOICES ARE SENT FOR THE PERIOD OF CLOSING JUNE 30TH.
THESE INVOICES WILL BE SENT ABOUT THE 1ST OF AUGUST DUE TO THE TIME REQUIREMENT TO RECEIVE THE DATA FROM GTLD REGISTRIES.
AT THE DIRECTION OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, THE STAFF HAS PREPARED THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE NEW FINANCIAL CONTROL MODEL, WHICH MORE ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE MATURING OF THE ORGANIZATION AND HAS SPECIFIC DELIVERABLES BY WHICH PERFORMANCE CAN BE MEASURED.
ICANN PROPOSED INTERNAL FINANCIAL CONTROLS WILL IDENTIFY KEY RESPONSIBILITY AREAS IN ORDER TO MEASURE AND IMPROVE FINANCIAL CONTROL OPERATIONS.
EACH OF THE 48 KEY RESPONSIBILITY AREAS DESCRIBES THE CRITERIA BY WHICH EACH ACTIVITY IS TO BE MEASURED AND THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THE MEASUREMENT IS TO TAKE PLACE.
ICANN IS USING THIS SAME METHODOLOGY THROUGHOUT THE ORGANIZATION.
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCES ARE IDENTIFYING KEY RESPONSIBILITY AREAS THAT EACH FUNCTIONAL AREA AND EACH EMPLOYEE WILL DEVELOP -- KEY RESULT AREAS WILL FLOW DOWN FROM GENERAL REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS IN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN.
IN THAT MANNER, CHANGES IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN OVER TIME WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE TRANSLATED IN MEASURABLE KEY RESPONSIBILITY AREAS.
LIKEWISE, ACCOMPLISHING THE KEY RESPONSIBILITY AREAS WILL DIRECTLY LEAD TO THE FULFILLMENT OF OBJECTIVES DESCRIBED IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
THE COMMITTEE IS REVIEWING THIS DRAFT PLAN AND WILL PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE STAFF BEFORE LEAVING LUXEMBOURG IN PREPARATION FOR FINALIZING THIS DOCUMENT.
THE NEXT STEP WILL BE PREPARING THE PROCESS DOCUMENTS DESCRIBING EXPECTED PERFORMANCE.
THE AUDIT FOR FISCAL 03-04, CONDUCTED BY KPMG, IS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETED.
AUDITORS HAVE BEEN IN RECEIPT OF ALL THE MATERIALS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THEIR WORK.
KPMG HAS DELIVERED A DRAFT AUDIT WHICH HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AND RETURNED TO THE KPMG FOR FINAL PUBLICATION.
THE AUDIT REPORT WILL RECOMMEND A REVISION OF THE BAD DEBT RESERVE TO REFLECT THE OUTSTANDING ADDRESS REGISTRY RECEIVABLES.
THERE WERE NO OTHER MATERIAL ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO THE ICANN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
KPMG SENT THE FINAL REPORT THIS MORNING.
ICANN WILL POST THE AUDIT UPON REVIEW.
WE WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY IN FINALIZING LAST YEAR'S FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
WE ARE INFORMED THAT THIS -- IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
IN AREAS OF BANKING, ICANN IS SOLICITING PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE BANKING SERVICES.
THE PURPOSE OF THE SOLICITATION IS TO IMPROVE SERVICES TO ICANN LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, PARTICULARLY TO FACILITATE PAYMENT ON INVOICES AND PAYROLL, AND IMPROVE RETURN ON CASH ON DEMAND.
ON THE SCOPE OF THE AUDIT CHARTER, WHICH ALEJANDRO MENTIONED EARLIER IN HIS REPORT, WE, THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, HAVE PREPARED AND PROPOSED A CHANGE IN THE CURRENT AUDIT BYLAWS.
IT IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW WITHIN THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE.
WE WOULD APPRECIATE COMMENTS FROM THE FORUM PARTICIPANTS WITH THEIR VIEWS OF HOW THEY SEE THE AUDIT FUNCTION WORKING.
THE COMMITTEE IS COMMITTED TO MEETING THE ACTION PLANS FOR THIS YEAR, '05/'06, WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL OFFER THE ICANN BOARD, STAFF, AND COMMUNITY AT LARGE SUPPORT AS PER THE ICANN BYLAWS.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, NJERI.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR NJERI ON THE AUDIT REPORT?
MICHAEL.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION BUT MORE OF A STATEMENT.
THERE HAS BEEN SOME DIALOGUE ON THE BOARD LIST REGARDING THE EXPANDED ROLE OR DEFINITION OF THE SCOPE OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE.
AND I'D LIKE TO SUPPORT WHAT NJERI HAS BEEN PROPOSING VIA THE BOARD LIST.
I THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT MECHANISM AND, AGAIN, PROVIDES AN ADDITIONAL CHECK AND BALANCE.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MICHAEL, I THINK IF THE BOARD CONCURS, IT WILL BE ABLE TO OUTLINE WHAT THOSE AUDIT ELEMENTS ARE SO EVERYONE ELSE CAN SEE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS POINT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, NJERI.
THE NEXT REPORT -- I KNOW I'M CONFUSED ABOUT SOMETHING.
YES, I'M SORRY.
FINANCE COMMITTEE, YOU ALREADY MADE YOUR REPORT, DIDN'T YOU?
>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: YES.
THE CHAIRMAN -- I THOUGHT YOU DID IT --
>>VINT CERF: I DID IT OUT OF ORDER BY ACCIDENT.
>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: AUDIT ALWAYS COMES AFTER FINANCE, AND THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE REASONABLE.
>>VINT CERF: IT'S SIMPLY CERF NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT HE'S DOING.
APOLOGIES.
IN THAT CASE, THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM KURT PRITZ.
AND THIS IS TO DISCUSS THE ACTUAL BUDGET IN MORE DETAIL THAN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT.

>>KURT PRITZ: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THIS REPORT IS INTENDED TO COMPLEMENT AND AUGMENT THE REPORT JUST GIVEN BY HAGEN HULTZSCH.
>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: I'M CONFUSED.
DID YOU WANT ME TO SAY SOMETHING OR --
>>KURT PRITZ: NO, NO.
I WAS JUST WAITING FOR THE -- FOR THE REPORT TO COME UP ON THE SCREEN.
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THE STRATEGIC PLANNING CONSULTATIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, YOU'LL KNOW THAT AN UNINTENDED BENEFIT OF THOSE CONSULTATIONS WAS THAT ICANN DEVELOPED A PLANNING CALENDAR THAT IS ESSENTIALLY BROKEN UP INTO TWO SIX-MONTH PLANNING CYCLES. THERE IS A STRATEGIC PLANNING CYCLE WHERE ICANN WILL ROLL IT'S STRATEGIC PLAN THROUGH ANOTHER YEAR, AND THAT CYCLE THAT COMMENCED ESSENTIALLY WITH THIS MEETING WITH A SERIES OF CONSULTATIONS, AND WILL EXTEND THROUGH DECEMBER. AND THEN THE OTHER HALF OF THE PLANNING CALENDAR IS THE OPERATIONAL PLANNING AND BUDGET PLANNING PORTION OF THE YEAR, WHICH IS A ONE-YEAR PLANNING WINDOW, AND THAT TAKES PLACE FROM JANUARY THROUGH JUNE.
THOSE OF YOU FAMILIAR WITH ICANN BUDGETS IN THE PAST RECALL THAT IT'S QUITE A BIT OF PROSE DESCRIBING WHAT ICANN IS GOING TO DO FOLLOWED BY SPREADSHEETS WITH NUMBERS THAT COMPRISE THE EXPENSE AND REVENUE PORTIONS OF THE BUDGET. THIS YEAR THE PLAN HAS BEEN AUGMENTED SOMEWHAT, AND THAT PROSE HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A MORE OPERATIONAL PLAN WHEREBY A SERIES OF SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ARE LAID OUT AND TOES OBJECTIVES ARE TIED TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND DESCRIBED WITH ENOUGH SPECIFICITY TO ENABLE AN END OF THE YEAR REPORT.
THIS IS INTENDED TO BE AN IMPROVEMENT AND THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE DETAIL WILL BE INCREASED IN FUTURE YEARS.
SO THIS YEAR, BECAUSE THESE PLANNING CYCLES WERE JUST BEING IMPLEMENTED, WE WERE HAVING STRATEGIC PLANNING DISCUSSIONS IN PARALLEL WITH THE CURRENT YEAR BUDGET PLANNING DISCUSSIONS. BUT AS THE SLIDE FROM HAGEN INDICATED, WE HAD INTERACTIONS WITH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP, DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCY GROUPS. WE PUBLISHED THE PROPOSED BUDGET ON THE 17TH OF MAY, AND THEN WENT THROUGH ANOTHER SERIES OF CONSULTATIONS.
WHILE THIS BUDGET WORK WAS GOING ON AND THE OPERATIONAL PLANNING WAS GOING ON, WE WERE ALSO ALTERING THE STRATEGIC PLAN SOMEWHAT, AND AS A RESULT OF THOSE CONSULTATIONS, AND THEN THOSE CHANGES TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN FED INTO THE OPERATIONAL PLAN.
SOMEWHAT CONFUSING, BUT NOW THAT OUR SIX-MONTH PLANNING CALENDARS ARE SET, THE PROCESS WILL BE SOMEWHAT MORE COHERENT IN THE FUTURE.
SO THE OPERATIONAL PLAN IS THIS ONE YEAR PLAN BASED ON THE FOUR PRIORITIES SET OUT IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN. AND THE OPERATIONAL PLAN IS POSTED ON THE NET. IT'S BEEN POSTED FOR COMMENTS, AND THOSE COMMENTS CAN BE FOUND AT THE URL INDICATED THERE.
THROUGHOUT THE BUDGETING PROCESS AND OPERATIONAL PLANNING PROCESS, WE RECEIVED QUESTIONS FROM MANY QUARTERS, THROUGH CONSTITUENCY MEETINGS WITH REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS, THROUGH CONSTITUENCY MEETINGS WITH OTHER CONSTITUENCIES, THROUGH THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP, AND ALSO -- I GUESS THAT'S ABOUT IT. OH, THE PUBLIC COMMENT FORUM. THAT'S IT. AND SO ICANN RESPONSES TO THOSE QUESTIONS AND ANY CHANGES MADE TO THE FORM OR SUBSTANCE OF THE BUDGET ARE POSTED AT THAT WEB SITE DOWN THERE.
AS I STATED, THE OPERATIONAL PLAN IS TIED TO THE FOUR STRATEGIC PRIORITIES IN THE -- THE OPERATIONAL PLAN IS TIED TO THE FOUR STRATEGIC PRIORITIES SET OUT IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN. TOO MUCH "STRATEGIC" THERE.
THIS IS JUST A SAMPLING OF THE GOALS. MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES, MAYBE NOT. THAT ARE ROLLED OUT IN THAT OPERATIONAL PLAN.
THE OPERATIONAL PLAN AS A WHOLE, THAT COMPRISES THE GOALS WE THINK WE CAN COMMIT TO BEING ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS FISCAL YEAR AND ALSO ONES THAT WE'LL BE WORKING ON BUT WILL BE FINAL IN OTHER FISCAL YEARS. THE TOTAL OF THOSE GOALS IS OVER 100. THESE ARE SOME OF THOSE; CERTAINLY THAT HAVE BEEN THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AT THIS MEETING AND OTHER MEETINGS. AND THAT'S DEPLOYMENT OF IDNS, THE CREATION OF A STANDING TECHNICAL PANEL TO REVIEW PROPOSALS FOR NEW REGISTRY SERVICES IN A TRANSPARENT AND TIMELY MANNER. SUPPORTING THE DEPLOYMENT, ULTIMATE DEPLOYMENT, OF DNSSEC. ADDRESSING REGISTRY FAIL-OVER SITUATIONS AND PROTECTING THE INTEREST OF REGISTRANTS. SIMILARLY, ENSURING PROPER DATA ESCROW IMPLEMENTATION AT REGISTRARS AND PROTECTING THE INTEREST OF REGISTRANTS. AND CORROBORATING WITH ROOT SERVER OPERATORS AND WORKING TOGETHER.
WITH REGARD TO PROMOTING COMPETITION AND CHOICE, ICANN WILL CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT ITS FULL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAM. WE'RE ALSO WORKING WITH SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO DETERMINE THE WAY IN WHICH WE SHOULD IMPLEMENT THE STRATEGY FOR THE DESIGNATION OF NEW GTLDS.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO FACILITATE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY. WE WILL WRAP UP THE STLD ROUND THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR QUITE SOME TIME. WE ARE IMPROVING OUR CUSTOMER SERVICE IN MANY AREAS. WE'RE AUGMENTING OUR REGISTRAR AND REGISTRY LIAISON FUNCTIONS, ADDING AT LEAST THREE POSITIONS IN THOSE AREAS COMBINED. AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE WILL BE IN THE BRUSSELS OFFICE.
AND WE'LL IMPLEMENT THE PROCESS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF NEW REGISTRY SERVICES.
THERE'S ALSO SEVERAL OBJECTIVES SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY.
WE SEEK TO IMPROVE OUR MODEL FOR WORKING WITH THE GAC. WE'RE CONDUCTING A REVIEW AND DESCRIBING A PLAN FOR IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ICANN INTERACTION WITH ALAC.
THE GNSO EVALUATION PROCESS WAS STARTED LAST YEAR AND WILL CONTINUE THROUGH THIS YEAR THROUGH A DIFFERENT PHASE.
WE'RE LOOKING TO SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENT THE GNSO POLICY THAT'S DEVELOPED REGARDING THE WHOIS TASK FORCES OR COMING FROM THE WHOIS TASK FORCES.
WE'RE CONTINUING TO GUIDE THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT OF IP -- DISTRIBUTION OF IPV6 ADDRESS SPACE, AND WE'RE LOOKING TO WORK WITH THE RIRS AND EXECUTE SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS WITH THEM.
AND FINALLY, REGARDING SUPPORTING GLOBAL PARTICIPATION, GLOBAL STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN THE INTERNET, WE'LL AUGMENT OUR TRAINING AND EDUCATION TO USERS OF IANA SERVICES, AND PARTICULARLY THINGS SUCH AS EDUCATION OF CC MANAGERS AS TO IANA SERVICES. WE WILL CONTINUE THE BUILDING OF AN AT LARGE NETWORK AND MOVING TOWARDS THE CREATION OF RALOS, REGIONAL AT-LARGE ORGANIZATIONS.
WE WILL MAKE THE ICANN WEB SITE USER FRIENDLY, MORE USER FRIENDLY, BUT ALSO CONTINUE TO AUGMENT OR TRANSLATION EFFORTS IN THOSE AREAS. AND THAT GOES TO THE LAST ONE, TOO.
THESE, LIKE I SAY, ARE A SAMPLE OF IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES FOR NEXT YEAR. I INVITE YOU TO VISIT THE BUDGET ON THE ICANN WEB SITE AT THE URL STATED EARLIER AND REVIEW THE OBJECTIVES. AND I ALSO INVITE YOU TO COMMENT IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT FORUM REGARDING THAT.
EACH OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN WRITTEN SO THAT IT CAN BE SUBDIVIDED INTO SCHEDULED MILESTONES. AND EACH OBJECTIVE HAS AN OWNER, SO WE'RE MANAGING EACH OBJECTIVE AS A MINI PROJECT OR A REGULAR PROJECT IN OUR LARGER CASES. AND THAT WILL ALLOW US TO PROVIDE TO THE COMMUNITY AT THE CLOSE OF THE FISCAL YEAR A PERFORMANCE REPORT AGAINST EACH OF THE OBJECTIVES.
THE REVENUE PLAN FOR THE YEAR IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF LAST YEAR. WE'VE PROPOSED TO THE GTLD REGISTRARS A FEE STRUCTURE THAT IS THE SAME AS LAST YEAR, AND THAT IS A 25 CENT PER TRANSACTION FEE. A $3.8 MILLION FEE ALLOCATED TO ALL REGISTRARS. AT THE TIME OF THIS WRITING IF YOU WERE TO DIVIDE THAT FEE BY THE NUMBER OF REGISTRARS, IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $7900, U.S., PER REGISTRAR.
THE REGISTRARS STILL PAY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE FEES, AND IT'S LESS THIS YEAR, BUT ICANN WILL CONTINUE TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF FUNDING AND DIVERSIFY OUR SOURCES OF FUNDING TO CREATE A MORE SOUND BUSINESS MODEL.
GTLD REGISTRY FEES ARE GROWING AS CONTRACTS EXPIRE. A PORTION OF THESE FEES ARE DEDICATED TO TWO SEPARATE AREAS. ONE IS SECURITY AND STABILITY PROJECTS AND THE OTHER ARE GLOBAL INTERNET COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PROJECTS. THE INCREASED FUNDING ALLOWS US TO TARGET THOSE AREAS. IN ADDITION, THE CREATION OF NEW STLDS, YOU'LL LEARN MORE ABOUT THOSE LATER, BUT .MOBI, .TRAVEL AND .JOBS, HAVE SIGNED AGREEMENTS FOR THE DESIGNATION OF NEW REGISTRIES, WILL CONTRIBUTE FEES.
THE CCNSO IS ACTIVELY COLLABORATING WITH ICANN AND HAS SOUGHT OUR ADVICE REGARDING THE CREATION OF A FEE STRUCTURE IN PARTICULAR ASKING US TO IDENTIFY ALL AREAS IN WHICH COUNTRY CODE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS BENEFIT FROM THE PRESENCE AND MISSION OF ICANN.
AND WE ALSO REMAIN IN DISCUSSION WITH THE RIRS REGARDING FEES.
THIS IS THE SLIDE HAGEN SHOWED YOU EARLIER DIVIDING UP THE EXPENDITURES BY STRATEGIC PRIORITY.
WE THOUGHT AS A WAY OF PROVIDING DETAIL, TRADITIONALLY IN THE ICANN BUDGET WE ONLY PRESENT DETAIL REGARDING, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH FOR PERSONNEL, HOW MUCH FOR TRAVEL AND SO ON. AND THE USES OF THOSE FUNDS IS SOMEWHAT VAGUE.
WE'VE ALLOCATED THOSE FUNDS ACROSS THE FOUR AREAS OF THE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AS AN EXERCISE TO SEE HOW -- WELL, TO SEE HOW INSTRUCTIVE THAT MIGHT BE.
WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS NOT SURPRISING, AND THAT IS PERSONNEL EXPENSE IS PRETTY WELL PROPORTIONAL TO THE PERCENT SPENDING IN EACH OF THE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES. TRAVEL, NOT SURPRISINGLY, IS MORE HEAVILY WEIGHTED TOWARD GLOBAL PARTICIPATION WHERE OUTREACH ACTIVITIES ARE CONCERNED AND ALSO POLICY SUPPORT WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF INTERACTION WITH CCS.
ADMINISTRATION IS PRIMARILY OVERHEAD EXPENSE.
AND I'LL SAY A WORD ABOUT OVERHEAD EXPENSE IN A MINUTE.
RETAINED EXPERTISE IS WHERE WE HIRE OUTSIDE FIRMS, WHERE WE DETERMINE THAT IT'S MORE ECONOMICAL FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO DO A TASK OR TAKE ON A PROJECT THAN ICANN STAFF BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF SKILLS OR NOT.
AND THEN FINALLY, CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ARE, YOU KNOW, RELATIVELY LARGE EXPENDITURES BECAUSE WE'RE NOT FOR PROFIT. THE DEFINITION OF A CAPITAL HERE DOES NOT MATCH THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF CAPITAL, BUT YOU SEE THAT OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS TYPICALLY GO TO IMPROVING THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WILL TEND ENSURE THE SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE DNS OR THEY GO TO THE OVERHEAD WHERE THEY WILL TEND TO ENSURE THE SECURITY AND STABILITY OF ICANN OPERATIONS.
THE COMMENT I HAD TO MAKE ABOUT OVERHEAD IS THAT THESE OVERHEAD NUMBERS ARE NOT TRADITIONAL OVERHEAD NUMBERS BUT, INSTEAD, IN SOME CASES THEY ARE, IN SOME CASES WE HAVE EXPENDITURES THAT BENEFIT ALL FOUR AREAS OR ALL FOUR STRATEGIC PRIORITIES EQUALLY. AND SO WE'VE LEFT THEM IN A POT THAT WE CALL OVERHEAD THERE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY IN THE OTHER AREAS.
SO THESE NUMBERS WILL BE POSTED, AND I WELCOME QUESTIONS OR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THEM OR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE FURTHER DETAIL.

I THOUGHT IT ALSO WOULD BE INSTRUCTIVE TO LOOK AT THE SPENDING BY STRATEGIC PRIORITY OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS. WE SEE IN THIS FISCAL YEAR MORE OF THE MONEY GOES TO PROMOTING SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE DNS. IN EACH CASE IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THERE'S SOME CONCLUSIONS TO BE NOTED FROM THAT.
ONE IS THAT IN EACH CASE OF FUNDING HERE, ABSOLUTE FUNDING HAS GONE UP, SO EVEN THOUGH THE RELATIVE PERCENTAGE OF PROMOTING COMPETITION HAS DECREASED SOMEWHAT, WE'RE ACTUALLY SPENDING MORE ON PROMOTING COMPETITION AND FACILITATING THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW SERVICES THIS YEAR THAN IN PREVIOUS YEARS.
THIS IS PARTICULARLY SO BECAUSE, AS I DESCRIBED EARLIER, ICANN HAS SET ASIDE PARTICULAR FUNDS TO PROMOTE, TO ENSURE SECURITY AND STABILITY, AND ALSO IN THE WAY OF GLOBAL STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FUNDS. SO THE FEEDBACK THAT PROMOTING COMPETITION REMAIN THAT HIGH PERCENTAGE IS AN INDICATOR THAT ICANN IS DEDICATED TO THAT ONE LINE ITEM.
SO THOSE ARE TWO OF THE CONCLUSIONS THAT I WOULD DRAW FROM THAT.
A THIRD CONCLUSION IS THAT THE INCREASED SPENDING IN THE AREAS OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT AND GLOBAL STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION BENEFITS COUNTRY CODE REGISTRIES. AND SO IT'S, THEREFORE, A SUBJECT OF THE DISCOURSE WE'RE HAVING WITH ICANN AND THE CCNSO REGARDING POTENTIAL FEE STRUCTURE.
WE THINK THESE ARE AREAS WHERE THE ICANN MODEL PROVIDES DIRECT BENEFIT.
WE'RE ALSO LOOK FOR WAYS TO IMPROVE THE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS. IN PARTICULAR, WE'RE ENGAGED IN AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE EFFICACY OF THAT PROCESS.
SO THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS, MR. CHAIRMAN. DO YOU WANT ME TO STAY HERE AND TAKE QUESTIONS OR --
>>VINT CERF: YES, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO THAT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT FROM THE FLOOR OR FROM THE BOARD ON THE BUDGET PRESENTATION?
ALEX.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: KURT, YOU DID A VERY, I THINK, GOOD JOB IN EXPLAINING THE MEANING OF OVERHEAD WHICH STRIKES ME AS QUITE NONCONVENTIONAL.
OVERHEAD IS PRESENTED AS LARGE LINE ITEM IN THE TABLE YOU PRESENTED, YET I GUESS I HAVE A LANGUAGE PROBLEM HERE, NOT BEING A NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER, BEING POORLY TRAINED IN WRITTEN AND SPOKEN FORMS OF IT.
OVERHEAD IS READ AS SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT A LARGE PART OF WHAT YOU ARE SPENDING THERE MEANS, WHICH IS BROAD, GENERAL KINDS OF SUPPORT FOR SERIOUS WORK. IT'S NOT JUST MOVING THE PAPERS AROUND, MAKING SURE THAT EVERYTHING GETS PROPERLY RECORDED WHEN PREPARING FOR AN AUDIT AND SO FORTH. YOU'RE ACTUALLY DOING A LOT OF EXPERT WORK AND YOU'RE DOING SUBSTANTIVE PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL FORA, LIKE WITH THE TRAVEL THING, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'RE DOING INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS. I DON'T READ THAT AS OVERHEAD. THAT'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT STANDS BELOW THE ORGANIZATION, NOT ON TOP OF IT.
>>KURT PRITZ: YEAH, I AGREE, AND PERHAPS I COULD HAVE CHOSEN A BETTER TERM. AN EXAMPLE OF THAT IS THE MEETING EXPENSE THAT WE HAVE HERE SITS IN THAT CHART IN OVERHEAD BECAUSE WE THINK THAT THE MEETINGS BENEFIT ALL FOUR OF THOSE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES. AND SO WE TOOK THEM OUT OF THE SPECIFIC STRATEGIC PRIORITY DISCUSSION.
>>VINT CERF: SO, KURT, I WOULD SUGGEST GIVEN ALEX'S OBSERVATION THAT YOU RETHINK THE LEVEL OF DETAIL AND BE A LITTLE MORE CLEAR ABOUT HOW THOSE OVERHEAD FUNDS REALLY ARE ALLOCATED.
I THINK I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR AND ONE FROM THE BOARD. MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I GUESS I HAVE AN OVERALL QUESTION AND THAT IS I DO TAKE TO HEART A COMMENT THAT ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS MADE EARLIER ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT THIS DISCUSSION IS AND I DON'T SEE A LONG QUEUE OF PEOPLE BEHIND ME, WHICH CONCERNS ME BECAUSE I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE DIALOGUE. I HAVE READ THE BUDGET SLASH OPERATIONAL PLAN IN GREAT DETAIL AND HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. ONE THING THAT I SAW IN YOUR PRESENTATION, KURT, WAS INFORMATION THAT I HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR. THERE ARE TWO POWERPOINTS THAT YOU SHARED HERE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. I HEARD THE PERCENTAGE BEFORE ON HOW MUCH MONEY IS BEING SPENT ON DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE SEEN THE AMOUNTS AND I HAVE SEEN THE AMOUNTS IN A POWERPOINT SLIDE AND NOT A DOCUMENT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANYWHERE ON THE ICANN SITE. NOW, I'M MAYBE NOT THAT EXPERT A USER OF THE ICANN SITE SO SOMEBODY COULD POINT ME TO IT, BUT THAT'S NOT EVEN ENOUGH DETAIL FOR US TO HAVE A FACTUAL CONVERSATION IN OR!
DER FOR US TO SAY OKAY, I FEEL COMFORTABLE WHEN I LOOK AT THE OPERATIONAL PLAN THAT IT'S GOING TO GUIDE THE BUDGET ON -- TAKE, FOR INSTANCE, ONE HEADING, THERE ARE 18 SUB-ELEMENTS, NINE OF THEM ARE UNDERWAY, ANOTHER FEW ARE PLANNED. I CAN'T TELL HOW MUCH OF THE MONEY IN THAT BUDGET, THE AMOUNTS OF WHICH I SAW IN A POWERPOINT SLIDE, FIT TO THOSE 18 ELEMENTS.
HOW DO I GET TO THAT LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING? BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT THAT WE ALL SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD ON THIS BUDGET AND I'D LIKE TO DO THAT. HOW DO I GET TO THAT LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING?
I DO NOT WANT A LOT OF DETAIL, BUT I NEED HEADLINE NEWS.
>>KURT PRITZ: THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: LET ME TAKE THIS OTHER QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR AND THEN I'LL TAKE MOUHAMET, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP; IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY. THANK YOU.
>>DANIEL KARRENBERG: I'D LIKE TO ECHO WHAT MARILYN JUST SAID. I LOOKED AT THE BUDGET AS WELL, AND IT'S MAINLY STRUCTURED -- THE EXPENDITURE SIDE, IT'S MAINLY STRUCTURED AROUND INTERNAL ORGANIZATION, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BOARD AND THE STAFF FOR THE NEXT BUDGET TO ACTUALLY INCLUDE THE STUFF THAT WAS ON THE POWERPOINT SLIDES WHEN THE BUDGET IS FIRST PRESENTED, BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT'S QUITE MEANINGLESS.
MORE DETAILED POINT, I SAW ON ONE OF YOUR FIRST SLIDES THAT -- IT'S A MORE DETAILED THING -- LANGUAGE THAT SAID CORROBORATING WITH ROOT SERVER OPERATORS. AND I MAY HAVE, AS ALEJANDRO, A LANGUAGE PROBLEM HERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. TELL ME WHAT THAT MEANS. NUMBER TWO, WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC BUDGET LINE THAT'S THERE AND WHAT THESE FUNDS ARE GOING TO BE SPENT ON.
>>KURT PRITZ: I'M SORRY; COULD YOU REPEAT THE SECOND HALF OF YOUR QUESTION?
>>DANIEL KARRENBERG: THE SECOND HALF OF MY QUESTION, ON THE THIRD SLIDE, IT SAID IN PROMOTING SECURITY AND STABILITY, THE LAST BULLET POINT SAID CORROBORATING WITH ROOT SERVER OPERATORS. BEING A ROOT SERVER OPERATOR, THAT WORRIES ME BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. AND THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION IS PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IT MEANS. THAT'S THE FIRST PART OF THE QUESTION. THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION TELL ME WHAT SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE IS IN THE BUDGET AND WHAT IS GOING TO BE USED FOR ADDRESSING THIS POINT.
>>VINT CERF: KURT, BEFORE YOU ANSWER, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET A USEFUL ANSWER. IT'S NOT JUST THE DOLLARS, I THINK, THAT YOU WANTED TO KNOW BUT WHAT IS IT THAT YOU'RE SPENDING IT ON. WHAT'S THE NATURE OF THE COOPERATION.
>>DANIEL KARRENBERG: $5 IS NOT AN ANSWER.
>>VINT CERF: YES, EXACTLY.
BY THE WAY, I HOPE YOU WOULDN'T WANT US TO NOT COOPERATE WITH YOU.
>>DANIEL KARRENBERG: IT SAID CORROBORATE. THAT'S THE THING THAT WORRIES ME.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. BASICALLY, I THINK IT'S TWO PARTS. ONE IS SUPPORTING ONGOING DISCUSSIONS THAT JOHN CRAIN AND OTHERS SUPPORTING, WHERE IT'S NECESSARY, SUZANNE. SO PART OF IT IS SUPPORTING JOHN CRAIN, AND WHERE APPLICABLE, SUZANNE IN JUST THE PARTICIPATION THEY HAVE WITHIN THAT COMMUNITY. AND THAT INCLUDES TRAVEL ISSUES, IT INCLUDES ATTENDANCE ISSUES, IT INCLUDES THE THINGS YOU'RE AWARE.
IT ALSO IS ALSO FOR A PROVISION FOR POTENTIAL SUPPORT OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT I UNDERSTAND ARE HAPPENING IN THE -- IN MY (INAUDIBLE) SERVER OPERATOR POTENTIALLY ABOUT ARRANGEMENTS. THAT'S BASICALLY IT. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO SORT OF MAIN FOCUS. OTHER ASPECTS L-ROOT AND OTHER ARE SEPARATE TO IT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY -- THERE'S NO PROJECT PLANNING FOR ANY SORT OF OTHER -- I WAS GOING TO BE FACETIOUS AND SAY -- BUT I WON'T BE. THERE'S NOTHING ELSE SORT OF PLANNED APART FROM THOSE TWO ACTIVITIES.
OKAY?
>>DANIEL KARRENBERG: OKAY. SO I TAKE IT THAT WAS MICROSOFT HELPING, TURNING COOPERATE INTO CORROBORATE. OR IS CORROBORATE A NEW WORD --
>>PAUL TWOMEY: I SUPPOSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE COLLABORATE AS OPPOSED TO --
>>DANIEL KARRENBERG: FINE.
>>VINT CERF: NOW WE CAN BLAME BILL GATES.
LET ME TAKE THE QUESTION FROM MOUHAMET AND THEN ONE FROM THE FLOOR.
MOUHAMET.
>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VINT.
I WANT TO ASK TWO QUESTION. THE FIRST ONE IS RELATED TO THE SHIFT FROM ONE ITEM IN THE -- ABOUT THE BUDGET, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IDN IN THE BUDGET. THE ONLY PLACE IN WHICH I SEE THAT ITEM IS ON THE SECURITY AND STABILITY. THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING. FOR ME, IT HAVE TO COME UNDER PROMOTE COMPETITION AND CHOICES. AND WE HAVE ANOTHER UNDERSTANDING WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT. AND WHEN I LOOK AT WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF BUDGET DEDICATED TO THAT ACTIVITY, IT'S VERY LOW. AND I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS A GOOD SIGNAL FROM ICANN TO THE COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND MORE MONEY ON PROMOTING COMPETITION AND CHOICE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IDN AND NOT AS A STABILITY AND SECURITY AND STABILITY PURPOSES, BECAUSE WE STAND VERY CLEARLY THAT MIDDLE ENVIRONMENT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO WORK ON IT AND TRY TO MAKE THE COMMUNITY MUCH MORE INVOLVED IN SEEING ICANN IS TAKING CARE OF THAT DESIRE.
THE SECOND COMMENT IS ABOUT THE RESERVE FOR THE FUTURE.
I HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST THAT ICANN HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC FUND FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES OR IN AREAS WHERE THEY HAVE DIFFICULTY TO GET ACCESS. AND I JUST WANT TO ECHO THAT IT'S NOT LIKE BEGGING ANYTHING. IT'S JUST WE ARE IN A VERY AMAZING BUSINESS WHERE IF WE TRY TO PROMOTE THINGS IN AN AREA WHERE WE DON'T HAVE CONNECTIVITY, WE'RE JUST GOING TO STRENGTH OUR COMMUNITY OF INTERNET IN PLACE, LIKE THE ISP, THE REGISTRAR, AND ALL THIS STUFF.
SO IT'S A WIN-WIN SITUATION, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS TO SEE IN THE DYNAMIC OF HAVING RESERVE IN THE APPROACH OF THE BUDGET, I ECHO THAT. I MEAN, LIKE REGISTRAR AND REGISTRY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO SEE THIS FUND DEDICATED IN THIS AREA WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE FUTURE BUSINESS BECAUSE THE POTENTIAL IS THERE.
SO I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO ENFORCE THAT IDEA THAT ICANN CAN HAVE A SPECIFIC DEDICATED FUND TO HAVE THE INTERNET SPREAD OUT IN AREAS WHERE THEY HAVE DIFFICULTIES TO GET ACCESS.
WE DID NOT DISCUSS IN DETAIL WHAT TYPE OF PROGRAM OR WHAT SORT OF ACTION THIS SPECIFIC FUND WILL BE DEDICATED, BUT I REALLY ECHO THAT. IT WAS A GREAT IDEA, AND IT HAVE BEEN ECHO IN A VERY GOOD WAY BY ALL PEOPLE WHO HEARD ABOUT IT, AND I THINK THAT IT'S TIME FOR US TO TRY TO THINK HOW WE CAN PREPARE THIS FUND TO BE CAPITALIZED IN THE NEXT BUDGET COMING FROM NOW. IT WAS JUST A SUGGESTION. THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MOUHAMET.
JUST FOR CLARITY, THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS, I THINK, GOING ON HERE AT THE SAME TIME. ONE IS A RESERVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ICANN OPERATION HAS SUPPORT IN THE EVENT OF SOME FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY. THESE ARE FUNDS THAT YOU SIMPLY BUILD UP A RESERVE FOR. THEN THERE ARE FUNDS THAT YOU ACCUMULATE FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, LIKE THE ONE THAT YOU WERE DESCRIBING. I THINK WE HAVE BOTH OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO.
>>KURT PRITZ: CAN I ADDRESS MOUHAMET'S EARLIER COMMENT?
>>VINT CERF: YES.
>>KURT PRITZ: YES, I AGREE WITH MOUHAMET THAT IDNS ADDRESS BOTH STABILITY AND, VERY IMPORTANTLY PROMOTING COMPETITION. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FULL-BLOWN OPERATIONAL PLAN, IDNS ACTUALLY APPEAR UNDER BOTH HEADINGS. AND FOR BREVITY'S SAKE, WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE, I DIDN'T INCLUDE IT THERE.
AS FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS, THE FUNDS ALLOCATED FOR IDN DEPLOYMENT THIS YEAR IS FOUR TIMES THAT THAT WAS IN THE BUDGET LAST YEAR. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE THINK THAT OUR IDN DEPLOYMENT EFFORT IS ACTUALLY MUCH GREATER THAN THE DOLLARS IN THE BUDGET. MANY MEMBERS HERE, THE EXCELLENT WORKSHOP WE HAD YESTERDAY, A LOT OF THAT IS CONTRIBUTED EFFORT FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.
SO BY BEING ECONOMICAL AND ALSO BY THE PASSION OF EVERYBODY HERE ABOUT THAT, WE LOOKED AT THOSE DOLLARS MANY TIMES OVER.
WE ALSO CHALLENGED THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY THAT IF WE WERE TO SPEND THAT MONEY WISELY, WE WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO EITHER MAKE A DRAWN CONTINGENCY OR REALLOCATE FUNDS IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THAT GOAL THAT WE ARE SO PASSIONATE ABOUT.
>>VINT CERF: THANKS, KURT. LET ME TAKE QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, JORDYN BUCHANAN WITH REGISTER.COM.
JUST A BRIEF COMMENT FIRST OF ALL, AND THAT IS I NOTE THAT ALTHOUGH THE BUDGET SEEKS TO DIVERSIFY THE REVENUE STREAM, THE REALTY IS, IN THE CURRENT BUDGET, AT LEAST, ALL THE DIVERSIFICATION IS SIMPLY A SHIFT OF FEES FROM REGISTRARS, ESSENTIALLY, TO REGISTRIES, GTLD REGISTRARS TO REGISTRIES, WHICH ULTIMATELY MEANS THAT THE PEOPLE PAYING THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE ICANN BUDGET ARE GTLD REGISTRANTS. SIMPLY MOVING A QUARTER FROM THE REGISTRARS TO THE REGISTRIES CERTAINLY DOESN'T MAKE ME TOO UNHAPPY AS A REGISTRAR. I PAY LESS. BUT ULTIMATELY REGISTRANTS ARE PAYING FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME PORTION OF ICANN'S BUDGET AS THEY WERE BEFORE.
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT ICANN CONTINUES TO EXPAND ITS ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF A VARIETY OF FUNCTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED AND I THINK ARE VERY USEFUL FOR OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY, THAT THE DIVERSIFICATION OF THE REVENUE STREAM REFLECT THAT AS WELL.
AND SPECIFICALLY I MEAN, IF ICANN CONTINUES TO PROVIDE SERVICES THAT I HOPE ARE USEFUL TO GROUPS LIKE THE CCNSO AND THE RIRS, THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE THEIR STAKE IN TERMS OF FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO ICANN AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANKS, JORDYN. I THINK WE ALL HOPE FOR MORE BALANCE IN THAT REGARD.
BRET.
>>BRET FAUSETT: I CAME TO THE MICROPHONE JUST AT THE RIGHT TIME. IT'S GOOD TO HERE A REGISTRAR SAY THAT REGISTRANTS PAY MOST OF THE FEES HERE. AND THAT WAS JUST MY POINT. THE LAST POINT ON THE CONSULTATION WAS HOW TO IMPROVE THE BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONSULTATION PROCESS. AND I THINK HISTORICALLY, REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS HAVE BEEN FULLY REPRESENTED ON THAT COMMITTEE AND REGISTRANTS HAVE BEEN RATHER UNDERREPRESENTED ON THAT COMMITTEE. AND CONSISTENT WITH THE STATEMENT THE ALAC MADE YESTERDAY, WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE NOT ONLY ALAC REPRESENTATION ON THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP BUT ALSO OTHER REGISTRANTS. BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF THE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE HAD TODAY ARE COMING FROM REGISTRANTS AND PERHAPS PLUGGING THEM IN EARLIER INTO THE PROCESS WOULD CREATE MORE COMMUNITY BUY-IN IN THE BUDGET PROCESS.
>>VINT CERF: THANKS, BRET. TWO COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD AND THEN I HAVE SEVERAL THINGS I NEED TO DO.
MIKE AND THEN PETER.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
BRET, I WOULD LIKE TO AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT BOTH BRET AND JORDYN HAVE MADE.
AND I SORT OF REFER TO IT AS THE THREE "R'S," THE GTLD THREE R'S, AND THOSE ARE REGISTRIES, REGISTRARS, AND REGISTRANTS.
AND, AGAIN, TO FOLLOW UP ON BRET, WITH REGARD TO THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP, IT IS MY HOPE THAT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE STRATEGIC CONSULTATION PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM LATER ON THIS EVENING, THAT THAT PROCESS WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THOSE THREE R'S WITHIN THE GTLD PROCESS, AS WELL AS ALL ICANN STAKEHOLDERS.
SO I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING IMPORTANT AND SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY NEED TO FOCUS ON, BECAUSE IF, IN FACT, ICANN'S BUDGET IS GOING TO BE INCREASING JUST THROUGH THE GROWTH OF THE INDUSTRY, I THINK IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE PAYING THOSE FEES OR CONTRIBUTIONS TO ICANN HAVE A VOICE IN HOW THEY ARE ALLOCATED, HAVE A VOICE.
SO THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MIKE.
PETER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
KURT, I'VE GOT FIVE QUESTIONS, ONE A PROCESS ONE AND FOUR CONTENT ONES.
THE FIRST ONE RELATES TO THE PROCESS OF THE CONSULTATION AND HOW TO IMPROVE THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP.
YOU'VE TAKEN ON BOARD ALREADY I THINK THE FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION WE HEARD THIS MORNING THAT THE STAFF SHOULD WORK TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP.
I WONDER IF YOU COULD GO TO YOUR SECOND OR THIRD SLIDE WHICH ACTUALLY SHOWED THE PROCESS OF CONSULTATION.
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO MICROMANAGE THAT AT ALL, BUT I WOULD QUITE LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP AS TO HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE PROCESS AND TO SEE HOW IT CAN BE IMPROVED.
NOW, THE -- THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO ME TO BE SUFFICIENT SORT OF REITERATIVE STEPS -- I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THIS LONGER OR HARDER THAN IT IS, BUT THE REALITY OF THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP IS THEY WILL BE PRESENTED AT THEIR FIRST MEETING WITH YOU WITH A HUGE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION.
>>KURT PRITZ: HAGEN HAD MORE DETAIL.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO THEIR SOS OR ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
AND THE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE I GOT FROM THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUPS MEMBERS THAT I HAVE IS THAT THEY TEND -- AND THIS IS SORT OF INEVITABLE -- TO BE CONFRONTED BY THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE BUDGET, AND THEN, REALLY, TO BE UNABLE TO DO MUCH ABOUT IT FROM THAT STAGE.
HOW DO WE ALLOW THEM, HOW DO WE STAFF THEM OR ASSIST THEM IN ACTUALLY MAKE A USEFUL CONTRIBUTION AT THAT POINT?
>>PAUL TWOMEY: PETER, MAY I RESPOND BECAUSE THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP FORMALLY IS A PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE.
SO I'M PROBABLY THE CLOSEST THING TO A CHAIR TO IT.
LET ME JUST SPEAK TO THE POINT.
THE POINTS YOU'RE MAKING ARE EXACTLY CORRECT.
THAT'S WHAT THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS DO FEEL.
WE HAD A -- IN RESPONSE TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE'S REQUEST, WE HAD A MEETING WITH THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP.
THESE MEETINGS BECOME A BLUR -- SOMETIME IN THE LAST 48 HOURS.
AND IN THAT MEETING, RAY PLZAK, I THINK, PUT A VERY GOOD QUESTION ON THE TABLE.
HE SAID THIS IS A PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE.
WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT WANT FROM IT?
SO THERE WAS THIS SORT OF "WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM THIS GROUP?"
AND THE SECOND THING TO COME OUT IN THE DISCUSSION WAS A LOT OF THE MEMBERS SAID THIS IS VERY VALUABLE FOR US NOT ONLY TO BE HERE, BUT TO BE SEEN TO BE HERE, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR CONSTITUENCIES, GIVES OUR CONSTITUENCIES A SENSE OF INVOLVEMENT.
I THINK WHAT MOVED OUT OF THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT YOU POINTED OUT, WAS A SENSE THAT THEY RECEIVE A BUDGET, BUT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE OPERATION- -- TO DATE, TO DATE, THEY RECEIVE A BUDGET, BUT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE OPERATIONAL ASPECTS BEHIND IT.
SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS.
ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT -- TO ANSWER RAY'S QUESTION, THAT WAS CERTAINLY ON MY MIND WAS SEEING WHEN THEY ARE PUTTING IN PLACE A NEW TWO-PART PROCESS FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING, A SIX-MONTH STRATEGIC PLANNING, ROLLING STRATEGIC PLAN CYCLE AND THEN A RESPONSIVE 12-MONTH OPERATIONAL PLANNING CYCLE WHICH THEN GETS CONVERTED INTO DOLLARS AS A BUDGET.
IT CERTAINLY STRUCK ME AS BEING IMPORTANT WAS TO HELP THE PRESIDENT'S STAFF ACTUALLY STRUCTURE, AND ACTUALLY, MORE IMPORTANTLY, HELP THE FINANCE COMMITTEE STRUCTURE THE OPERATIONAL PLANNING PROCESS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO GET THE ADVICE OF THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS THIS COMING YEAR ABOUT HOW TO STRUCTURE THAT OPERATIONAL PLANNING EXERCISE, AND THEN AS AN ASPECT OF IT, TO HAVE THEM ACTUALLY INVOLVED AS LISTENERS TO THAT OPERATIONAL PLANNING EXERCISE AND SEE HOW THAT MEETS.
THAT DOESN'T EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM HAVING INPUT INTO WHAT THEY -- HOW THEY THINK THE OPERATIONAL PLANNING EXERCISE WORKS, BUT IT DOES ACTUALLY -- I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT EVOLUTION FOR THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP TO BE AN ADVISOR ALSO, I THINK, ON THE PROCESS OF OPERATIONAL PLANNING CONSULTATION COMING INTO THE BUDGET.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU.
I WONDER IF I COULD JUST ASK THE FOUR CONTENT QUESTIONS.
THEY'RE THE SAME AS OTHER MEMBERS HAVE ASKED.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW WE CAN DEAL WITH THIS.
BUT I NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL BUDGET LINES ARE FOR STAFFING OF THE CCNSO, THAT'S 3.4A1, THE COMPLIANCE PROGRAM, I THINK THAT'S 3.4D, THE REGIONAL PRESENCE PROGRAM, THAT'S 3.4C, AND -- SORRY, THE OTHER -- IT'S THE COUNTRY FUND IS 3.4D.
I HAVEN'T GOT THE NUMBER FOR THE COMPLIANCE PROGRAM.
WHERE DO WE FIND THE INFORMATION ON HOW MUCH IS GOING TO BE SPENT ON THOSE?
>>VINT CERF: PETER, DO YOU NEED AN ANSWER ON THE SPOT OR WOULD YOU LIKE THAT TO BE QUEUED UP AS A RESPONSE THAT KURT COULD PROVIDE AS SOON AS THAT'S FEASIBLE?
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I THINK AS A MATTER OF PRACTICALITY, IT HAS TO BE QUEUED UP.
BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW I WILL GET THAT INFORMATION TO THE COMMUNITY IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT IT.
>>VINT CERF: WELL, I THINK THAT -- THE NEXT GO-ROUND ON THE PRESENTATION OF THE BUDGET COULD HAVE MORE SPECIFICS OF THE SORT THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.
THAT WOULD BE THE OBVIOUS WAY TO DO IT.
PAUL.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: WELL, I THINK THE -- WE ARE -- THE STAFF, AND I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, IS IN TOTAL ACCORD THAT WE DO NEED TO MOVE THIS WAY.
AND AS YOU SAY, FOR THE NEXT ROUND, THIS IS PART OF THE GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS.
I THINK IN CONSULTATION WITH THE FINANCE CHAIR, WE CAN COME BACK ON THOSE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR PETER'S PURPOSES BEFORE TOMORROW, BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, HE'S CONSIDERING THAT IN TERMS OF THE BOARD VOTE.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
PETER, IS THAT SATISFACTORY?
GOOD.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, KURT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE ABOUT TO GO FOR A BREAK.
I HAVE THREE THINGS THAT I NEED TO TELL YOU ABOUT BEFORE YOU TAKE YOUR BREAK.
FIRST OF ALL, A REMINDER THAT THE OMBUDSMAN'S ANNUAL REPORT IS IN PRINTED FORM OUTSIDE OF THIS ROOM AT THE ENTRY.
AND FRANK FOWLIE INVITES YOU TO TAKE A COPY, IF YOU WISH.
SECOND, AT NOON TODAY, I WILL CALL FOR A TWO-MINUTE SILENCE IN MEMORY OF THOSE WHO WERE KILLED IN THE LONDON BOMBINGS.
THIS IS A -- I'M SORRY, FRANK -- CARY, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?
>>CARY KARP: 1:00 P.M.
>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY, BUT WE DOUBLE-CHECKED IT, AND IT IS NOON HERE.
IS IT NOT TRUE?
NO.
OKAY.
THEN I GOT IT BACKWARDS.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: CARY, IT'S -- THIS HAS BEEN -- THIS IS A CALL THAT GOES ALL OVER EUROPE TO SYNCHRONIZE WITH 12:00, AS YOU CORRECTLY GESTURE, TO SYNCHRONIZE WITH NOON IN LONDON.
WE DECIDED -- VINT AND I AND A FEW OTHERS HAVE DISCUSSED THIS.
AT 1:00, WE WILL NOT BE IN A MEETING, A COLLECTIVE MEETING.
SO WE HAVE DECIDED TO MOVE FOR THIS COMMUNITY TO HOLD THIS TWO-MINUTE SILENCE AT 12:00 IN ORDER TO DO THIS TOGETHER HERE.
AND, OF COURSE, WHEREVER YOU ARE AT 1:00, WHICH PROBABLY WILL BE AT LUNCH, YOU WILL JOIN THE GENERAL EUROPEAN TWO MINUTES OF SILENCE.
I HOPE THIS IS AGREEABLE.
>>VINT CERF: WHOOPS.

(APPLAUSE.)
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALEX.
THE THIRD THING THAT I HAVE TO SHARE WITH YOU BEFORE YOU TAKE YOUR BREAK HAS TO DO WITH THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED IN DISCUSSIONS IN THIS WEEK ABOUT THE DOT NET AGREEMENTS WITH VERISIGN.
LET ME REPORT TO YOU THAT MARK MCLAUGHLIN FROM VERISIGN CONTACTED PAUL TWOMEY LAST NIGHT AND COMMUNICATED, AND I QUOTE, "IN LIGHT OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY, VERISIGN IS WILLING TO WORK WITH ICANN STAFF TO ADDRESS THE TWO CONCERNS IN DOT NET, SPECIFICALLY, THE STRUCTURE OF THE PRICE CAP REMOVAL AND THE SECOND, HAVING A LONGER COMMENT PERIOD ON THE REGISTRAR/REGISTRY AGREEMENT, AND NEGOTIATING IN GOOD FAITH ISSUES THAT ARISE WITH REGARD TO THAT AGREEMENT."
SO I THINK THAT'S GOOD NEWS.
I THINK THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY NOW TO LOOK MORE CAREFULLY AT THE DOT NET CONTRACT IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS OFFER FROM VERISIGN.

(APPLAUSE.)
>>VINT CERF: SO WITH THAT BIT OF GOOD NEWS, LET ME INVITE YOU TO TAKE A BREAK.
AND RETURN AT 10:50, PLEASE.
(BREAK.)


>>VINT CERF: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE ABOUT READY TO RESTART.
SO IF YOU'LL PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS, WE WILL GET GOING WITH THE NEXT PORTION OF THE OPEN FORUM.
BOARD MEMBERS, IF YOU'LL PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS.
THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM OUR OMBUDSMAN, FRANK FOWLIE.
SO, FRANK, PLEASE TAKE THE LECTERN.
>>FRANK FOWLIE: MR. CHAIRMAN, VINT CERF, PRESIDENT PAUL TWOMEY, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND LIAISONS, ESTEEMED MEMBERS OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY, ICANN STAFF, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR WARM WELCOME HERE THIS MORNING.
BONJOUR (SPEAKING IN FRENCH).
IT'S A VERY GOOD PLEASURE FOR ME TO BE HERE THIS MORNING TO BRING YOU THE UPDATE ON THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND ITS ACTIVITIES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, AS IS REQUIRED BY SECTION 5 OF BYLAW V, I AM PLEASED TO PRESENT TO YOU AND THROUGH YOU TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND LIAISONS AND, FINALLY, TO THE ICANN COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE, THE INAUGURAL REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.
AND I'LL TRANSMIT IT AROUND THE TABLE TO YOU THROUGH THE BOARD.
HERE AT THE PUBLIC -- IF YOU COULD JUST PASS IT, PAUL, IT'S ALL THREE VERSIONS.
HERE, AT THE PUBLIC FORUM IN LUXEMBOURG, THE REPORT IS AVAILABLE IN PRINT IN ENGLISH, FRENCH, AND GERMAN.
A SPANISH TRANSLATION WILL BE COMPLETED SHORTLY.
AND THE ANNUAL REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE OMBUDSMAN WEB SITE AS A PDF IN ALL FOUR LANGUAGES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WITHOUT HAVING TO REVERT TO A LARGE NUMBER OF POWERPOINT SLIDES, AS EVERYONE IN THE ROOM SHOULD HAVE A HARD COPY OF THE REPORT IN THE LANGUAGE OF THEIR CHOICE, AND THESE CONTAIN ALL OF THE RELEVANT TABLES, I'D LIKE TO TAKE JUST A MOMENT OR TWO TO GO OVER SOME PERTINENT NUMBERS.
BUT AS ONE OF MY FAVORITE WRITERS, THE AMERICAN MARK TWAIN, ONCE SAID, THERE ARE LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND STATISTICS.
I'D LIKE TO BEGIN MY TALK WITH SOME STATISTICS.
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN HAS RECEIVED AND RESPONDED TO A TOTAL OF 979 CONTACTS, FROM DECEMBER 2004 TO JUNE 30TH, 2005.
NOW, THE ASTUTE OBSERVERS IN THE CROWD WILL HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THIS IS ALREADY NOT QUITE A FULL YEAR TO MAKE UP AN ANNUAL REPORT, BUT IT IS, RATHER, TIED TO THE OPENING OF THE OFFICE TO THE CLOSE OF THE FISCAL YEAR, AND HENCEFORTH, THE OFFICE WILL FOLLOW THE FISCAL YEAR FROM JULY 1ST TO JUNE 30TH.
OF THESE CONTACTS, 850 WERE RELATED TO A RECENT LETTER-WRITING CAMPAIGN THAT DEALT MORE WITH CONTENT ON THE WEB RATHER THAN ANY ACTION TAKEN BY ICANN.
HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE REQUIRED INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINT-HANDLING AND A SEPARATE REPLY.
OF THE 129 CONTACTS TRULY GENERATED BY AND WITHIN THE ICANN COMMUNITY, YOU WILL FIND A NUMBER OF CHARTS WITHIN THE ANNUAL REPORT THAT BREAKS THEM DOWN BY GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN, THE MONTH THEY WERE GENERATED, THE ISSUE TYPE, AND THE RESOLUTION THEREIN.
THERE WERE 22 COMPLAINTS WHICH FELL DIRECTLY INTO MY JURISDICTION DURING THIS PERIOD, THAT IS TO SAY THAT THEY DEALT WITH AN ACT, A DECISION, OR AN INACTION BY THE ICANN BOARD, STAFF, OR SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS.
OF THESE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES, THERE WAS SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF THE MATTER IN SIX CASES, SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED IN TWO, TWO MATTERS WHERE A REFERRAL WAS MADE TO ANOTHER AREA OF THE ORGANIZATION.
IN A SINGLE CASE, THE MATTER WAS MANAGED BY PROVIDING THE CALLER WITH SELF-HELP INFORMATION.
THERE WERE FOUR CONTACTS WHERE, AFTER AN INITIAL INVESTIGATION, NO FURTHER ACTION WAS REQUIRED.
AND IN THREE CASES, I DECLINED JURISDICTION WHERE, AFTER A PRELIMINARY REVIEW, NOTHING FURTHER COULD BE DONE.
TWO CASES WERE UNFOUNDED.
TWO WERE WITHDRAWN.
AND ONE WAS ABANDONED.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THIS OFFICE HAS RECEIVED CONTACTS FROM ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD, ALTHOUGH THERE IS A LARGE DENSITY OF CONTACTS FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
IN ORDER TO HELP RAISE THE AWARENESS OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN ACROSS THE ICANN COMMUNITY, I HAVE INCLUDED OUTREACH AS A KEY ELEMENT OF THIS OFFICE'S ACTIVITIES.
IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO ME THAT THE ICANN OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN BE SEEN NOT ONLY AS A PEER IN THE OMBUDSMAN COMMUNITY, BUT AS A CENTER OF EXCELLENCE IN THE DELIVERY OF ONLINE OMBUDSMAN SERVICE.
AS A CENTER OF EXCELLENCE, I AM HAPPY TO REPORT TO YOU THAT THE OMBUDSMAN FRAMEWORK IS NOW AVAILABLE ON THE OMBUDSMAN WEB SITE IN SIX LANGUAGES, MAKING IT MORE AVAILABLE TO THE WORLD AT LARGE.
IN THE ANNUAL REPORT, YOU WILL FIND AN UPDATE ON MY OUTREACH AND PEER ACTIVITIES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU WILL PERMIT ME A MOMENT OR TWO, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERVIEW OF ONLINE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE ICANN CONTEXT.
IN DEALING WITH MY OMBUDSMAN COLLEAGUES, I AM PRESENTLY UNAWARE OF ANY OTHER OMBUDSMAN WHOSE MAIN POINT OF CONTACT IS THROUGH E-MAIL AS OPPOSED TO BY IN-PERSON OR TELEPHONE CONTACT.
NOW, THERE ARE SOME OBVIOUS ADVANTAGES TO DEALING WITH CONFLICT AND CONDUCTING OMBUDSMANSHIP PRIMARILY THROUGH E-MAIL, ESPECIALLY AS A SOLE PRACTITIONER OFFICE.
FIRST, CONSUMERS HAVE UNIVERSAL ACCESS.
ANYONE FROM ANY TIME ZONE FROM ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD CAN MAKE A COMPLAINT OR CORRESPOND WITH ME AT ANY TIME OF DAY OR NIGHT.
NOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I'M GOING TO RESPOND AT ANY HOUR OF THE DAY OR NIGHT.
BUT THEY CAN CERTAINLY GENERATE A CONTACT AT ANY HOUR OF THE DAY OR NIGHT.
SECOND, I'M ABLE TO HAVE A PERMANENT RECORD OF THE COMPLAINT OR CORRESPONDENCE, AND THIS MAKES IT EASY FOR ME TO REFLECT UPON THE INFORMATION LATER ON OR TO USE IT WITH MY INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN ICANN.
THIRD, AND VERY IMPORTANTLY, AS A SOLE PRACTITIONER WHO TRAVELS FREQUENTLY WITH MY DUTIES, MY CLIENT GROUP AND I ARE ALWAYS ABLE TO BE IN TOUCH.
THUS, I AM NOT LIMITED BY THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITIONS OF OFFICE HOUR OR OFFICE LOCATION.
THERE ARE, HOWEVER, SOME DRAWBACKS WITH CONDUCTING OMBUDSMANSHIP OVER THE INTERNET.
BUT NONE OF THESE DRAWBACKS ARE INSURMOUNTABLE.
THE FOUR DRAWBACKS THAT I SEE ARE RELATED ALL TO COMMUNICATION AND THE PRACTITIONER'S ABILITY TO USE HIS OR HER OWN PERSONALITY, SKILL, AND INTUITION TO WORK WITH THESE.
THE FIRST DISADVANTAGE IS THAT MOST COMMUNICATION, AS WE ALL KNOW, IS NONVERBAL.
DEALING WITH A CONTACT IN A COMPLETELY E-MAIL-DRIVEN ENVIRONMENT, WITH NO FACE-TO-FACE DISCUSSION ELIMINATES THIS IMPORTANT ELEMENT.
WITH BODY LANGUAGE, WE CAN INTUIT ANGER, FEAR, TRUTH, DECEPTION, HUMOR.
OF COURSE, THE ADVANTAGE IS THAT AS A NEUTRAL PARTY, I CANNOT BE INFLUENCED BY THESE IN A NEGATIVE SENSE, EITHER BY OVERRELYING ON THE IMPLICIT RATHER THAN THE EXPLICIT MESSAGING IN OUR DISCUSSIONS.
THE SECOND DRAWBACK IS THAT THE USE -- IS THE USE OF LANGUAGE AND ITS INTERPRETATION.
PEOPLE HAVE A TENDENCY TO SPEAK MUCH MORE ABOUT A SUBJECT THAN THEY DO TO WRITE ABOUT IT.
THERE'S A WHOLE SCIENCE WRITTEN AROUND STATEMENT ANALYSIS.
THE USE OF LANGUAGE AND ITS MEANING CHANGES IN CONTEXT WITH CULTURE, AND WITH ITS USE.
DOES THE SKILLED PRACTITIONER KNOW IF THE WRITER IS BEING FUNNY, SARCASTIC, OVERLY FAMILIAR, OR EXPRESSING ANGER?
THE SAME SETS OF WORDS FROM DIFFERENT WRITERS COULD HAVE DIFFERENT CONTEXTS AND MEANINGS, AS COULD THE SAME WORDS FROM THE SAME WRITER AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
THIRD, THERE IS THE QUESTION OF GENERAL LITERACY LEVELS.
WHILE DEALING WITH THE WIDER COMMUNITY, THE SKILLED PRACTITIONER MUST BE COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT THE WRITTEN LANGUAGE AND EXPLANATIONS USED HAVE TO BE UNDERSTANDABLE IN MEANING TO THE READER THAT I AM CORRESPONDING WITH.
FINALLY, AND IN THE MOST INCLUSIVE SENSE, AN INTERNET-BASED OMBUDSMAN FACES A DISADVANTAGE IF HE OR SHE LACKS THE INSIGHT TO REALIZE THAT DIFFERENT CULTURES APPROACH DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN DIFFERENT WAYS.
I HAVE SEEN SOME VERY, VERY IN-YOUR-FACE APPROACHES TO ISSUES THAT BY MOST REASONABLE STANDARDS WERE MINIMAL IN NATURE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, BECAUSE OF CULTURE MORES, I HAVE ALSO SEEN OTHER CONFLICTS WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE SERIOUS ISSUES TO DEAL WITH, BUT WHERE THE COMPLAINANT DID NOT PUSH THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE AND WAS MUCH MORE INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING AN ISSUE -- RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST WITH ME AS THE PRACTITIONER FIRST.
IN DIFFERENT CULTURES FROM DIFFERENT COMPLAINANTS, THESE ISSUES WOULD HAVE LIKELY HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO ME IN MUCH DIFFERENT MANNERS.
THE CHALLENGE FOR THE SKILLED PRACTITIONER IN RESPECTING A DIVERSE, MULTICULTURAL WORLD, IS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THESE DIFFERENCES EXIST AND NOT TO IMPOSE ANY SELF-RELATED RESOLUTION PARADIGMS AS A STARTING POINT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MY BELIEF IS THAT USING AN OMBUDSMAN AS AN ONLINE NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION WILL PROVIDE GOOD SERVICE TO A WIDE RANGE OF COMMUNITY-BASED OR CONSUMER-CENTRIC ORGANIZATIONS IN THE YEARS TO COME.
IT IS A PRACTICAL, FLUID, AND RESPONSIVE AND COST-EFFECTIVE WAY TO DEAL WITH CONFLICT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE FORUM THIS MORNING.
(SPEAKING IN FRENCH.)
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FRANK.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>VINT CERF: I THINK WE'VE BEEN EXTRAORDINARILY FORTUNATE TO FIND SOMEONE OF FRANK'S CALIBER TO SERVE IN THIS ROLE.
I'VE HAD A NUMBER OF COMPLIMENTARY E-MAILS REFERRING TO FRANK'S ABILITY TO CARRY OUT THIS FUNK IN A MOST EVEN-HANDED AND CONSTRUCTIVE WAY.
SO, FRANK, LET ME PUBLICLY THANK YOU FOR THAT.
LET ME ASK IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FOR FRANK FROM THE BOARD OR FROM THE FLOOR.
THERE'S ONE.
AND, MIKE, DID I SEE YOUR HAND GO UP.
LET'S TAKE THE FLOOR FIRST.
>>MARCUS FAURE: MARCUS FAURE, CORE COUNCIL OF REGISTRARS.
ACTUALLY, A QUICK COMMENT I MADE ON TRANSLATIONS YESTERDAY.
I GRABBED THE GERMAN TRANSLATION OF THE OMBUDSMAN REPORT, AND THE OVERALL FEELING IS PRETTY CLUMSY.
I DON'T THINK IT HAS BEEN DONE BY A NATIVE SPEAKER. AND IT CONTAINS TERMS LIKE "OMBUDSMAN" WHICH I THINK MEANS OMBUDSMAN CODE OF CONDUCT.
BUT WHAT IT SAYS IS OMBUDSMAN ROOTING SYSTEM.
SO TAKE CARE WITH TRANSLATIONS.
>>VINT CERF: BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, WOULD YOU HAVE THE TIME TO GO OVER THAT AND MAKE SOME SUGGESTIONS SO THAT WE CAN FIX IT?

(LAUGHTER.)
>>MARCUS FAURE: WELL, I TOLD YOU YESTERDAY THAT MY PERCEPTION IS THAT THE OUTREACH OF ICANN WILL NOT IMPROVE BY PUTTING OUT DOCUMENTS IN OTHER LANGUAGES WHICH THE QUALITY IS PRETTY CLUMSY, I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT.
SO RIGHT NOW WE LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE THE INTERNET IS ENGLISH.
AND I'M AFRAID IT WILL TAKE A LONG TIME UNTIL THAT CHANGE CHANGES, AND I DON'T THINK ICANN WILL BE THE ONE TO CHANGE THAT, I'M AFRAID SO.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
I JUST THOUGHT I'D ASK.

(APPLAUSE.)
>>VINT CERF: OH, WELL.
THAT'S A VERY INTERESTING APPLAUSE, COMING FROM OUR NATIVE GERMAN SPEAKER ON THE BOARD.
MIKE.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS.
AS A PARTICIPANT IN THE EVOLUTION AND REFORM PROCESS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, I WAS SOMEWHAT SKEPTICAL OF THE ROLE THAT THE OMBUDSMAN WOULD PLAY.
I'M HAPPY TO SAY THAT MY INITIAL SKEPTICISM HAS PROVEN WRONG.
I THINK THE OMBUDSMAN HAS BECOME PART OF THE BEDROCK OF THIS INSTITUTION.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO FRANK'S ROLE.
AND, AGAIN, JUST TO SHOW YOU HOW FRANK IS OUT THERE SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITY, LAST NIGHT DURING THE SOCCER TOURNAMENT, HE ACTUALLY DID GET INVOLVED IN PROVIDING SOME OMBUDSMAN-LIKE INPUT INTO A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO OF THE COMPETING TEAMS.
SO, AGAIN, THIS IS A POSITIVE.
REGARDING MARCUS'S COMMENT ABOUT THE TRANSLATION, I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS HAGEN WAS CLAPPING IS -- WELL, I'LL LET HAGEN SPEAK TO THAT.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS ORGANIZATION TRY TO INCREASE ITS COMMUNICATIONS.
AND WHAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE MARCUS TO DO IS POSSIBLY WORK WITH FRANK IN SORT OF FUTURE RELEASES TO DO THAT.
I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE OMBUDSMAN OFFICE HAS DONE IN PRODUCING THESE REPORTS IN THE MULTIPLE LANGUAGES, I THINK THAT'S, IF YOU WILL, DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME HE'S DONE MORE THAN PROBABLY ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT OR -- DEPARTMENT HEAD HAS DONE WITHIN ICANN IN THAT AREA.
SO THAT'S A POSITIVE.
AND I THINK THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EFFORTS OF THE ORGANIZATION OVERALL IN ITS COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH.
SO IS IT PERFECT?
NO.
IT MAY BE CLUMSY.
BUT I STILL THINK IT'S STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
AND, AGAIN, POSSIBLY, MARCUS, IF YOU COULD WORK WITH THE OMBUDSMAN TO MAKE A MORE QUALITY DOCUMENT, I THINK THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, PARTICULARLY THE GERMAN COMMUNITY, WOULD BENEFIT BY THAT.
>>VINT CERF: JUST ON MARCUS'S BEHALF, I THINK HE MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THIS.
SO I'M NOT GOING TO PRESSURE HIM ANY FURTHER.
BUT I DO TAKE THE POINT, MIKE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR FRANK?
IF NOT, ONE OBSERVATION, FRANK, ABOUT THE -- LAST NIGHT'S RENDERING OF ASSISTANCE.
I CAN ONLY REPORT SECONDHAND THAT THE QUESTION RELATED TO A SOCCER PROBLEM AND THE RESPONSE WAS GIVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF RULES OF HOCKEY.
>>FRANK FOWLIE: INDEED.
>>VINT CERF: SO I DON'T QUITE KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF THAT.
BUT APPARENTLY IT SATISFIED EVERYONE.
SO CONGRATULATIONS.
>>FRANK FOWLIE: YOU ALWAYS GO WITH WHAT YOU KNOW, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FRANK.
OUR NEXT REPORT COMES FROM TINA DAM, AND IT IS ON IDN, INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES.
THERE'S BEEN A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF IDN DISCUSSION DURING THIS WEEK.
SO I LOOK FORWARD NOW TO SEE WHAT SUMMARY WE CAN GET FROM TINA.
>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THIS WEEK HAS CERTAINLY HAD LOTS OF DIFFERENT DISCUSSIONS ON IDNS.
AND THE RESULTS FROM THE WORKSHOP YESTERDAY, I THINK, ARE REALLY EXCITING.
BUT TO SEE ALL OF THE DIFFERENT GROUPS IN THE COMMUNITY TO GET TOGETHER AND WORK TOWARDS COMMON GOALS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS THE CHOICE FOR THE END USER IN THE RIGHT WAY FORWARD ON IDNS IS VERY EXCITING.
I'M GOING TO GET BACK TO SOME OF THE RESULTS FROM THIS WEEK.
BUT FIRST, SOMETHING THAT ONCE IN A WHILE HAS CAUSED A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION IN THE COMMUNITY IS, WHAT IS ICANN'S RESPONSIBILITIES IN RELATION TO IDNS AND WHY DOES THESE THINGS NOT WORK FAST ENOUGH COMPARED TO OTHERS?
SO THIS IS A FIRST SHOT AT TRYING TO MAKE THAT A LITTLE BIT CLEARER.
AND WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING AT DEFINING ICANN'S RESPONSIBILITIES A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
ICANN'S ROLE IN IDNS RELATES TO DETAILS OF GTLD REGISTRY IMPLEMENTATION OF IDNS, SPECIFICALLY, ON DISCUSSIONS OF ISSUES THAT AFFECT THE INTEROPERABILITY OF THE INTERNET'S UNIQUE IDENTIFIER SYSTEM, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF IDN AT THE TOP LEVEL.
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO NOT DO SPECIFICALLY AT ICANN AS THE ORGANIZATION IS WORKING TO GET LOCAL CONTENT, LANGUAGE DEFINITIONS, MATCHINGS OF SCRIPTS AND APPLICATION SOFTWARE.
NOW, I THINK THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE FOLLOWED THE IDN WORKSHOPS PREVIOUSLY HAVE SEEN THAT WHAT WE USUALLY TALK ABOUT IS INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE INTERNET.
AND IN ORDER TO REACH THAT GOAL, WE NEED TO GET ALL OF THESE THINGS DONE.
BUT JUST TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHERE ICANN'S DIRECT ROLE IS, THESE AREAS ARE CERTAINLY OVERLAPPING, AND WE'LL GET BACK WITH SOME MAYBE EVEN CLEARER DEFINITIONS AT A LATER STAGE.
SO WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN THAT WE HAVE THESE LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITIES?
ICANN'S ROLE AND GOALS ARE -- AND THIS IS NOT A PRIORITIZED LIST -- BUT IDNS GUIDELINES AND AUTHORIZATION TO THE GTLD REGISTRIES, WHICH HAS TAKEN PLACE IN A GREAT NUMBER OF THE EXISTING GTLDS; THE IANA REGISTRY FOR LANGUAGE TABLES, WHICH ALSO NEEDS A REVISION.
WE NEED POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OR PROCESSES FOR GTLD IDNS.
AND IMPLEMENTATION -- AND WE ALSO HAVE ROLES IN RELATION TO IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES FOR INTERNATIONALIZED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
SO HOW DO WE DO THAT?
WELL, WE HAVE THE WORKSHOPS.
WE PARTICIPATE IN THE IAB, IETF, BROWSER COMMUNITY, THE GAC, THE CCNSO, AND OTHERS, OTHER PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY.
AND IN THOSE AREAS WHERE WE DON'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE OR THE MANDATE, WE SEEK PARTNERSHIPS IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY WHERE THAT EXPERTISE IS TO BE FOUND.
THE IDN WORKSHOP IN LUXEMBOURG, WHICH WAS YESTERDAY, HAD TWO MAIN TOPICS.
FIRST THERE WAS A PANEL DISCUSSING THE REVISION OF THE IDN GUIDELINES.
AND THIS WAS A FIRST STEP TO ALLOW SPECIFIC EXPERTS TO PROVIDE THEIR INPUT AS TO HOW THEY THINK THESE GUIDELINES SHOULD BE REVISED.
THE GTLD REGISTRIES HAVE REQUESTED THAT REVISION, AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IT'S IN TIME TO USE THE EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE IN IMPLEMENTING GTLDS AND GET A BETTER SET OF GUIDELINES MOVING FORWARD.
THE SECOND HALF WAS IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONALIZED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS SO THAT THE ENTIRE STRING OF A DOMAIN NAME WILL BE IN LOCAL CHARACTERS.
AND THAT WAS A PANEL DISCUSSION TO GET -- DETERMINE SOME OF THOSE ISSUES AND THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT IN RELATION TO IDNS AT THE TOP LEVEL AND TO TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT PROCESSES AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THAT FORWARD.
IN VANCOUVER, WE INTEND THAT SPECIFICALLY THE AREA OF INTERNATIONALIZED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE SPENT QUITE SOME TIME ON.
SO WE'LL BE WORKING TOWARDS THAT GOAL.
MEANWHILE, THE REVISION OF THE IDN GUIDELINES HAD ACTUALLY SOME VERY SPECIFIC RESULTS WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT TO YOU HERE.
THE GTLD REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY MET EARLIER THIS WEEK AND SPENT QUITE SOME TIME IN GETTING TOGETHER ON A SPECIFIC STATEMENT ON HOW THEY ARE INTENDING TO MOVE FORWARD.
THEY AGREED ON A COMMITMENT TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITIES DESIRING ONLINE IDENTITIES, WITH THOSE COMMUNITIES' CHOICE OF CHARACTER AND SCRIPTS.
SO THAT'S A COMMITMENT TO SERVE THE MARKET DEMAND.
IN RELATION TO REVISION OF THE GUIDELINES, THEY AGREED THAT IN THOSE PLACES WHERE LANGUAGE TABLES EXIST, THEY'LL FOLLOW THE AUTHORITATIVE LANGUAGE TABLES WHEN THOSE EXIST.
WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH TABLES, THEY AGREED THAT THEY WILL NOT PERMIT COMMINGLING OF SCRIPTS IN A DOMAIN NAME LABEL. AND WHAT THAT BASICALLY MEANS IS IN THE GTLDS THEY WILL NOT ALLOW THE MIXING OF TWO OR MORE SCRIPTS, WHICH I THINK IS A VERY BIG STEP FORWARD.
ALSO, WHEN IT COMES TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANGUAGE TABLES, THEY DECIDED TOGETHER TO SEEK FUNDING AND APPROPRIATE AUTHORITATIVE BODIES TO ASSIST WITH DEVELOPMENT OF THE TABLES. BUT ONE THING THAT WAS VERY CLEAR AND A KEY POINT FROM THE GTLD REGISTRIES IS THAT WE NEED SOME DECISION ON WHO ARE THE AUTHORITATIVE BODIES WHO CAN DEVELOP THESE TABLES IN THE DIFFERENT REGIONS OF THE WORLD.
BUT I THINK THIS WAS A VERY STRONG STATEMENT FROM THE REGISTRIES.
THE PANEL YESTERDAY ACTUALLY MOVED THIS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IN DISCUSSING THE POTENTIAL OPTION FOR NOT BEING SO SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT IS A G ISSUE IN RELATED TO IDNS AND WHAT IS A CC BUT MERGING THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE TO SERVE THE END USER. THERE WERE INITIAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MOVING TOWARDS BCP, AND THAT IS SOMETHING WE WILL CONTINUE HAVING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT.
BUT THE WORKSHOP RESULTS -- AND I'M GOING TO BASICALLY READ THIS OUT. THIS HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE PANEL MEMBERS AT THE WORKSHOP, AND LET ME JUST MENTION THE PARTICIPANTS YESTERDAY. WE HAD THE MODERATOR, GREAT PLEASURE TO CARY KARP FROM DOT MUSEUM, WE HAD MICHAEL EVERSON, CONSIDERED LINGUIST EXPERT, MICHEL SUIGNARD FROM MICROSOFT AND UNICODE CONSORTIUM, WE HAD CLAUDIO MENEZES FROM UNESCO, AND FROM THE GTLD CONSTITUENCY WE HAD RAM MOHAN FROM AFILIAS AND PAT KANE FROM VERISIGN.
AND I KNOW YOU'LL NOTICE THERE WERE A COUPLE OF CONSTITUENCIES, THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND WORKING GROUPS, WHO WERE NOT ON THIS LIST. THEY WERE INVITED BUT SOMETIMES IT'S DIFFICULT, DUE TO TRAVEL OR CONFLICT IN SCHEDULE ARRANGEMENTS, TO HAVE EVERYBODY ON BOARD.
IN ANY EVENT, THESE PEOPLE, AND CERTAINLY MANY OTHERS, DESERVE GREAT APPLAUSE FOR THE WORK THEY HAVE DONE THIS WEEK IN MANY MEETINGS.
LET ME GET BACK TO THE RESULTS.
THE IDN WHOP PANEL AGREED THAT THE REVISION OF THE CURRENT SET OF ICANN GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES SHOULD BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES. SINCE IDN MAY APPEAR ON ANY LEVEL IN ANY DOMAIN, ONE, A DOCUMENT IS NEEDED THAT, IN CLEAR, UNAMBITIOUS LANGUAGE DESCRIBES THE CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATION WHICH ATTACH TO THE RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDN AS IT MAY BE APPLIED IN ALL SUCH CONTEXT. AND TWO, THE SUCCESSOR DOCUMENT TO THE CURRENT GUIDELINES MUST MAXIMIZE THE ABILITY OF A REGISTRY TO SUPPORT IDN IN ALL REGARDS WHERE IT IS REASONABLE NEEDED AND MUST MINIMIZE THE ABILITY FOR THE ABUSE OF IDN FOR DECEPTIVE PURPOSES.
AND FINALLY, THREE, POLICIES BASED ON SCRIPT ARE NEEDED IN ADDITION TO THOSE BASED SOLELY ON LANGUAGE, AND DEVELOPING SCRIPT-BASED POLICIES SHOULD BE AN IMMEDIATE FOCUS OF ACTION.
SO YOU WILL SEE THAT THE WORKSHOP RESULTS IS OVERLAPPING AND AGREEING QUITE A DEAL WITH WHAT THE GTLD REGISTRIES ARE DOING. AND I THINK THIS IS A MAGNIFICENT STEP FORWARD.
MOVING EVEN FURTHER FORWARD, THE PANEL HAS AGREED THAT THEY WILL FUNCTION SORT OF AS AN INFORMAL, IF THIS IS SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO AGREE ON, AN INFORMAL WORKING GROUP TOGETHER WITH THOSE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT WASN'T ABLE TO SIT ON THE PANEL YESTERDAY BUT WHO WERE INVITED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S POINT OF VIEW IS REFLECTED. AND THAT INFORMAL GROUP WILL BE WORKING ON A DRAFT REVISION OF THE GUIDELINES WHICH LATER, THEN, CAN BE PUBLISHED FOR COMMENTS AND MAKE SURE THE ENTIRE ICANN COMMUNITY, AND IN ADDITION, THOSE OUTSIDE WHO HAVE AN INTEREST, CAN PROVIDE THEIR INPUT BEFORE WE MOVE TO A FINAL VERSION FOR THIS PART OF THE REVISIONS.
SO THOSE ARE OUR PLANS MOVING FORWARD, AND THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT FOR TODAY.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TINA.
I WANT TO UNDERSCORE THE POINT THAT WAS MADE ABOUT THE FACT THAT IDNS COULD OCCUR OR APPEAR AT ANY LEVEL IN THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM. WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT THE UNIVERSE OF PEOPLE WHO NEED TO UNDERSTAND AND KNOW ABOUT RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF CERTAIN SYMBOLS IN THE REGISTRATIONS -- OR IN THE DOMAIN NAMES IS MUCH BROADER THAN THE REGISTRARS AND THE REGISTRIES. PEOPLE WHO ARE RUNNING SOFTWARE THAT THEY HAVE ACQUIRED FROM THE OFF-THE-SHELF COMMUNITY OR FROM OPEN-SOURCE COMMUNITY ARE GOING TO BE USING THIS SOFTWARE IN ORDER TO CREATE DEEPER HIERARCHY IN THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM. THEY WILL NEED TO BE COGNIZANT OF THESE RESTRICTIONS, OR THEY WILL INTRODUCE THE PROBLEMS IN THE HIGHER ELEMENTS OF HIERARCHY THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ELIMINATE IN THE TOP LEVEL AND IN THE SECOND LEVEL.
SO WE HAVE A FAIRLY LARGE COMMUNITY TO EDUCATE AND TO SUPPORT, IN MY OPINION.
I SEE AMADEU HAS HIS -- IS STANDING IN FRONT, AND THEN MOUHAMET.
SO AMADEU HAS HIS HAT ON. WHICH HAT ARE YOU WEARING?
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: THIS ONE IS THE HAT, CHAIR OF THE IDN COMMITTEE FOR PIR, THE DOT ORG REGISTRY. AND AS SUCH, I HAVE A SHORT AND SPECIAL REQUEST FOR THE BOARD. WE HAVE ANNOUNCED THAT ON JULY 23RD WE WILL BE LAUNCHING IDNS IN SEVERAL LANGUAGES, LANGUAGES WHICH LANGUAGE TABLES HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE CCTLDS AND THEY ARE REGISTERED WITH IANA.
WE ARE FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES TO -- THERE ARE THREE PRINCIPLES. THE PROBLEM IS FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON, IANA HAS CEASED TO PUBLISH THESE LANGUAGE TABLES. THE REASON SEEMS TO BE, AS TINA SAID, THERE IS A NEED FOR A REVIEW OF THE PROCESS FOR REGISTERING THESE TABLES. BUT MY ADVICE IS IN THE MEANTIME, PLEASE PUBLISH THEM AS YOU GET IT. AND IF THERE IS A NEED FOR A REVIEW, A NEED FOR A RESUBMISSION, IT WILL BE DONE. BUT IT IS HIGHLY CONFUSING THAT WE ARE TRYING TO FOLLOW THIS PROCEDURE, THAT WE ARE TRYING TO PUBLICIZE WHICH ARE THE CRITERIA IN THE CHARACTER SETS, AND THEN THE TABLES ARE NOT AVAILABLE.
>>VINT CERF: LET'S LET TINA RESPOND TO THAT.
>>TINA DAM: FIRST, I AM FULLY AWARE THAT PIR HAVE THE PLANS OF LAUNCHING IDN'S IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES LATER THIS MONTH. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE TABLES HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE ADDRESS THAT GOES IN IANA. THEY HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO ME, BUT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT AS A MEANS TO PLEASE POST THESE BECAUSE WE HAVE A FORMAL PROCEDURE FOR THAT. SO I TALKED TO SOME OF YOUR COLLEAGUES FROM PIR YESTERDAY AND AGREED THOSE WOULD BE POSTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY. THANKS.
BY THE WAY, IT WAS NOT PIR WHO SUBMITTED THE LANGUAGE TABLES, AS I UNDERSTAND, BUT MUCH MORE THE DECISION OF THE DEVELOPER.
ANYWAY, THAT WAS A SPECIAL REQUEST, THAT'S SOLVED, THAT'S PERFECT.
NOW, THE SECOND ONE IS WITH A DIFFERENT HAT. AND THIS IS THE .CAT HAT. AND THAT'S SOMETHING I WILL NOT ENTER INTO THE CONTRACTUAL ISSUES HERE, BUT A GENERAL QUESTION THAT WILL DROP ON YOUR TABLE, THAT WILL FOLLOW THINGS LIKE THAT.
ICANN IS MOVING FROM A SYSTEM -- YOU KNOW, COLLECTING THINGS FROM REGISTRARS WHICH IS BASED MORE ON REGISTRY BASED FEE FOR TRANSACTION AND BASED ON DOMAIN NAME, AND DOMAIN NAME BEING WHAT'S ON THE DATABASE, NOT WHAT'S IN THE ZONE. WHICH IS PERFECTLY SENSIBLE. I WILL NOT CHALLENGE THAT.
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF THIS MIGHT BE THAT YOU TRY TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN DEFINING IDNS, YOU MAY END UP WITH LONG LIST OF VARIANTS FOR A SINGLE DOMAIN NAME THAT YOU EFFECTIVELY REGISTER AND SOMEBODY USES.
BUT MANY OTHERS ARE IN YOUR DATABASE. IN CASES LIKE CATALAN, THERE ARE JUST SOME NAMES FOR EACH DOMAIN NAME THAT IS ACTIVATED AND USED. IN SOME OTHER LANGUAGES, THERE MAY BE HUNDREDS, I'M TOLD THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT VARIATIONS OF EXACTLY THE SAME DOMAIN, WHICH I REPEAT IS SOMETHING WHICH MAY HAVE A REALLY STRANGE CONSEQUENCE ON HOW THE REGISTRIES WILL CONFRONT THE ISSUE OF IDNS.
SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK THAT THE BOARD SHOULD DEAL WITH PROMPTLY.
THE LAST QUESTION, JUST WITH MY ICANN T-SHIRT ON, IS REGARDING WHAT TINA SAID AND THE REGISTRIES ARE SAYING ABOUT AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES OF LANGUAGES, I HOPE THAT WE DON'T TRY TO REINVENT THE WHEEL. THE APPLIED LINGUISTS KNOW ABOUT THAT, AND THERE ARE MORE OR LESS QUITE WELL-ESTABLISHED LISTS ABOUT AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES FOR MOST OF THE LANGUAGES FOR WHICH IDNS ARE BEING PROVIDED NOW OR WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
SO I HOPE THAT WE WILL MORE REFER TO WHAT'S OUT THERE THAN TRYING TO ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE THAT WILL DECIDE LANGUAGE BY LANGUAGE WHICH IS THE AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AMADEU. I THINK I UNDERSTOOD TINA TO HAVE SAID THAT THEY WOULD LOOK FOR APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES, NOT CREATE NEW COMMITTEES ON LANGUAGE-SPECIFIC MATTERS.
MOUHAMET HAD HIS HAND UP, AND THEN I'LL TAKE ANOTHER RESPONSE FROM THE FLOOR.
>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU, VINT.
I'M GOING TO JUMP ON THE TECHNICAL ISSUE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED DURING THE FORUM.
I HAVE BEEN MORE FOCUSED ON ANOTHER AREA WHERE WE NEED TO HAVE THE SAME APPROACH THAT WE HAVE WITH THE STRAT PLAN.
THE DIFFICULTY WITH IDN IS WE ALWAYS TALK ON A TECHNICAL -- JUST WE TRY TO BE FOCUSED ONLY ON THE TECHNICAL THING, AND FORGET THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH AN ISSUE THAT IS MUCH MORE COMMUNITY RELATED AND MARKET RELATED. AND IF WE DID NOT TRY TO BALANCE THESE TWO POINTS OF VIEW, WE'RE GOING TO MISS SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE STUDY THAT HAVE BEEN DONE, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING, IT'S SOMETHING THAT JUST GO ACROSS ALL THE DOMAIN NAME SPACE, AND IT WAS A VERY -- WE THANK STEVE FOR DOING THAT JOB, JUST TO HIGHLIGHT THE DIFFICULTIES THAT THE REGISTRANT WILL HAVE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE REGISTRY AND THE REGISTRAR.
SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THE SAME APPROACH OF IDN. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE MARKET.
SOMETIME WE -- WE NEED A VERY STRONG AND GOOD ASSESSMENT OF WHAT THE MARKET OF IDN IS, AND WE DON'T HAVE IT.
SO YOU HEAR SOMETIMES SOME COMMENT LIKE NOBODY CAN JUSTIFY BY THE MARKET, BUT WE NEED, AS -- IN ICANN, TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE MARKET NEEDS AND TO HAVE A BETTER ASSESSMENT OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS EXPECTING FROM IT.
AND TO BE HONEST, WE DID NOT SEE THAT -- THAT JOB BE DONE BEFORE, BECAUSE WE -- SOMETIME WE JUST MORE FOCUSED ON A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH, AND I AGREE THAT WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THIS INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRY TO AVOID TO INTRODUCE ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO SPOIL THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN INVEST AND SET UP IN PLACE FOR MANY YEARS.
BUT IF YOU HEARD THE COMMUNITY, WHAT THEY'RE EXPECTING FROM ICANN IS TRY TO BE MORE OPEN TO WHAT PEOPLE SUGGEST.
IF WE JUST BIND THE EVOLUTION OF OUR DISCUSSION TO SOME INFORMAL PROCESS IN WHICH YOU ONLY HAVE TECHNICAL STAFF, WE WILL GET A PROBLEM TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE IT'S JUST LIKE THE TECHNICAL PEOPLE WILL TRY TO BIND ALL THE EVOLUTION OF A CONCEPT THAT IS MUCH MORE MARKET RELATED AND COMMUNITY RELATED TO SOME CONSTRAINT THAT WE ALREADY HAVE SEEN SOME SOLUTION POINTED OUT.
AND WE NEED TO PUT THE IDN BACK IN ITS CONTEXT, LIKE SOMETHING THAT IS A MARKET NEED, AND WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IT AS A MULTILINGUAL APPROACH OF THE INTERNET AND TO HAVE A BETTER -- I MEAN A MORE INCLUSIVE APPROACH OF THE INTERNET FOR MORE COMMUNITIES.
AND I THINK THAT IF YOU DO THAT, WE HAVE TO DEFINE, AS WE DID IT FOR THE STRATEGY PLAN THAT, WE NEED TO REALLY SEE WHERE WE CAN HAVE INPUT COMING FROM, NOT ONLY FROM INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH TECHNICAL PEOPLE, BUT ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE SOME INTEREST IN IT AND WHO CAN GIVE GUIDANCE TO ICANN TO HAVE A BETTER PROCESS NEED TO BE DONE.
SO WE NEED TO DISCUSS ON THE PROCESS OF GETTING INPUT FOR IDN DISCUSSION INSIDE ICANN.
AND MY IMPRESSION IS WE DID NOT THINK A LOT ABOUT THE PROCESSING ITSELF BECAUSE THE DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING BETWEEN THE TECHNICAL PEOPLE HERE, LIKE THE LANGUAGE, IT'S JUST LIKE BEING AROUND A SALON AND TAKING TEA AND DRINKING AND WAITING FOR -- AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND FROM OUR OWN PERSPECTIVE. I THINK WE NEED TO BE MORE FOCUSED ON THE PROCESS, TRYING TO DEFINE IT, AND TO GIVE INPUT FOR COMMUNITY WHO HAVE GREAT INTEREST IN THAT TO GIVE INPUT THAT'S GOING TO BE STRUCTURED AND MAKE THE DISCUSSION MOVING FORWARD.
AND I DID NOT FEEL THAT WE REALLY WORK ENOUGH ON THE PROCESS. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CONTENT. THE CONTENT, WE DID A GREAT JOB ON THE TECHNICAL SIDE BUT LESS ON UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE MARKET IS EXPECTING FROM US AND WHAT THE COMMUNITY ARE EXPECTING FROM ICANN TO HELP IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE IDN.
WE SEE A LOT OF STUFF DEPLOYING ON THE CCTLD. SO WE NEED, AS AN ICANN STRUCTURE, TO GATHER ALL THIS EXPERIENCE. BEST PRACTICE OR GUIDELINE ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT IT. AND I THINK THAT'S PART WHAT HAVE ICANN WILL HELP THE COMMUNITY TO STRUCTURE THE DEBATE ON IDN AND NOT LET ANY CC TO DO THE JOB THEY WANT TO DO ON IT. AND MAYBE FOR EXAMPLE GIVE -- WE HAVE GUIDELINE FOR THE GTLD, AND I THINK THAT THE GTLD IS FOLLOWING THESE PRINCIPLES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDN. BUT ON THE CC SIDE WE DID NOT SEE AN APPROACH IN WHICH ICANN WILL HELP THE CC, I MEAN TO DISCUSS WITH ALL THE OTHER REGISTRY, AND ALSO THE OTHER COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT WILL BE THE BEST PROCESS TO IMPLEMENT IDN AND HELP THIS TO HAPPEN IN A VERY EFFICIENT MANNER FOR THE REGISTRANT.
I DON'T WANT THE DISCUSSION ONLY TO BE FOCUSED ON THE TECHNICAL RESTRICTION, AND IT SEEMS TO BE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE REPORT WE'RE DOING, IT'S -- THE FOCUS IS MUCH MORE DONE ON THE RESTRICTION AND THE DIFFICULTIES TO IMPLEMENT IDN THAN TRYING TO ASSESS WHAT THE MARKET NEED AND WHAT IS THERE ON OUR SIDE TO HELP PEOPLE TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL.
>>VINT CERF: SO FIRST OF ALL, TINA, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT?
>>TINA DAM: SURE.
>>VINT CERF: I APOLOGIZE, BUT IF SHE HAS A RESPONSE, I WANT TO ALLOW THAT.
THANK YOU, MOUHAMET.
>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU. IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE A SOMEWHAT SHORT REPLY TO A VERY LONG COMMENT, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID TRY THIS WEEK WAS TO HAVE MULTIPLE SESSIONS WITH VARIOUS GROUPS IN THE COMMUNITY TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS SOME OF THE NEEDS THAT MOUHAMET HAD RAISED.
IN RELATION TO MERGING OF CCS AND GS, IT'S CLEAR RIGHT NOW AS IT STANDS THAT ICANN AUTHORIZED THE GTLD REGISTRIES AND THAT'S HOW THE CONTRACTS ARE AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING. BUT THE PANEL AND ALSO PREIMPOSED WORKSHOP SESSIONS DID SUGGEST THAT WE MOVE TO A MORE COMMON PRACTICE IN THAT AREA. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DECIDED ON WHILE WE'RE HERE IN LUXEMBOURG, BUT THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE.
AND THEN THE LAST THING IS SUGGESTIONS FROM ANYBODY ABOUT THE COMMUNITIES THAT WE'RE MISSING IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT I'M VERY HAPPY TO TAKE FROM ANYBODY, AND YOU CAN FIND ME HERE OR YOU CAN REACH ME ONLINE AT MY E-MAIL ADDRESS, IS DAM@ICANN.ORG. SO PLEASE DO THAT.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MOUHAMET. IF YOU HAVE SOME PARTICULAR THINGS THAT WOULD MAKE THIS PROCESS MORE INCLUSIVE, TINA I'M SURE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE THAT INPUT FROM YOU AS WELL.
WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF -- GO AHEAD. SHORT?
>>MOUHAMET DIOP: 30-SECOND SHORT COMMENT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THE SAME PROCESS WE GOT ON THE STRAT PLAN, WE OPEN UP, EVERYBODY CAN PUT COMMENT AND WE MOVE FORWARD. I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO HELP A LOT TO STRUCTURE THE DEBATE. WHAT I'M TALKING IS IF YOU CAN HAVE A STRUCTURED PROCESS IN WHICH WE CAN SAY, OKAY, THIS IS THE INPUT, THIS IS A WAY THAT INPUT CAN BE DONE, THIS IS A WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO HELP ANY S.O. TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND THEN TO HAVE ALL THIS IN A VERY STRUCTURED PROCESS, THIS IS MOVING FORWARD AND NOT TO SAY THAT THIS IS ONLY THE POINT OF VIEW OF THIS GROUP OR THE OTHERS. SO THAT'S MY SUGGESTION.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MOUHAMET. LET ME TAKE COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR.
>>NAOMASA MARUYAMA: MY NAME IS NAOMASA MARUYAMA, AND I'M WITH JPNIC.
I HAVE EXPERIENCE INVOLVED IN IDN IN DOT JP SPACE. I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY TWO THINGS ABOUT THE -- YESTERDAY'S IDN WORKSHOP. UNFORTUNATELY, I COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE WORKSHOP YESTERDAY, BUT MAY I CLARIFY, WHAT WILL BE THE POWER OF THE OF THE REVISED IDN GUIDELINE? IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT? TO ME, THE CURRENT GUIDELINE -- CURRENT IDN GUIDELINE IS NOT CLEAR TO ME. SO I WANT TO RAISE THIS QUESTION. THE SECOND QUESTION IS WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PROCESS TO APPROVE OR DECIDE THE REVISED IDN GUIDELINE? THESE ARE TWO QUESTIONS I WOULD ASK.
>>TINA DAM: IN RELATION TO THE PROCESS ON HOW TO PROVIDE A REVISED SET OF GUIDELINES, WE DID NOT DISCUSS IT ON THE WORKSHOP YESTERDAY, BUT IN THE CURRENT SET OF GUIDELINES THERE IS A PARAGRAPH STATING, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACT WORDING, BUT IT'S STATING THAT THE IDN REGISTRIES AND ICANN WILL WORK TOGETHER TO REVISE THE GUIDELINES. SO THAT CERTAINLY -- LET ME SAY, EVEN THOUGH THE GUIDELINES ARE A REQUIREMENT FOR THE GTLDS AND NOT FOR THE CCS, THAT MEANS THE GS CERTAINLY ARE INVOLVED IN THAT BUT CCTLD REGISTRIES TOOK PART IN INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SET OF GUIDELINES THAT WE HAVE NOW SO IT'S GOING TO BE A COMBINED EFFORT.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY AND MARKET WHO HAVE GREAT INTEREST IN THIS AND SEEING IT GOING IN THE RIGHT WAY, MY PROPOSAL WAS TO CONDITION WORKING WITH THE PANELIST MEMBERS IN ADDITION TO THE CCS AND THE GS AND GET THAT WORK FORWARD IN AN INFORMAL SETTING THAT THEN CAN GO OUT AS A PROPOSAL TO THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY.
BUT IN TERMS OF WHO THE GUIDELINES ARE FOR, RIGHT NOW THE GUIDELINES ARE FOR THE GTLD REGISTRIES. THEY'RE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW IT. THE CCS ARE NOT. THAT TOPIC WAS UP FOR DISCUSSION, AND INPUT TO THAT IS CERTAINLY WELCOMED.
>>NAOMASA MARUYAMA: AND HOW ABOUT THE FIRST QUESTION, THE POWER OF WHAT THE REVISED GUIDELINE WILL BE. WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT? THE POWER.
>>TINA DAM: I'M NOT SURE I FULLY UNDERSTAND.
>>VINT CERF: TINA, I THINK WHAT HE'S ASKING IS, WHAT -- ARE THE GUIDELINES INTENDED TO BE MANDATORY, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR SOME CLASS OF REGISTRIES? FOR EXAMPLE, THE GTLDS, OR IS IT A BEST PRACTICES RECOMMENDATION? THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT I THINK THE QUESTION IS.
>>NAOMASA MARUYAMA: YES, THAT IS MY QUESTION.
>>TINA DAM: AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW I BELIEVE THE GUIDELINES ARE MANDATORY FOR THE GTLD REGISTRIES, NOT THE CCTLD REGISTRIES. THE DISCUSSION IS TO MOVE THAT TO A BPC DOCUMENT, AND WHETHER OR HOW THAT'S GOING TO MOVE FORWARD IS SOMETHING I'M NOT ABLE TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS OR SUGGESTIONS ON STAGE TODAY. BUT THE SUGGESTION WAS OUT THERE.
>>NAOMASA MARUYAMA: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL NOT GIVE ANY COMMENT ON THAT BUT PROBABLY I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT I SHOULD COMMENT ON THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LET'S TAKE THE NEXT COMMENT FROM THE FLOOR.
>>HIRO HOTTA: HI, MY NAME IS HIRO HOTTA FROM JPRS, THE .JP CCTLD REGISTRY. IT'S A MEMBER OF APTLD, ASIA PACIFIC REGIONAL CCTLD ASSOCIATION. APTLD HAS MEMBERS FROM VARIOUS DIVERSE COUNTRIES AND REGIONS WITH VARIOUS LANGUAGES AND SCRIPTS AND SOME OF THEM HAVE HUGE EXPERIENCE ON IDNS, AS YOU KNOW.
HERE LET ME INFORM YOU THAT APTLD IS WORKING ON INPUT TO THE ICANN IDN GUIDELINES. THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: LET ME THANK YOU ESPECIALLY FOR THAT. EXPERIENCE RIGHT NOW IS TREMENDOUSLY VALUABLE.
>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU FROM ME AS WELL.
>>VINT CERF: BRUCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, VINT. MY NAME IS BRUCE TONKIN FROM MOBILE IT. JUST IN TERMS OF, I GUESS, WHERE ICANN IS GOING, AND IF WE TAKE IT FROM A TECHNICAL COORDINATION POINT OF VIEW, I THINK THE FIRST POINT IS TO GET PEOPLE TO WORK TOGETHER ON SOME GUIDELINES THAT CAN BE USED IN THE BEST PRACTICE SENSE. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE NOT MANDATORY AT THAT STAGE, AND I HOPE 80 PERCENT OF WHAT WE DO WOULD FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY. AND IT SHOULDN'T BE BOUND BY ARTIFICIAL CONSTRAINTS, SAYING THIS IS JUST THE GTLD REGISTRIES. IT SHOULD BE THE CCTLD AND GTLD REGISTRY SHOULD RECOGNIZE THIS IS SOMETHING TO WORK ON TOGETHER AND WORK ON DEVELOPING BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS A STARTING POINT THAT WE'VE GOT A FAIR DEGREE OF AGREEMENT AMONGST THOSE PEOPLE. AND WE COULD PROBABLY USE FAIRLY SIMILAR PROCESSES TO WHAT IS USED IN THE IETF TO ACTUALLY FORM THOSE BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES WITH RESPECT TO IDNS.
THEN THE SECOND ISSUE IS TO SAY, WELL, IS THERE A NEED TO STICK THOSE GUIDELINES AND MAKE THEM MANDATORY BY SOME FORM OF CONTRACT. I THINK YOU WOULD ONLY DO THAT IF THERE IS MARKET FAILURE OF SOME SORT. SO I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO JUMP STRAIGHT INTO A PROCESS TO START SAYING HOW DO WE INTEGRATE THIS INTO A CONTRACT.
SO LET'S START WORKING TOGETHER ON THE BASIS OF CREATING THESE BEST PRACTICE APPROACHES. THEN SECONDLY, IF WE HAVE A FAIR DEGREE OF AGREEMENT THERE, THEN WE CAN THINK ABOUT MAKING THAT INTO A POLICY, AND THE POLICY PROCESS WOULD BE, AT LEAST FOR GTLD REGISTRIES, THROUGH THE GNSO. BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT YET. I THINK WE'RE STILL AT THE STAGE OF WE'RE DEALING WITH A NEW TECHNOLOGY, WE'RE STILL LEARNING HOW IT'S USED IN PRACTICE AND I THINK WE SHOULD WORK TOGETHER ON THOSE BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES RATHER THAN TRYING TO WORK OUT WHO WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THESE GUIDELINES COMPULSORY FOR.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, BRUCE. CARY.
>>CARY KARP: CARY KARP. IT IS AN IDEAL VISION, PERHAPS UTOPIANLY SO, BUT SOMETHING WE WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH WITH OUR EFFORTS AND THAT IS A DOCUMENT THAT DESCRIBES THE UNDERLYING CONCERNS IN A COMPELLING AND INFORMATIVE MANNER SO THAT IT WOULD PROVIDE ITS OWN EMPHASIS TOWARDS BEING ADOPTED. AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE SOLELY ENVISIONING AS A REGISTRY TOOL BUT IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE OF USE TO A PROSPECTIVE HOLDER OF AN IDN WHO SIMPLY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND ENOUGH ABOUT THIS TO BE WILLING TO PROCEED.
IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO CREATE SUCH A DOCUMENT, EVEN GET HALFWAY TOWARDS ONE, BUT THAT'S STILL THE EASY WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. THERE'S ALSO A HARD WAY, AND THAT'S SIMPLY FOR THE AGENCIES WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NORMATIVE BASIS FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE ON WHICH ALL THIS RIDES TO SEE TO IT THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO DO ANY OF THE THINGS THAT WE PERHAPS MORE EASILY, AS I SAY, VOLUNTARILY, CAN REFRAIN FROM DOING.
IS JOHN BEHIND ME ANYWHERE IN THE QUEUE? NO, HE'S NOT.
SO ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, THIS HAS TO GET SOLVED OR WE'RE ALL WASTING OUR TIME TALKING ABOUT IDN.
AND AS A COMMUNITY EVERYDAY, THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, I THINK WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET SOMETHING DONE THAT OBVIATES ANY NEED FOR DISCUSSING THE COMPETITIVE ASPECTS OF THE DOMAIN NAME INDUSTRY AND CONTRACTUAL INTRICACY.
THANKS.
>>VINT CERF: THANKS, CARY. JUST ONE SMALL OBSERVATION. WE'RE ALL PRETTY MUCH COMMITTED TO DOING NO HARM. AND I MEAN TO SUPPORT YOUR OBSERVATION THAT WE NEED TO BE VERY AWARE THAT OUR JOB IS TO DO NO HARM TO THE REGISTRANTS OR TO THE NETWORK.
I'M GOING TO ASK THAT THERE BE NO MORE QUESTIONS AFTER GEOFF. I THOUGHT ABOUT BEFORE GEOFF, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'LL BE LENIENT THIS TIME
(LAUGHTER.)
>>VINT CERF: SO ON THIS TOPIC, ANYWAY, WE'LL STOP THE QUESTIONS WITH GEOFF. PLEASE.
>>>CARRASCO: MY NAME IS CARRASCO. REGARDING THE QUESTION OF IDN, IN ADDITION TO THE DOCUMENT, ONE NEEDS AN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DOCUMENT AS A PROGRAM, AS A SERVICE, THAT ANYBODY CAN GO THERE, GENERAL PUBLIC AND REGISTRARS, AND CAN TYPE THE NAME AND THEY CAN OBTAIN SOME KIND OF REPORTS. BECAUSE THE IDN OR INTERNATIONALIZATION IN GENERAL IS A MINE FIELD. AND THIS WILL GIVE A CLEAR REPORT OF SIMILAR TO PROGRAM LIKE TIDY THAT THEY CHECK THE SYNTAX OF HTML THAT SAYS THIS NAME STANDS HERE, AND THEN IT'S UP TO THE REGISTRAR TO SAY I ACCEPT IT OR NOT. BECAUSE SUCH A PROGRAM CAN ALLOW THE EVOLUTION FAST.
THE SECOND COMMENT IS REGARDING THE QUESTION OF REFERRING TO THE MARKET THE QUESTION OF IDN IS WIDER THAN THE MARKET. I WILL TALK ABOUT THE STAKEHOLDERS, BECAUSE IN ADDITION TO MONIES -- MONEY, OTHER PEOPLE CONSIDER ALL OTHER ASPECT, NOT ONLY MONETARY.
>>VINT CERF: VITTORIO.
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. WELL, THE FIRST COMMENT IS AN IN GENERAL ONE, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO UNDERSTATE THE IMPORTANCE OF ALL THESE WORKSHOPS AND ALL THE WORK THAT IS BEING DONE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK WE -- OUTSIDE OF ICANN, THERE'S A LOT OF EXPECTATION ABOUT IDN, AND ALSO IN THE WGIG I THINK PERHAPS THERE WAS MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT MULTILINGUALISM THAN ABOUT IP ADDRESSES OR ABOUT ICANN ITSELF.
SO I THINK WE DESPERATELY NEED MAYBE LESS WORKSHOPS AND MORE FACTS, MORE PRACTICAL ADVANCES TOWARDS HAVING IDNS IMPLEMENTED.
AND THE SECOND COMMENT IS A COMMENT I THINK I HAVE ALREADY DONE, BUT I THINK YOU CAN ONLY GET IDN IMPLEMENTED IF YOU HAVE A SORT OF HOLISTIC APPROACH BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT, I MEAN, HAVING CHARACTERS IN THE MIDDLE PART OF A DOMAIN NAME BUT ALSO (INAUDIBLE) THE HTTP STRING AND OTHER PARTS OF THE THING. AND OF COURSE MOST OF THESE THINGS GO BEYOND ICANN'S MANDATE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME I THINK ICANN SHOULD CONSIDER TAKING THE LEAD ACTIVELY IN THESE, AND TRY TO CREATE A FORMAL DIALOGUE MAYBE WITH THE IETF, WITH THE W3C, AND A SORT OF ONGOING COORDINATION SO ALL TECHNICAL ADVANCES IN THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE PROCESS ARE COORDINATED AND PROCEED. BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE WILL ONLY GET HALFWAY. IN THE END -- I MEAN, THE END USER IN THE TECHNICAL SYSTEM OF MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNET DOESN'T CARE WHETHER IT'S ICANN OR IETF OR W3C. THEY WANT JUST TO GET THIS DONE.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, VITTORIO.
GEOFF.
>>GEOFF HOUSTON: GEOFF HOUSTON. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK AT THE END OF THE LINE. I WOULD MAKE THE OBSERVATION THAT MOST OF THE WORK THAT WE HAVE DONE SO FAR HAS BEEN UNDERPINNED BY STANDARDS. STANDARDS PREDOMINANTLY FROM THE IETF, BUT STANDARDS IN ANY CASE.
THE IDN WORK HAS BEEN THE FIRST CASE WHERE IN ACTUAL FACT WE'VE GONE BEFORE STANDARDS.
AND THE DOCUMENT THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED HERE HAS BEEN ONE THAT HAS NOT COMPLETED AN IETF PROCESS.
AND WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S MANDATORY, WHAT ARE GUIDELINES, WHAT ARE BEST PRACTICES, I THINK WE'RE REALLY DANCING AROUND THE ISSUE THAT WHAT WOULD MAKE LIFE HELPFUL IS STANDARDS.
THE IETF CERTAINLY HAD SOME TROUBLE IN DEVELOPING STANDARDS SO FAR WITH IDNS.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.
AND PERHAPS IN DANCING AROUND THESE ISSUES OF WHAT IS MANDATORY, WHAT IS A GUIDELINE, AND WHAT IS BEST PRACTICE, THE TRUE MESSAGE IS A QUITE STRONG ONE TO THE IETF THAT THERE IS AN INDUSTRY DEMAND FOR STANDARDIZATION IN THE DNS FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA, AND THE IETF SHOULD BE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE THE WORK AND ACTUALLY PRODUCE A STANDARD THAT WE CAN ALL WORK FROM.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)
>>VINT CERF: STEVE CROCKER.
>>STEVE CROCKER: I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO GEOFF'S COMMENT AND JUST ASK A SORT OF CLARIFICATION QUESTION, GEOFF.
I SUSPECT IN THIS CASE THAT THE STANDARDIZATION SUCH THAT IT -- WHAT STANDARDIZATION NEEDS TO BE DONE IS PROPERLY DONE IN THE IETF.
BUT AT THE RISK OF OPENING UP TOO BIG OF A CONVERSATION, AND I JUST WANT TO HAVE SORT OF A CONCEPTUAL EXCHANGE VERY QUICKLY, AND THEN WE CAN BOOK MARK IT AND MOVE ON.
WHERE ARE THE LIMITS OF WHAT IS PROPERLY STANDARDIZED WITHIN THE IETF AND WHAT MAY HAVE TO BE CODIFIED OUTSIDE OF THE IETF BECAUSE IT FALLS OUTSIDE OF TECHNICAL PROTOCOLS AND MORE INTO OPERATIONS OR INTO OTHER KINDS OF PRAGMATICS?
>>GEOFFREY HOUSTON: THE VARIANT TABLES HAVE A LOT TO DO WITH PROTOCOL PARAMETER REGISTRIES WHOSE CONTENTS ARE NORMALLY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE STANDARD.
BUT IN TERMS OF DEFINING THE ROLE OF THESE TABLES AND THEIR ROLE IN IDNS AS A CONSEQUENCE IS, TO MY MIND, CLEARLY WITHIN SCOPE OF A TRADITIONAL STANDARD IN THIS AREA AND IS CERTAINLY CONSISTENT WITH THE IETF'S PRACTICE OF CREATING A STANDARD, AND, AS REQUIRED, AN IANA CONSIDERATION SECTION THAT OPENS UP PROTOCOL PARAMETER REGISTRY OR REGISTRIES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT STANDARD.
SO I THINK THE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL HERE, STEVE, IS ONE THAT I HOPE WE'RE CONNECTING WITH, THAT THE UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK OF DEFINING IDNS AND THE ASSOCIATED VARIANT TABLES IS A STANDARD.
THE POPULATION OF THOSE TABLES AND THE WAY IN WHICH THEY ARE DONE IS MORE OF AN IANA CONSIDERATION.
>>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU.
>>GEOFFREY HOUSTON: THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
THAT'S IT ON THAT TOPIC, ALTHOUGH IT WON'T BE THE LAST TIME WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON IDNS, I'M SURE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TINA.
I AM CONSCIOUS OF RUNNING RATHER OVER TIME NOW.
SO LET'S MOVE QUICKLY AHEAD.
THE NEXT TOPIC IS NEW STLDS AND AN UPDATE ON THAT FROM KURT PRITZ.
OH, NO -- YES, FROM KURT.
OKAY.

>>KURT PRITZ: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IN THE ICANN MEETING IN TUNISIA, THE BOARD RESOLVED THAT THE STAFF SHOULD CONDUCT A ROUND SOLICITING APPLICATIONS FOR THE DESIGNATION OF NEW STLD REGISTRIES.
THIS IS THAT RESOLUTION.
AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE RECEIVED APPLICATIONS FROM TEN SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THESE REGISTRIES.
THE PROCESS FOR APPLYING, ESSENTIALLY, WAS THAT THE APPLICANT COMPLETED AN ONLINE APPLICATION.
THAT APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED TO A -- TO PANELS OF INDEPENDENT EVALUATORS.
IF THE APPLICATION WAS DETERMINED TO MEET CERTAIN BASELINE CRITERIA, THOSE STLD APPLICANTS WENT ON TO HAVE TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH ICANN.
IF WE WERE ABLE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE REGISTRY, THE AGREEMENT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL.
THE NATURE OF THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION PANELS WAS THAT THERE WAS A PANEL PROGRAM MANAGER AND THEN THERE WERE THREE SEPARATE INDEPENDENT PANELS TO EVALUATE THE APPLICATIONS.
THERE WAS A PANEL TO EVALUATE THE TECHNICAL MERITS, ONE TO EVALUATE THE BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL MERITS, AND, FINALLY, ONE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE APPLICATION REALLY REPRESENTED A COMMUNITY WITHIN THE SPONSORSHIP DEFINITION.
THE PANEL WAS AN INTERNATIONALLY DIVERSE GROUP OF EXPERTS.
THERE WERE NINE PANELISTS FROM EIGHT DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, AND IT REPRESENTS ALL THE DIFFERENT REGIONS OF THE GLOBE.
THE PANELISTS CONDUCTED A BLIND, INDEPENDENT REVIEW, AND THAT IS THAT THE PROJECT MANAGER OR PROGRAM MANAGER WAS THE CONDUIT FOR ALL COMMUNICATIONS EITHER BETWEEN ICANN AND THE EVALUATORS, AND ALSO BETWEEN THE EVALUATORS AND THE APPLICANTS.
EACH TEAM MET MANY TIMES BY TELECONFERENCE.
AS PART OF THE EVALUATION, THERE WAS AN INITIAL EVALUATION AND THEN THE EVALUATORS SUBMITTED A LIST OF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ASPECTS OF THE APPLICATION WERE FULLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE PANELISTS.
EACH SEPARATE PANEL SUPPLIED A REPORT REGARDING EACH APPLICATION AND MADE A PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE APPLICATION MET THE BASELINE CRITERIA SET OUT IN THE RFP.
THE REPORTS WERE SENT TO EACH OF THE APPLICANTS, AND IN THE CASES WHERE THE APPLICATIONS MET ALL THREE SETS OF CRITERIA, THAT APPLICANT WENT ON TO START COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL NEGOTIATIONS IN ORDER TO DESIGNATE A NEW REGISTRY.
WHERE THE APPLICANTS DIDN'T MEET THE BASELINE CRITERIA IN ANY ONE OR ALL OF THE THREE SETS OF CRITERIA, THE APPLICANTS WERE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND THEIR APPLICATION, ACTUALLY, CLARIFY THEIR APPLICATION.
AND IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CRITERIA.
THE INDEPENDENT PANELISTS WERE THEN ASKED TO RECONVENE AS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE CLARIFYING INFORMATION.
SO WHAT WE HAD HERE IS SORT OF A FEEDBACK LOOP WHERE AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION WAS FURNISHED IN WRITING TO THE APPLICANT AND THEN THERE WAS A RESPONSE.
IN ORDER TO SPEED THE PROCESS, INSTEAD OF AN EXCHANGE OF DOCUMENTS, WE HELD TELECONFERENCES, SO THERE COULD BE VIRTUAL FACE-TO-FACE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE APPLICANTS AND THE PANEL, EVEN THOUGH THE PANELISTS REMAINED UNIDENTIFIED.
AND THAT WAS INTENDED TO FACILITATE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THEM AND MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD THE NATURE OF THE DISAGREEMENTS OR THE NATURE OF THE ISSUES.
AFTERWARDS, THE APPLICANT WOULD RESPOND IN WRITING WITH A CLARIFIED APPLICATION.
THE PANELISTS WOULD THEN DETERMINE AGAIN IF THE APPLICATION MET THE BASELINE CRITERIA.
THIS SORT OF "DO" LOOP WAS CONTINUED UNTIL IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE -- ANY CHANGES OR CLARIFICATIONS TO THE APPLICATION HAD BEEN EXHAUSTED AND THERE WAS CLARITY OF WHAT THE ISSUES WERE ON ALL SIDES.
IN CASES WHERE THERE WERE CONTINGENCIES LEFT AS TO WHETHER THE APPLICATION MET THE CRITERIA, THE APPLICATION WAS PASSED ON TO THE BOARD WITH FULL INFORMATION, THAT IS, THE APPLICATION ITSELF AND THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION BETWEEN THE EVALUATORS AND THE APPLICANT.
AND AT THAT TIME THE ICANN BOARD DETERMINED WHETHER THE APPLICATION, IN FACT, MET THE BASELINE CRITERIA, WHETHER IT DID NOT, OR WHETHER FURTHER INFORMATION WAS REQUESTED.
SO BASED ON ALL OF THAT AND THE PROCESS TO DATE, THREE APPLICANTS HAVE CONCLUDED NEGOTIATIONS TO ESTABLISH NEW REGISTRIES.
SO WE HAVE THREE NEW REGISTRIES SO FAR, DOT JOBS, DOT TRAVEL, AND HERE IN LUXEMBOURG, DOT MOBI SIGNED AN AGREEMENT WITH ICANN FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A REGISTRY.
THERE'S FOUR OTHER APPLICANTS THAT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO SATISFY THE BASELINE CRITERIA, AND THEY'RE PRESENTLY IN NEGOTIATION FOR THE DESIGNATION OF REGISTRIES, DOT CAT, DOT POST, TELNIC, AND XXX.
AND YOU CAN REFER TO THE EARLIER PART OF THE PRESENTATION FOR SORT OF A ROSETTA STONE FOR THE SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS FOR EACH OF THOSE REGISTRIES.
AND THEN APPLICATIONS WHERE IT HAS NOT YET BEEN DETERMINED WHETHER THE APPLICATION MEETS THE CRITERIA ARE STILL THERE, DOT MAIL, TELNIC, AND DOT ASIA.
SO JUST SOME STATISTICS ON TLD LAUNCHES.
DOT JOBS SIGNED THEIR AGREEMENT ON MAY 5TH.
YOU CAN SEE THE APPLICATION -- THE AGREEMENT, RATHER, AT THAT URL.
IT'S POSTED.
SO FAR, THEY'VE ACCREDITED 20 REGISTRARS. AND WE EXPECT REGISTRATION LAUNCH IN LATE SEPTEMBER OF 2005.
DOT TRAVEL SIGNED THEIR AGREEMENT ON THE SAME DATE.
THEY HAVE ACCREDITED EIGHT REGISTRARS SO FAR ACCORDING TO THEIR SITE, AND EXPECT TO LAUNCH IN EARLY SEPTEMBER.
AND, NOW, THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION PROCESS HAS COME TO AN UNDER SO THAT ICANN WILL PUBLISH THE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESSES, THE IDENTITY OF THE EVALUATION TEAMS, AND MUCH OF THE DETAILED INFORMATION IN THE REPORTS, WE'RE GOING TO REDACT SOME OF THE INFORMATION IN THE REPORTS IN ORDER TO KEEP PROPRIETARY INFORMATION PROPRIETARY.
AND THEN THE FINAL -- THESE FINAL REPORTS WILL BE PUBLISHED.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, AND THE NEXT STEP, IS THAT THIS -- THIS PROCESS IN WHICH MANY ISSUES, MANY COMPLEX ISSUES WERE RAISED IN CONSIDERING WHETHER NEW TLDS SHOULD BE DESIGNATED, THIS INFORMATION WILL INFORM PARTIALLY THE GTLD IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS THAT'S CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED.
SO THAT'S MY REPORT, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, KURT.
I WILL CALL FOR QUESTIONS, BUT I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT AT NOON OUR TIME, WE'RE GOING TO STAND FOR A TWO-MINUTE PERIOD OF SILENCE IN MEMORY OF THE PEOPLE KILLED IN LONDON IN THE BOMBINGS.
SO IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS AND WE GET TO THAT TIME BY MY CLOCK, I WILL CUT THE QUESTIONS OFF FOR THAT BRIEF PERIOD.
SO LET ME ASK IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS FOR KURT WITH REGARD TO THE STLD PROCESS.
>>BRET FAUSETT: THIS IS NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION FOR KURT AS IT IS A QUESTION FOR THE BOARD.
I WANTED TO SAY THAT THE -- AS SOMEONE WHO'S WATCHED THIS PROCESS GO ON FOR MANY MONTHS NOW, IT'S CLEAR THAT IT DOESN'T SCALE.
AND IT WOULD BE NICE TO, AS A MEMBER OF THE ALAC AND THE GNSO COUNCIL, FIGURE OUT A WAY TO HELP YOU ALL MAKE THIS PROCESS MORE EXPEDITIOUS.
TO THAT END, I WOULD LOVE TO GET GREATER TRANSPARENCY AROUND WHAT THE BOARD HAS BEEN CONSIDERING WHEN IT HAS APPROVED THESE VARIOUS TLDS.
WE NOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET A STAFF REPORT.
I THINK THAT'S TERRIFIC.
THAT'S EXACTLY THE SORT OF INFORMATION WE'RE GOING TO NEED.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO HEAR A -- GET A REPORT FROM THE BOARD AT SOME POINT ABOUT WHY YOU HAVE APPROVED SOME, WHY THE VOTES WERE SO CLOSE WITH REGARD TO SOME.
IT DOESN'T -- JUST TO HAVE THE CONCERNS LISTED SO THAT WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THIS PROCESS BETTER FOR YOU GOING FORWARD.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU FOR THAT SUGGESTION.
IF YOU HAVE -- I HAVE THREE MINUTES TO NOON.
SO IF IT'S SHORT, I THINK JUST ONE MORE.
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE OUR MOMENT OF SILENCE AFTER YOU.
AND THEN WE'LL RESUME THE QUESTIONS.
SO YOU CAN SIT DOWN FOR NOW, AND THEN I'LL COME BACK TO QUESTIONS.
PLEASE, GO AHEAD.
>>JON NEVETT: BE VERY QUICK, JON NEVETT, NETWORK SOLUTIONS.
I JUST LIKE TO URGE THAT THE BOARD TREAT STLD CONTRACTS SIMILARLY AS THEY DO GTLD CONTRACTS IN ONE AREA, AND THAT IS, REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE REGISTRY/REGISTRAR AGREEMENTS.
CURRENTLY, YOU ALL APPROVE GTLD CONTRACTS THAT INCLUDE AS AN ATTACHMENT THE REGISTRY/REGISTRAR AGREEMENTS, SO YOU GET TO LOOK AT THEM AND MAKE SURE THAT REGISTRARS AND REGISTRANTS ARE PROTECTED.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE LATITUDE AND THE AGREEMENTS SHOULD BE DIFFERENT FOR STLDS.
BUT CONSISTENT WITH GTLDS, THEY SHOULD BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY ICANN STAFF AND ICANN BOARD.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROVISIONS IN THOSE CONTRACTS THAT DIRECTLY IMPACT, OBVIOUSLY, REGISTRARS, BUT ALSO REGISTRANTS.
AND FOR THAT PROTECTION, THEY SHOULD BE CONSISTENT IN THAT REVIEW.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANKS.
THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION.
I'M GOING TO CUT OFF THE QUESTIONS FOR A MOMENT NOW AND ASK YOU TO STAND FOR A TWO-MINUTE PERIOD OF SILENCE.
(PERIOD OF SILENCE.)
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
YOU MAY BE SEATED.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:VINT, I WONDER IF I COULD ANSWER BRET FAUSETT'S -- I'M NOT SURE HOW HELPFUL IT WOULD BE FOR US TO RUN THROUGH AND SAY WHY WE VOTED THE WAY WE DID.
THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION THAT MORE DETAILED MINUTES WILL BE PUBLISHED FROM THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS.
AND I WONDER IF THAT ALONE -- WOULD THAT ANSWER YOUR REQUEST?
>>BRET FAUSETT: THAT WOULD CERTAINLY HELP GOING FORWARD.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: OKAY.
THE OTHER WAY TO DO IT IS TO FIND THE BOARD MEMBERS IN THE CORRIDORS.
>>VINT CERF: ACTUALLY, ANOTHER THING WE COULD TRY TO DO IS TO SUMMARIZE THE NATURE OF THE DISCUSSION, DEBATE, WHAT THE ISSUES WERE, AS PART OF THE BOARD -- I'M SORRY, AS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT, TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE REPORT.
WE'LL FIND A WAY TO DO THIS.
ACTUALLY, BECKY, -- JUST ONE SECOND.
BECKY, WE HAD A PERSON WHO WAS AHEAD OF YOU BEFORE.
SO LET ME ASK YOU, MILT, TO GO AHEAD.
>>MILTON MUELLER: YEAH.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I SEE REAL PROGRESS IN THE STLD PROCEEDING.
I RECALL THAT WHEN IT WAS FIRST PROPOSED, THERE WAS A FIXED LIMIT ON THE NUMBER AND THAT ICANN SEEMS TO HAVE TAKEN A VIEW THAT ANY QUALIFIED APPLICATION WILL BE APPROVED.
I THINK THAT'S GREAT.
HOWEVER, TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION THAT BRET RAISED AS TO HOW THIS SCALES, I THINK THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN CONFRONTING HAVE TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT YOU'RE STILL REALLY IN THE BEAUTY CONTEST MENTALITY.
AND THAT AS LONG AS YOU'RE IN THE BEAUTY CONTEST MENTALITY, THERE'S NO WAY TO MAKE IT SCALE.
AND IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE ARBITRARY, IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE HIGHLY POLITICAL.
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE TO YOU LOOK AT MUCH MORE OBJECTIVE AND WELL-DEFINED PROCEDURES SUCH AS AUCTIONS AND LOTTERIES.
THE SPECIFIC QUESTION I HAVE CONCERNS SOME THINGS I'VE HEARD ABOUT THE DOT ASIA APPLICATION.
AND I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I HOLD NO BRIEF FOR ANY OF THESE TLDS.
AGAIN, MY POSITION IS, I DON'T EVEN CARE IF IT'S A GOOD IDEA IN A MARKET SENSE.
I THINK THE MARKET SHOULD DECIDE.
BUT THEY SHOULD BE EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF THEIR TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND, YOU KNOW, COMPLIANCE WITH ICANN REQUIREMENTS.
WITH RESPECT TO DOT ASIA, I HAVE HEARD -- AND THIS MAY BE FALSE -- THAT THEY ARE BEING ASKED TO GET THE APPROVAL OF EVERY GOVERNMENT IN THE REGION, WHICH STRIKES ME AS STRANGE.
I HAVE HEARD THAT DOT ASIA ALSO IS BEING ASKED TO COMPLY WITH THE GAC PRINCIPLES, WHICH IS EVEN STRANGER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE LAST TIME I LOOKED, DOT ASIA WAS -- OR ASIA WAS NOT ON ANY ISO 3166 LIST THAT I HAVE SEEN.
THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A COUNTRY CODE, THEREFORE, IT IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE GAC PRINCIPLES.
SO IF I'M WRONG, I'D BE HAPPY TO KNOW THAT.
BUT I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT CLARIFIED.
>>VINT CERF: LET ME SEE.
TWO POSSIBLE RESPONSES.
SHARIL, DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND?
PAUL WANTS TO AS WELL.
SO, PAUL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE IT FIRST.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: WELL, VINT, I'D JUST LIKE TO RESPONDENT PURELY ON THE LEGAL RFP ASPECTS. AND THIS COMES PARTLY TO MILTON'S PROPOSITION ABOUT PROCESS.
THE RFP SAID CLEARLY TO ALL APPLICANTS THAT THEY HAD TO BE -- THEY HAD TO BE COMPLIANT WITH POLICIES OF ICANN.
CLAUSE 8.3.2 OF THE YEAR 2000 GAC PRINCIPLES SAID QUITE CLEARLY RECOMMENDATION FROM THE GOVERNMENTS TO THE BOARD, IF THERE WAS EVER ANY CONSIDERATION FOR GTLDS TO BE NAMED IN GEOPOLITICAL TERMS, IT DIDN'T USE "GEOPOLITICAL," I THINK, BUT, BASICALLY, GEOPOLITICAL TERMS, THAT SHOULD TAKE PLACE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE RELEVANT GOVERNMENTS.
SO THAT PRINCIPLE WAS ACTUALLY AN IMPLIED TERM OF THE RFP.
>>MILTON MUELLER: (INAUDIBLE).
>>PAUL TWOMEY: WHERE I COME FROM, THE CONCEPT ASIA BEING GEOPOLITICAL IS CERTAINLY TRUE.
BUT -- OH --
>>VINT CERF: LET'S NOT HAVE A DEBATE WITHOUT BENEFIT OF THE MICROPHONES.
I SAW SHARIL.
ARE YOU -- NO.
OKAY.
THAT'S SUFFICIENT.
LET ME GET ROBERTO AND RAIMUNDO AND THEN BECKY.
>>ROBERTO GAETANO: THANK YOU, VINT.
MY COMMENT WAS RELATED TO BRET'S COMMENT AND THE -- PETER'S RESPONSE.
I THINK THAT THE SPIRIT OF BRET'S COMMENT WAS NOT TO REALLY BE AWARE OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE APPROVAL OF THE STLDS, BUT TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO BECOME A PUBLIC RECORD OF THAT.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT GRABBING BOARD MEMBERS IN THE CORRIDORS CAN BE A VALUABLE ALTERNATIVE.
THIS BRINGS ME TO A POINT TO GO BACK TO A POINT THAT MIKE HAS RAISED ALREADY AND SOME OF US ARE RAISING ABOUT THE MINUTES OF THE DECISIONS NOT ONLY, BUT THE MINUTES OF THE DEBATE.
I THINK THAT IF THERE ARE SOME REASONS FOR REJECTING AN APPLICATION OR ELEMENTS OF THE DEBATE, THEY SHOULD APPEAR AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.
THAT BRINGS A PROBLEM FOR THE INSTANCE FOR ME, THE LACK OF SUCH AN OFFICIAL RECORD.
FOR ME, AS A LIAISON FROM THE AT LARGE, I FEEL THAT IT IS MY DUTY TO REPORT TO THE ORGANIZATION THAT HAS SENT ME HERE AS LIAISON ABOUT ALL THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE RELEVANT IN TERMS OF DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE HERE AT THE BOARD, EXCLUDING, OBVIOUSLY, THINGS THAT HAVE A PARTICULAR REASON FOR BEING CONFIDENTIAL AND SHOULD NOT GO OUTSIDE THE BOARD.
I HAVE REPORTED, FOR INSTANCE, SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WERE RELATED TO THE DOT NET AND SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS BEING RELATED TO THE GTLD IN ALAC.
BUT NOW WE HAVE A PROBLEM, BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL THAT WE SHOULD REPORT IN OUR MINUTES -- AND WE DO HAVE A POLICY IN ALAC THAT ALL DISCUSSION -- RELEVANT ELEMENTS OF DISCUSSION WILL BE REPORTED IN THE MINUTES.
I DON'T FEEL THAT IT IS CORRECT THAT WE REPORT IN THE ALAC MINUTES SOMETHING THAT IS RELATED TO A DEBATE THAT WE HAD ON THE BOARD IN LACK OF SUCH A RECORD IN THE BOARD MINUTES.
AND I THINK THAT IT WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED IF WE SOLVE THIS, OR AT LEAST WE TAKE A DECISION ON WHAT HAS TO BE REPORTED IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD AND WHAT CANNOT BE REPORTED IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD, AND THEN THE WHOLE INTERNET COMMUNITY CAN ACT AS A CONSEQUENCE.
BECAUSE I'M SURE THAT THE OTHER SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND THE OTHER BODIES THAT SEND LIAISONS TO THE BOARD HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, ROBERTO.
RAIMUNDO.
>>RAIMUNDO BECA: THANK YOU, VINT.
I CERTAINLY SHARE THE OPINION THAT THE MINUTES OF THE SESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE COMPLETE THAN THEY ARE.
BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S A QUESTION OF THE PAST.
THAT WOULD NOT HAVE SOLVED THE PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN STATED.
BUT, ANYHOW, I THINK IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY TO SOME OF THE MINUTES AND THE DRAFTS OF THE RESOLUTIONS, YOU WILL FIND A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT MANY PEOPLE PERHAPS HAVE NOT SEEN.
AND I WILL GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE, OR, IN FACT, THERE ARE TWO EXAMPLES.
DOT JOB AND DOT MOBI WERE ASKED IN THE NEGOTIATION WITH THE STAFF TO ACHIEVE OR TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY WERE COMPLIANT, REALLY, WITH THE RFP ON THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME DOUBTS ABOUT THAT.
AND WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS REVIEWED BY THE BOARD, THERE WAS THE REVIEW EXACTLY THE ISSUE THAT IF THEY HAD BROUGHT NEW ARGUMENTS SHOWING THAT REALLY THE PROBLEM OF THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION WAS SOLVED.
AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION.
AND SPEAKING WITH MANY PEOPLE IN THESE DAYS AND IN -- SOMETIMES MANY DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION ON THIS ISSUE IN THE WAY THAT THE RESOLUTION WAS DRAFTED.
EVEN IF THE MINUTES DIDN'T GIVE THE DETAILS ON THE INFORMATION OR WHAT WERE THE DOUBTS THE BOARD HAD OR NOT.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR REMINDING US OF THAT, RAIMUNDO.
ONE LAST QUESTION ON THIS POINT, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT TOPIC.
BECKY.
>>BECKY BURR: THIS WILL BE BRIEF.
I JUST WANTED TO CHALLENGE THE NOTION THAT THE STLDS OR ANY OF THE REGISTRY OPERATORS SHOULD SUBMIT THEIR REGISTRY/REGISTRAR AGREEMENT FOR APPROVAL.
THERE IS AN EQUIVALENT ACCESS PROVIDING IN THE CONTRACT THAT OBLIGATES THE REGISTRIES TO PROVIDE EQUIVALENT ACCESS TO ALL ICANN AN ACCREDITED REGISTRARS, AND THERE IS ALSO A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO DO CERTAIN VERY SPECIFIC THINGS.
BY REQUIRING THE APPROVAL NOT ONLY DOES THAT, FROM A REGISTRY PERSPECTIVE, LIMIT SOME FLEXIBILITY, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE REGISTRARS OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE ON THEIR OWN BEHALF.
SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FILING THE REGISTRY/REGISTRAR AGREEMENT, BUT I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T THE TELEPHONE COMPANY.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE QUEUED UP.
STEVE CROCKER HAS HIS HAND UP, AND THEN AMADEU.
>>STEVE CROCKER: WELL, IT'S A LITTLE AWKWARD.
BUT I ACTUALLY -- BECKY, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND BECKY'S COMMENT AND WILL BE INTERESTED IN CLARIFICATION AT SOME POINT.
>>VINT CERF: WHY DON'T YOU FOLLOW UP ON THAT PRIVATELY.
AMADEU.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY.
I WON'T COMMENT ON ANY SPECIFIC QUESTION REGARDING THE EVALUATION PROCESS.
THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO TELL MILTON, FOR INSTANCE, THAT SPEAKING AT (INAUDIBLE) NOW, WE NEVER HAD THE IMPRESSION WE WERE IN THE CONTEST, THAT IS, BEAUTY OR NOT.
I PERSONALLY WOULD HAVE SOME TROUBLE WINNING IN A BEAUTY CONTEST.
(LAUGHTER.)
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: JUST SOME TROUBLE.
>> STEVE CROCKER: I THINK YOU'RE PRETTY GOOD LOOKING.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: THE QUESTION IS THAT WE HAD THE IMPRESSIONS THAT WAS REALLY MORE -- CLOSER TO THE PROCESS THAT THE VATICAN FOLLOWS TO DECLARE THAT SOMEBODY IS A SAINT, THAT IS, WAS FAIR, WAS THOROUGH, SOMETIMES WAS OBSCURE ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE QUESTIONS, AND SOMETIMES WE WERE ASKED TO PROVE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO PRODUCE MIRACLES.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD ALWAYS THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS ABOUT US, NOT US OR THE OTHERS, NOT BETTER OR WORSE THAN THE OTHERS, BUT WHAT WE WERE DOING, WHETHER THESE OR NOT.
THAT IS, WE WERE MORE IN THE TOUGH EXAM MODEL THAN THE CONTEST MODEL.
AND I THINK THAT THIS IS GOOD.
MY ONLY COMPLAINT, AS I SAID YESTERDAY, IS PROBABLY THE PROCESS TOOK TOO LONG, FOR US AND FOR ALL THE OTHERS.
WE NEEDED SOMETHING STRUCTURED NOT JUST BECAUSE WE WERE DIFFICULT OR UNCONVENTIONAL OR WHATEVER, ALL RIGHT, BUT THIS WAS THE THING.
NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, ON ONE QUESTION THAT WAS RAISED BEFORE ALSO BY MILTON, AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT WE ALSO HAD TO DEAL WITH THESE FAMOUS GAC GUIDELINES -- AND THAT RECALLED THE LETTERS -- THE QUESTION IS THAT I AM STILL UNSURE ABOUT THE USE THAT IS BEING MADE ABOUT THE GAC GUIDELINES, WHICH, BY THE WAY, REMEMBER, THEY ARE NOT ICANN RULES.
IT'S AN ADVICE FROM THE BOARD -- SORRY, FROM THE GAC TO THE BOARD.
AND I HAVE THE IMPRESSION -- THIS IS SOMETHING THAT PERHAPS WE SHOULD DISCUSS AT THE END OF THIS PROCESS -- THAT THE USE THAT IS BEING MADE OF THE GAC GUIDELINES ARE EXACTLY AT THE BORDER, PERHAPS INSIDE WHAT'S ACCEPTABLE, BUT EXACTLY AT THE BORDER OF HOW ICANN SHOULD USE THOSE GUIDELINES.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, AMADEU.
LET ME JUST REMIND EVERYONE THAT WE'RE CLEARLY NOT GOING TO GET THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT WE HAD PLANNED IN THE TIME THAT HAD BEEN ALLOTTED.
MY INTENTION IS TO CONTINUE THIS SESSION.
WE CAN'T GO BEYOND 1:00.
BUT WE'LL CONTINUE TO TRY TO GET THROUGH EVERYTHING.
BUT I WOULD, AGAIN, ASK EVERYONE FOR BREVITY, IF POSSIBLE.
LET ME TAKE THE QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR, AND THEN -- IS IT PETER --
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: JUST A QUICK RESPONSE TO AMADEU, VINT, ABOUT THE GAC PRINCIPLES.
CAN I JUST EXPLAIN THAT WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION, AMADEU, ABOUT THE GAC PRINCIPLES, AND THE POINT WAS MADE THAT WE -- THE DOT ASIA APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN ASKED TO SOUND THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE REGION, NOT TO GET THEIR APPROVAL.
THEY'VE BEEN ASKED TO SAY, WHAT IS THE POSITION OF AS MANY GOVERNMENTS AS YOU CAN GET REPLIES FROM.
AND WE HAVE HAD THE DISCUSSION IN THE BOARD THAT THAT WILL BE INFORMATION THAT WILL COME BACK TO US.
IT'S -- IT ISN'T THAT THE GAC RULES ARE BINDING.
>>VINT CERF: THERE'S POTENTIALLY SOME DEBATE ABOUT THAT LAST REMARK.
LET'S TAKE THAT UP -- WELL, SHARIL.
ALL RIGHT.
OKAY.
LET'S TAKE THE QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR.
>> JONATHAN SHEA: I'M JONATHAN SHEA FROM THE HONG KONG HK COUNTRY CODE REGISTRY.
I HAVE A QUESTION AND A COMMENT ON THE NEW STLD.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER -- IS THERE A DEADLINE?
THERE ARE APPLICATIONS WHICH ARE STILL NOT MEETING THE BASELINE CRITERIA.
SO I'M JUST WONDERING WHETHER THERE WILL BE A PERPETUAL SORT OF THING FOR APPLICANTS TO GO, TO COME BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION, MORE INFORMATION AND YOU ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT.
THAT IS THE FIRST QUESTION.
AND AN OBSERVATION OF I JUST LISTENED TO --
>>VINT CERF: IF YOU'D LIKE AN ANSWER TO THAT, THE ANSWER IS, NO, THIS WILL NOT GO ON IN PERPETUITY.
THE BOARD MAY HAVE ASKED FOR SOME INFORMATION IN ORDER TO MAKE DECISIONS.
BUT JUST AS IN THE CASE OF SOME OF THE OTHER STLDS, WE INTEND TO DRAW A LINE AND SAY IF WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN RESOLUTION BY THAT DATE CERTAIN, WE WON'T GO ANY FURTHER.
>> JONATHAN SHEA: IS THE DEADLINE PUBLISHED OR KNOWN TO ANYBODY?
>>VINT CERF: NO, IT HASN'T BEEN SET.
BUT IT WILL BE.
>> JONATHAN SHEA: SO I THINK THAT IS -- THAT SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM.
I MEAN, IF THE DEADLINE IS NOT SET, THEN WOULDN'T THAT MEAN, YOU KNOW, THE THING IS STILL ONGOING FOR QUITE A WHILE?
>>VINT CERF: I JUST COMMITTED TO YOU THAT A DEADLINE WILL BE SET.
THAT'S AS FAR AS I CAN GO.
>> JONATHAN SHEA: OKAY.
AND MY OBSERVATION ON THE THREAD OF DISCUSSION ON DOT ASIA IS THIS:
I NOTICE THAT IN THE APPLICATION, THE SPONSORING ORGANIZATION IS ACTUALLY THE SAME AS THE PROPOSER. WELL, MY INTERPRETATION, THEN, WOULD BE THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY NO REAL SPONSORING ORGANIZATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION. AND I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF, YOU KNOW, WITH THIS PARTICULAR SORT OF SITUATION THAT THIS APPLICATION IS STILL TREATED A VALID ONE. THAT'S THE FIRST THING. ANOTHER THING IS THE DISCUSSION OF INVOLVEMENT OF THE GAC IN DETERMINING THE SITUATION OR THE VALIDITY OF THE .ASIA.
I WOULD INTERPRET THAT AS AN INDICATION OF SOME SORT OF ANOMALY IN THE APPLICATION.
ACTUALLY, I WOULD BET EVERYONE WOULD THINK THE SAME THAT IT'S OBVIOUS THAT ASIA IS -- THAT .ASIA IS ACTUALLY A MORE REGIONAL TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN. IT'S NOT REALLY A GENERIC ONE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE DOT EU AS AN EXAMPLE. WITH DOT EU, I AM TOLD THAT THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY IS THE ONE WHO HAS PUT OUT A TENDERING PROCESS AND CHOOSE THE REGISTRY FOR .EU. BUT FOR .ASIA, ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT HAVE SUCH A COLLABORATION OR SUCH A STRUCTURE IN ASIA, BUT I WOULD -- I WOULD TEND TO THINK THAT A SIMILAR SORT OF SETUP WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE GOVERNMENTS IN ASIA TO WORK TOGETHER, OKAY, IF POSSIBLE. AND THEN THEY ARE THE ONE WHO IS GOING TO DETERMINE WHO SHOULD BE THE REGISTRY RUNNING .ASIA. TEAMS NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, SOMEONE COME FORWARD AND THEN JUST ASK THE GOVERNMENT FOR SUPPORT.
I JUST DON'T THINK THE PROCESS IS RIGHT. AND I REALLY URGE THE INDEPENDENT PANEL TO LOOK CAREFULLY AND NOT LETTING AN APPLICATION DISGUISED AS AN DOMAIN BUT, IN FACT, IT'S NOT REALLY AN SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL TO SORT OF BE IN THE PROCESS.
STLD.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU. I WILL CALL ON PAUL.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: THE BOARD IN A SPECIAL MEETING ON STLDS ON THE 3RD OF MAY, THE BOARD RESOLVED THAT REQUESTED ICANN STAFF OBTAIN FROM THE APPLICANTS FOR DOT ASIA ADDITIONAL DETAIELD INFORMATION REGARDING THE APPLICANT'S COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 8.3 OF THE PRINICIPLES FOR DELEGATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF CCTLDS PRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR OTHERWISE REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD WITHIN 90 DAYS. THAT'S THE PRESENT STATUS OF ANY TIME LINE.
>>VINT CERF: SPECIFIC TO THAT -- THAT'S SPECIFIC TO THAT ONE STLD.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: SPECIFIC.
>>VINT CERF: AS OPPOSED TO THE DEADLINE FOR TERMINATING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE STLD PROPOSALS THAT COME IN.
SHARIL.
>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU, VINT. I WAS TRYING TO RESPECT YOUR REQUEST FOR KEEPING THINGS BRIEF, BUT SINCE THIS HAS COME UP SEVERAL TIMES NOW, I FEEL COMPELLED TO MAKE CERTAIN CLARIFICATIONS.
NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE -- AND I WON'T -- AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, I'LL TRY NOT TO REFER TO ANY SPECIFIC STLD APPLICATIONS. BUT WITH REGARD TO THE PRINCIPLE 8.3, THERE ARE CONCERNS BY GOVERNMENT, AND THESE ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT ABUSE OF USE OF COUNTRY NAMES. AND IN THIS REGARD, ALTHOUGH THE REFERENCE TO THE CCTLD PRINCIPLES MAY LEAD YOU TO THINK THAT IT'S ONLY ABOUT CCTLD PRINCIPLES, I URGE YOU TO READ THE DOCUMENT.
IT ACTUALLY SAYS RECOGNIZING ICANN'S RESPONSIBILITIES TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS IN THE CREATION OF ANY GENERIC TLDS, ICANN SHOULD AVOID, IN THE CREATION OF NEW GENERIC TLDS, WELL-KNOWN AND FAMOUS COUNTRY, TERRITORY, OR PLACE NAMES, WELL-KNOWN AND FAMOUS TERRITORY OR REGIONAL LANGUAGE OR PEOPLE DESCRIPTIONS OR ISO 639, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
NOW, UNLESS IN AGREEMENT WITH RELEVANT GOVERNMENTS OR PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID IS A SITUATION WHERE IT BECOMES CONFRONTATIONAL. THE ADVICE WAS TO ONLY SUGGEST THAT IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DO THIS, ENGAGE WITH YOUR GOVERNMENT PEOPLE QUICKLY, EARLY ON. DON'T WAIT UNTIL THIS IS THE VERY LAST MOMENT, THEN YOU FIND UNPRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES LIKE LAWSUITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT TAKING PLACE.
SO THIS IS THE INTENT. AND IN SOME CASES, GOVERNMENTS WILL PROBABLY HAVE NO OBJECTION. IN SOME CASES THEY MAY HAVE CONCERN.
BUT IF YOU ENGAGE EARLY ENOUGH BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, THEN YOU AVOID ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND ANY DIFFICULTIES THAT MAY LEAD TO TROUBLE LATER.
I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S ANOTHER FOUR, FIVE MORE PEOPLE, I'M AVAILABLE ON THE SITE IF PEOPLE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SHARIL. I'M SORRY; I REALLY WANT TO GET TO THE REST OF THESE QUESTIONS.
>>JONATHAN SHEA: JUST ONE LAST QUESTION. ON THE LETTER OF NO OBJECTIONS, HOW MANY DO YOU NEED BEFORE SORT OF QUALIFYING THE APPLICATION?
>>VINT CERF: I DON'T WANT TO GO THERE, FRANKLY. THE BOARD HAS ASKED FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. WE'RE WAITING FOR THAT INFORMATION TO SHOW UP.
>>JONATHAN SHEA: THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT, ANYWAY.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY. THANK YOU.
>>KHALED FATTAL: EXCEPTIONALLY. MY NAME IS KHALED FATTAL, I'M NOT SPEAKING AS CHAIRMAN OF MINC. I'M SPEAKING AS A CITIZEN FROM THE COMMUNITY OF THE NON-ASCII SPEAKING WORLD OR NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD AND I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW AN ELABORATION WHICH ACTUALLY WOULD HELP ICANN TO IDENTIFY SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT PERHAPS -- BY MAYBE TAKING A STEP BACKWARDS AND LOOKING AT THE BIGGER PICTURE. AND I'M GOING TO DRAW FROM SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE COME UP EARLIER ON.
THERE WAS A GENTLEMAN WHO MENTION BOARD OF DIRECTOR THE STANDARDIZATION WHICH I FULLY SUPPORT AND I AGREE WITH HIM AND HE MADE AN EXCELLENT POINT ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.
THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED AS WELL IN REGARDS TO HOW STLDS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN HANDLED. I'M NOT PICKING A PARTICULAR SCENARIO BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
AND I THINK PUTTING THEM ALL IN PERSPECTIVE, IF WE CAN IDENTIFY HOW SOME OF THESE CHALLENGES ARE SO DAUNTING, BECAUSE WE ARE ALL TRYING TO THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX TO TRY TO FIND THE BEST SOLUTION FORWARD, IMAGINE WHEN IDN IS TO BE DEPLOYED, AND NOW THE CONFIGURATION OF WHO, WHAT, HOW. AND IF SOME OF THE CONTENTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED IN REGARDS TO STLDS CAN BE FACTORED INTO IDNS OR WHAT I PREFER TO ALWAYS CALL AS MULTILINGUAL, BECAUSE IT ADDS MORE TO THE LANGUAGE AND THE COMMUNITY AND THE CULTURE AS WE HAVE ALWAYS DISCUSSED IN THE PAST, NOW WE CAN SEE HOW THE CHALLENGE BECOMES EVEN FAR MORE DAUNTING AND THE ELEMENT THERE IS VERY IMPORTANT IN RECOGNIZING, AND AS WE MOVE FORWARD IS THE ELEMENT OF RESPECT TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES, WHICH I AM IN NO DOUBT WE ALL RECOGNIZE AND ACCEPT.
ONE OTHER THING IS I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLIMENT SOME OF YOUR BOARD MEMBERS FOR ACTUALLY REMAINING RESILIENT ON TRYING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES AND MOVING THEM FORWARD SO THAT THINGS PROGRESS.
MY LAST POINT IS AN ANALOGY. MAN WAS WALKING DOWN THE STREET AT NIGHT AND HE HAD A COIN IN HIS HAND AND HE ROLLED THAT COIN AND I'M SURE YOU ALL HEARD THAT EXPRESSION BEFORE, AND THE COIN ACTUALLY ROLLED FROM THE WELL-LIT AREA INTO THE DARK AREA. HE SPENT THE ENTIRE EVENING LOOKING WHERE THE LIGHT WAS ON, NEVER FOUND THE COIN.
WHAT I WOULD ACTUALLY ISSUE A CHALLENGE IS THERE ARE SOLUTIONS OUT THERE, AND I'M SPEAKING AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN HERE. THERE ARE SOLUTIONS OUT THERE. I THINK IT BEHOOVES THE COMMUNITY AND THE ICANN BOARD TO REACH OUT AND SEE WHAT CAN ACTUALLY BE CONFIGURED SO WE CAN ALL COLLABORATE.
SO IT'S A COMMENT, NOT A QUESTION. THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MARILYN, IF YOU'LL KEEP THIS SHORT, I HOPE.
>>MARILYN CADE: MY COMMENT IS AS THE FORMER CHAIR OF THE TRANSFERS TASK FORCE, IT RELATES TO THE TWO COMMENTS YOU HEARD BEFORE ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF REGISTRY/REGISTRAR AGREEMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO SPONSORED TLDS. SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS ARE A FORM OF GTLDS. REGISTRY/REGISTRAR AGREEMENTS THAT COVER THESE ENTITIES MUST INCLUDE ALL CONSENSUS POLICIES. REGISTRANTS ARE AFFECTED. AND THEREFORE, I'M NOT COMMENTING ON HOW YOU MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS, BUT IF YOU DECIDE THAT THE AGREEMENTS ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE SAME REVIEW AS OTHERS, THEN YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE PROCESSES IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THE CONSENSUS POLICIES ARE INCORPORATED AND ARE ADHERED TO.
WE DON'T, IN THE COUNCIL, DEVELOP SPECIALIZED CONSENSUS POLICIES JUST FOR SPONSORED TLD'S. WE ASSUME THAT THEY APPLY ACROSS THE BOARD.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: I WANT TO COME BACK TO ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT STEVE HAD RAISED ABOUT THE REGISTRARS AND ALSO SOME OF THE POINTS THAT JON NEVETT AND I BELIEVE MARKUS HAD RAISED.
ONE OF THE REASONS REGISTRARS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT SEEING THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT -- REGISTRY/REGISTRAR, I'M SORRY, BEFOREHAND, IS BECAUSE IT'S A SPECIFIC NUANCE WITH REGARD TO SPONSOREDS.
UNLIKE THE UNSPONSORED GTLDS WHERE ALL REGISTRARS ARE ABLE TO SIGN UP AND PROVIDE THAT SERVICE, THE STLDS HAVE A PROVISION WHERE THE SPONSOR SLASH REGISTRY OPERATOR GETS TO SELECT THE REGISTRARS.
SO PART OF WHAT REGISTRARS WANT IS THEY FEEL THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHAT THE TERMS ARE UP FRONT SO THAT THEY WILL HAVE, FULL -- THERE WON'T BE ANY -- SO THAT ALL REGISTRARS WILL BE TREATED IN AN EQUAL MANNER. LET'S LEAVE IT AT THAT.
SO THAT'S PART OF THE CONCERNS OF WHAT THE REGISTRARS ARE TALKING ABOUT.
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THEY COULD SAY I WANT TO PROVIDE A SERVICE TO AN STLD OPERATOR, AND THAT STLD OPERATOR HAS POTENTIALLY THE RIGHT TO SAY NO. IT'S A SELECTION THAT IS -- IT'S JUST A CONCERN THAT I SORT OF WANTED TO AVOID.
GETTING BACK TO MARILYN'S POINT ABOUT POLICY AND CONSENSUS POLICY, I KNOW THAT WHEN THE COUNCIL STARTED, AND WE HAVE BRUCE HERE, MAYBE YOU CAN CORRECT ME ON THIS IF I'M WRONG, ONE OF THE FAQS WITH THE CHANGE IN REGISTRY SERVICES DEALT WITH WHETHER THAT PDP WOULD INVOLVE STLD APPLICANTS, BECAUSE THERE IS SORT OF A DELEGATION OF POLICY TO THE APPLICANT.
SO I KNOW THAT THE COUNCIL IS LOOKING AT THIS AND THERE IS SORT OF MAYBE A GRAY AREA AND HOPEFULLY IT COULD BE EXPLAINED PROPERLY SO THERE'S NO CONFUSION.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY. BRUCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'LL QUICKLY RESPOND TO THAT, MIKE, AND THEN MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT.
BUT I THINK THE CONCERN THAT THE COUNCIL HAD WITH RESPECT TO GTLDS IS THAT NOTHING HAPPENS THAT WOULD IMPACT THE REST OF THE INTERNET OR THE REST OF THE INTERNET USERS. AND OUR VIEW IS REALLY VERY FOCUSED ON SECURITY AND STABILITY WITH THAT RESPECT.
AND THEIR WORK WAS AN EXAMPLE OF A CHANGE, AND NOT LONG AGO, THAT DID HAVE -- WHICH WAS IMPLEMENTED BY ONE OF THE REGISTRIES THAT DID HAVE FAIRLY WIDE IMPACT, AND WE'RE SAYING IT IS REALLY -- DOESN'T MATTER WHAT TYPE OF TLD IT IS. AND IN FACT, I PERSONALLY DON'T CARE. I THINK SPONSORED AND UNSPONSORED IS NOT REALLY A USEFUL DIFFERENTIATION.
THE COMMENT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN A BIT OF DISCUSSION THIS WEEK ABOUT REGISTRARS BEING CONCERNED WITH THE .NET AGREEMENT, THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO VIEW THE FINAL AGREEMENT. AND I THINK -- I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS TO THE BOARD THAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE LINKAGES BETWEEN WHAT YOU'RE DOING BETWEEN ICANN, THE REGISTRY AND REGISTRARS. BECAUSE YOU EVENTUALLY CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT OF CONSTRAINTS IN ONE AREA AND THEN YOU'RE STARTING TO RELAX CONSTRAINTS IN OTHER AREAS. AND I WOULD SAY YOU HAVE CREATED AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE REGISTRIES HAVE AN ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE THINGS WITH ICANN, AND I FULLY SUPPORT THAT, BUT THEN YOU'VE THEN CREATED AN ENVIRONMENT SAYING WELL, ALL THE REGISTRARS HAVE TO HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME AGREEMENT WITH THE REGISTRIES, BUT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY INPUT INTO THAT AGREEMENT.
SO I'D RATHER THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO START RELAXING STUFF IN SOME AREA, YOU ALSO GIVE US A BIT OF FLEXIBILITY AS WELL.
SO IF YOU HAVE GOT A STANDARD FORM REGISTRY/REGISTRAR AGREEMENT WHICH HAS A REASONABLE AGREE OF SUPPORT IN THE INDUSTRY, THAT'S AT LEAST A STARTING POINT. YOU KNOW YOU CAN DO NO WORSE. BUT WHY DO WE HAVE TO HAVE THE SAME REGISTRY/REGISTRAR AGREEMENT? BECAUSE THERE MAY WELL BE -- I IMAGINE THE BANKING LAWS AND LIABILITY LAWS IN SOUTH AMERICA ARE PROBABLY VERY DIFFERENT IN NORTH AMERICA OR VERY DIFFERENT TO AUSTRALIA. SO IT'S NICE TO HAVE SOME STANDARDIZATION AS GEOFF HOUSTON POINTED OUT EARLIER THAT AT LEAST WE KNOW WHERE WE'RE STARTING FROM BUT WE MIGHT WANT TO GO BETTER THAN THAT AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE AS BUSINESSES, ONE ON ONE, AS A REGISTRAR AND REGISTRY JUST AS REGISTRIES ARE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE ONE ON ONE WITH ICANN ON ISSUES OF CONCERN TO THEM.
SO THE REASON WHY WE'RE SO SENSITIVE TO BEING ABLE TO SEE THESE AGREEMENTS BEFORE THEY'RE SIGNED AT THE MOMENT IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE LOCKED US ALL INTO IT.
SO YOU ARE ACTUALLY BINDING US IN WHAT YOU'RE AGREEING TO. AND IF YOU'RE BINDING ME IN WHAT YOU'RE AGREEING TO. AT LEAST HAVE THE DECENCY TO COME AND TALK TO ME ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE NEGOTIATING.
IF YOU WANT TO COMPLETELY OPEN THAT UP AND LEAVE IT TO ME TO NEGOTIATE MY AGREEMENT WITH THE REGISTRIES, I DON'T CARE. BUT I KNOW CERTAINLY, AS A LARGER REGISTRAR, WE CAN PROBABLY NEGOTIATE OUR OWN DEAL. FOR A SMALLER REGISTRAR, THEY'D CERTAINLY WANT TO KNOW THERE'S SOME COMMON SET OF TERMS THAT THEY CAN JUST SIGN BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF BARGAINING POWER BECAUSE THEY'RE SMALL, AND THOSE TERMS ARE REASONABLE.
BUT, ALLOW AT LEAST SOME FLEXIBILITY TO THE INDUSTRY, BECAUSE REGISTRARS ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT, JUST AS REGISTRIES ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT. AND THIS WHOLE CONCEPT OF SAMENESS I THINK IS THE WRONG APPROACH. I THINK IT SHOULD BE EQUITABLE AND TRANSPARENT.
SO AT LEAST WHATEVER IS BEING NEGOTIATED IS TRANSPARENT.
>>VINT CERF: BRUCE, JUST A REMINDER, WE DID COMMIT TO EXTENDING THE REGISTRY/REGISTRAR AGREEMENT COMMENT PERIOD, AND THAT IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO WHERE YOU'RE AT, AT LEAST IN ONE RESPECT.
MIKE, PLEASE KEEP IT SHORT BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO MORE REPORTS TO GO.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: I AGREE WITH BRUCE ON THE USE OF EQUITABLE. I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE -- THE USE OF THE WORD EQUAL AND EQUITABLE HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT DISPUTED, AND I THINK THE TERM -- THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT. AND I THINK THERE'S MERIT MORE TOWARDS THE EQUITABLE AS OPPOSED TO THE EQUAL, WHICH HAS SOME POTENTIAL RESTRAINTS. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING HOPEFULLY THE COMMUNITY COULD PROVIDE INPUT AND INSIGHT ON.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY. KURT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR LITERALLY LONGSTANDING PATIENCE. LET ME NOW CALL ON OLOF NORDLING TO GIVE A REPORT ON THE PROCESS, STATE THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PROCESS FOR NEW GTLDS.
>>OLOF NORDLING: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR NEW GTLDS, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY A TOPIC FOR THE FUTURE.
BUT IT HAS BEEN SO FOR QUITE SOME TIME A TOPIC FOR THE FUTURE.
SO LET'S HAVE A QUICK LOOK BACK TO SEE WHERE WE STAND.
THE SAME BOARD RESOLUTION WHICH KURT REFERRED TO, WHICH LAUNCHED THE STLD PROCESS ALSO REQUESTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STRATEGY FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS. AND LO AND BEHOLD, THAT STRATEGY WAS PRODUCED AND ACCOMPLISHED IN SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
>>VINT CERF: OLOF, OLOF, EXCUSE ME, BUT WHATEVER SLIDES YOU MIGHT BE TRYING TO SHOW ARE NOT COMING UP AT ALL.
>>OLOF NORDLING: OH.
>>VINT CERF: THIS MAY HAVE TO DO WITH -- OH, THERE WE GO. OKAY.
>>OLOF NORDLING: I'LL BE AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE. MY BOSS HAS TOLD ME, AND I FOLLOW HIS ORDERS.
(LAUGHTER.)
>>OLOF NORDLING: ANYWAY, THE STRATEGY IS THERE AND WE HAVE GATHERED EXPERIENCE WHICH WE HAVE HEARD, AND MORE OF THAT WILL COME FROM THE STLD INTRODUCTIONS, AND WE HAVE RECEIVED REPORTS THAT WERE REQUESTED MOSTLY FROM THE WIPO, FROM SSI.
SO WE HAVE ACTUALLY COMPILED A PRETTY BIG INVENTORY OF ANSWERS, AS IT WOULD BE.
BUT WHAT ARE, THEN, THE QUESTIONS? NOW, THE STRATEGY DOCUMENT IDENTIFIES THE NEED TO IDENTIFY THE COMPLETE SET OF ISSUES NECESSARY TO RESOLVE FOR THE PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION. IN ORDER TO RESPOND TO THAT, ICANN STAFF HAS DRAFTED A PAPER CALLED "NEW TLD QUESTIONS," OF WHICH YOU ARE PROBABLY WELL AWARE, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN SENT TO ALL THE SOS AND ALL THE ACS AND IT HAS BEEN POSTED ON THE WEB FOR COMMENTS.
THE STRUCTURE IS BRIEFLY FIVE ISSUE AREA WHERE WE LIST A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS AND A MATRIX THAT TRIES TO MAP THE INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS TO ICANN BODIES AND ALSO EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS TO SEE WHERE INPUT COULD BE RECEIVED.
JUST BRIEFLY ON THE QUESTIONS AS SUCH, WELL, I ACTUALLY HAD -- IT HAD LANGUAGE AS A QUESTION, BUT THEN ALSO A NUMBER OF ANCILLARY QUESTIONS, AND THIS IS MORE LIKE MIND MAP EXERCISE, ACTUALLY.
SO THE FIRST ONE IS HOW MANY NEW TLDS SHOULD ICANN DESIGNATE AND WITH WHAT FREQUENCY?
GIVEN THAT WE ALREADY NOW HAVE RECEIVED QUITE A LOT OF INPUT FROM MANY SINCE THE PAPER WAS LAUNCHED, I THINK IT DOES HAVE AN EFFECT. AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS BROUGHT FORWARD, ISN'T THERE A NEED FOR A META QUESTION BEFORE WE START ON ALL THIS IS WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR NEW TLDS?
AT ANY RATE, WE'RE FORCING THAT IN A CERTAIN WAY BECAUSE HOW MANY, THE ANSWER TO THAT WOULD BE A NUMBER, AND A NUMBER COULD BE ZERO.
NOW, THE SECOND QUESTION, WHICH NAMING CONVENTIONS SHOULD APPLY? THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE HAVE TOUCHED UPON IN THESE DAYS AS WELL.
WHICH ALLOCATION METHOD OR METHODS SHOULD BE USED? REALIZING WHAT WE HAVE USED UNDER THE STLD IS PERHAPS NOT THE EASIEST ONE.
AND WHAT CONDITIONS SHOULD APPLY FOR NEW TLD OPERATORS? BASED ON EXPERIENCE AND ADDITIONAL IDEAS.
AND, 5, A VERY, VERY TOPICAL MATTER, HOW WILL THE DEPLOYMENT OF INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, OR IDNS, AT THE TOP LEVEL IMPACT DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS? THERE MAY WELL BE A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN 5 AND 1.
THERE'S A BRIEF LOOK AT THE MATRIX. THAT'S THE WAY THE MATRIX LOOKS AND I WON'T SPEND ANY MORE TIME ON THAT. YOU KNOW THAT IT'S THERE.
AND FINALLY, IT IS A DRAFT. IT'S NOT FORECLOSING ANYTHING. I HAVE HEARD QUITE A FEW JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS THAT THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER IS IMPLIED BY THE QUESTIONS POSED. NO, THE QUESTIONS DO NOT IMPLY ANY REFERENCES, WHATSOEVER. THEY'RE CERTAINLY INTERLINKED ALL AL AMONG THEM. AND CERTAINLY, THE MATRIX DOES NOT IMPLY ANY EXCLUSIVITY. IT JUST TRIES TO HIGHLIGHT FROM WHICH SOURCES INPUT WOULD BE ESSENTIAL TO INFORM THE PROCESS.
SO TO JUST MAKE IT CLEAR, ALL COMMENTS ARE WELCOME, BUT IN PARTICULAR AT THIS PARTICULAR PHASE, IT'S THE COMPLETENESS OF THE QUESTIONS.
IS THIS LIST OF QUESTIONS COMPLETE? SHOULD SOMETHING BE ADDED, DELETED, CHANGED OR THROW IT AWAY, THE WHOLE LOT? AND VIEWS ON THE MATRIX, SHOULD THERE BE ADDITIONAL COLUMNS? ADDITIONAL ROWS? OTHER THINGS HERE AND THERE?
AND THE DEADLINE FOR THESE COMMENTS ARE ON THE 1ST OF AUGUST.
WELL, MY BOSS HAS ONE MORE COMMENT, QUICKLY.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: ALSO, JUST TO CLARIFY, CLEARLY THE STAFF AS WELL AS THE BOARD HAVE HEARD THE DISCUSSION THIS WEEK ABOUT WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE MECHANISM TO GO FORWARD VIS-A-VIS THE BOARD AND THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS. THAT IS A QUESTION IN FLUX, AND WE RECOGNIZE IT'S A QUESTION IN FLUX. THE POSTING WAS DONE TO A SPIRIT OF SHOWING MOVEMENT FORWARD IN THE BOARD'S ROLE, BUT PLEASE DON'T TAKE THAT PART AS BEING ANY INDICATION. I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF HEARING ABOUT THAT ISSUE AND WE'RE WAITING FOR BOARD GUIDANCE.
>>OLOF NORDLING: SINCE MY BOSS STOLE MY LAST LINE ON THE SLIDE --
(LAUGHTER.)
>>OLOF NORDLING: I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF PLUGGING IN SOMETHING ELSE.
WELL, AT LEAST, I FEEL, AND I THINK MANY OF US FEEL, A CERTAIN URGENCY THAT WE GET THIS PROCESS UNDERWAY WHEN WE WELL DEFINE IT. AND LET ME SHARE A SAYING FROM MY NATIVE SWEDEN, WHICH RUNS A LITTLE LIKE THIS: WHEN MOVING A HOUSE -- WHEN MOVING HOUSE, WELL, YOU CANNOT TALK THE PIANO UP ONTO THE LORRY, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO LIFT IT.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, OLOF.
THE BOARD WILL SEEK TO PROVIDE SOUGHT CLARITY WITH REGARD TO HOW THIS COORDINATION WORKS, BUT IT'S VERY CLEAR WE WANT STAFF ACTIONS TO SUPPORT THE PDP PROCESS.
TONY.
>>TONY HOLMES: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO COMMENT THAT I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION AND THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN GIVEN SURROUNDING THIS PAPER, ITS AIMS, THE PROCESS AND WHAT IT INTENDS TO DO. HOWEVER, NONE OF THAT INFORMATION WAS CONTAINED WITHIN THE PAPER WHEN IT WAS ACTUALLY PUT OUT FOR CIRCULATION. AND THE ICANN STAFF AND ICANN BOARD SHOULDN'T BE SURPRISED WHEN THEY GET A REACTION TO A PAPER THAT CONTAINS NONE OF THE INFORMATION DETAILING HOW IT'S INTENDED TO BE USED OR THE PROCESS.
>>VINT CERF: YES, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT, TONY, AND I HOPE MY EARLIER REMARK SPEAKS TO THAT.
BRUCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, THANK YOU, VINT.
JUST A QUESTION, OLOF, AND IT'S A THEME YOU AND I HAVE PROBABLY RUN WITH A LITTLE BIT THIS WEEK, BUT I'LL JUST PICK ON YOUR EXAMPLE.
YOU TALKED ABOUT LIFTING THE PIANO INTO THE TRUCK. NOW, THAT ASSUMES YOU MADE A DECISION THAT YOU WERE GOING TO MOVE HOUSE.
WHAT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME IS WHAT DECISIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE AND WHERE ARE WE ACTUALLY STANDING WITH RESPECT TO ARE WE IMPLEMENTING A DECISION OR ARE WE IN THE PROCESS OF GENERATING A POLICY.
SO BEING SPECIFIC ABOUT NEW GTLDS, HAVE WE DECIDED WE ARE GOING TO ADD NEW GTLDS? IS THERE A BOARD DECISION THAT SAYS INTRODUCE NEW TLDS?
WE HAVE THIS CONCEPT OF SPONSORED AND UNSPONSORED. WAS THAT AN EXPERIMENT OR WAS THAT A POLICY DECISION THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE TWO CATEGORIES MOVING FORWARD.
SO I JUST WANT TO GET CLARITY, I GUESS, AS THE NEXT POINT, AND THE COUNCIL HAS CERTAINLY ASKED -- THE GNSO COUNCIL HAS ASKED THE STAFF TO ASSIST WITH THIS, BUT LET'S JUST SORT OF GO BACK, I GUESS, AND DOCUMENT WHAT DECISIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE SO WE AT LEAST KNOW WHERE WE ARE ON THAT DECISION PROCESS. BECAUSE WHAT I HEAR IN THE COMMUNITY IS A LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT THAT AND I HEAR PEOPLE SAYING LET'S COME UP WITH A RATIONALE FOR WHY WE SHOULD INTRODUCE FOR NEW GTLDS.
IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME WHETHER THAT RATIONALE ALREADY EXISTS AND YOU ALREADY DECIDED TO CREATE NEW TLDS. SO I THINK WE JUST NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR, IF YOU LIKE, IN SEPARATING WHERE ARE THE POLICY DECISIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE AND WE HAVE A WAY OF DEALING WITH THOSE AND WHERE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY NEED TO BE DECIDED.
SO USING THE MOVING ANALOGY, YOU HAVE MADE THE DECISION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO MOVE AND THEN YOU'RE WORKING OUT THE LOGISTICS OF HOW YOU'RE GOING TO MOVE, WHETHER YOU USE TRUCKS OR WHETHER YOU MOVE EACH PIECE OF YOUR HOUSE IN A CAR OR SO ON. BUT YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE A DECISION. AND AT SOME POINT YOU MAKE A DECISION YOU'RE GOING TO USE TRUCKS, THAT'S THE NEXT LEVEL OF DECISION-MAKING. AND THE NEXT LEVEL OF DECISION IS WHAT DO I PUT IN THE TRUCK FIRST.
THERE'S A CLEAR DECISION TREE THERE. AND WHAT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME, I GUESS, IS WE HAVEN'T REALLY IDENTIFIED WHAT THE DECISION TREE IS AND WHAT DECISIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE.
>>VINT CERF: I CAN TELL YOU FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, BRUCE, THAT NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE TO OPEN UP ANY FURTHER TLDS. AND SO ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT OLOF HAS IN MY VIEW ARE CONDITIONED ON ASSUMPTION THAT A NEW TLD IS OF INTEREST.
I CONTINUE TO HAVE A REAL CONCERN ABOUT THE RATIONALE FOR INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TLDS, AND SO I'D LIKE TO GET THAT SORTED THROUGH AS WELL.
MOUHAMET HAD HIS HAND UP, AND THEN AMADEU. OH, AND STEVE.
LET ME GET MOUHAMET FIRST.
>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VINT.
I WANT TO ECHO THE EVOLUTION THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THAT AREA, AND I'M REALLY HAPPY THAT WE'RE -- EVEN IF FOR MANY PEOPLE WE'RE REALLY SLOW IN THE PROCESS, BUT I THINK THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE MOVE FORWARD.
AND BEING PART OF THE MEETING WE HAVE IN TUNIS -- IN TUNISIA WHERE WE'RE ASKING OURSELVES ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW NEW TLD IN THIS SPACE, JUST IN ORDER TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE MARKET IS AND HOW IT'S GOING TO REACT ON THE OPENING OF NEW TLD, I DO NOT HAVE ANY REGRET THAT WE HAVE THAT SECOND STLD LAUNCH. AND I THINK THAT WHERE WE KEEP GOING AND HAVING MORE INTEREST TO LEARN MORE ABOUT WHAT THE MARKET WILL REVEAL TO US AND NOT TO ANTICIPATE ON WHAT THE MARKET AND WHAT THE DEMAND ON THE MARKET ARE. AND TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE MARKET IS AND WHAT THE MARKET NEED, WE HAVE NOT TO BE FOCUSED ON THE OPERATION DRIVEN APPROACH, AND THAT'S MY FIRST CONCERN IS WHEN I LOOK AT THIS DOCUMENT THAT IS VERY RELEVANT AND VERY HELPFUL IN HOW TO IMPLEMENT IN WHAT WILL BE THE CONSTRAINT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION, I AM ASKING MYSELF ARE WE GOING TO BIND OURSELVES ON AN OPERATIONAL-DRIVEN APPROACH OR ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A MARKET OR COMMUNITY-APPROACH DRIVEN IN ORDE!
R TO HAVE A BETTER ANALYSIS OF WHAT IS THE NEED FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE NAME SPACE.
SO IN COMING BACK TO THE REMARK I HAVE ON THE TABLE THAT DEPENDING ON WHERE WE ARE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LAUNCHING NEW TLD OR NOT, I JUST WANT TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT THE SAME QUESTION, IF YOU'RE GOING TO ASK IT TO PEOPLE FROM THE OPERATION, YOU WILL HAVE ANOTHER ANSWER THAN IF YOU ASK IT TO PEOPLE WHO JUST NEED IT BASED ON A COMMUNITY NEED OR BASED ON ANOTHER MARKET APPROACH.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY TRUE THINGS THAT WE KNOW, BUT I REMIND THAT WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE MARKET.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
THANK YOU, MOUHAMET.
THAT POINT'S BEEN MADE NOW, TWICE.
I'M GOING TO CUT THE QUEUE AFTER BRET.
NO, NO, NO, NOT -- I'M NOT CUTTING YOU OFF.
I SAID I WOULD CUT THE QUEUE AFTER BRET ON THIS TOPIC.
I'M TRYING VERY HARD TO TRY TO GET DONE.
WE'RE CLEARLY NOT GOING TO MAKE IT BY 1:00.
SO AMADEU.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY.
TWO THINGS.
THE FIRST IS A QUESTION.
FRANKLY, WHENEVER IS (INAUDIBLE) A LAW, I HAD THE IMPRESSION THERE WAS -- YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SOMETHING SINCERE.
WHEN READING THE PAPER AND, YOU KNOW, KNOWING THE HISTORY, FRANKLY, THE IMPRESSION I HAD IS THAT WE WANT TO JUST BUY TIME.
AND IF THIS IS THE CASE, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO REALLY COMMIT TIME AND EFFORT.
AND I TOLD THAT IN SOME PREVIOUS MEETINGS.
I THINK THAT WE ARE DANCING AROUND THE FLOOR WITHOUT ANY INTENTION TO GO ANYWHERE.
AND IF THIS IS THE CASE, I WOULD PREFER THAT THIS IS SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, WE STOP SOME YEARS AND THEN WE DECIDE.
AND THEN REGARDING THE SECOND PART IS, YOU VERY OFTEN IN ALL THE QUESTIONS WILL REFER TO NEW TLDS.
BUT, IN PRACTICE, WE KNOW WHAT REALLY HAS MADE MORE DIFFICULT THE JOB AND HAS MADE MOST PEOPLE THINK THAT PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD THINK TWICE AND THIRD TIMES AND FOURTH TIMES, IS NOT AS MUCH THE SELECTION OF TLDS AS THE SELECTION OF REGISTRIES FOR RUNNING THE TLDS.
RIGHT? IT'S NOT THE TLD ITSELF.
SO PERHAPS WE SHOULD CONCENTRATE MORE ON THAT.
AND THIS IS NOT THAT PRESENT IN THE SETTING OF QUESTIONS.
THE LAST THING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE NEW EXPERIMENT, YOU KNOW, IN 2000.
WE HAD THE SEVEN NEW TLDS, SOMETHING LIKE VERISNOW AND THE SEVEN DWARFS.
NOW WE HAVE SEVEN MORE DWARFS THERE.
BUT, FRANKLY, FOR OPEN, GENERIC, AND UNRESTRICTED TLDS, YOU WON'T LEARN MUCH FROM DOT CAT OR DOT POST OR MANY OF THE OTHERS HERE.
YOU WILL LEARN ABOUT THESE TYPE OF TLDS, BUT YOU WILL NOT SOLVE THE SORT OF QUESTIONS THERE.
SO DON'T THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO OBSERVE WHAT HAPPENS HERE.
THINK THAT THE MAIN PROBLEM HAS BEEN HOW TO SELECT REGISTRIES.
AND THERE ARE SOME IDEAS THERE.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
THANK YOU, AMADEU.
STEVE, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.
AND THEN I'LL TAKE VITTORIO.
>>STEVE CROCKER: I WANTED TO ECHO BRUCE'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE ORDER OF UNDERSTANDING CONCEPT AND DECIDING POLICY BEFORE GOING ON TO IMPLEMENTATION, AND EQUALLY SHARE THE CONCERN THAT WHATEVER THE STATED PRINCIPLES ARE BEHIND THE MATRIX, CERTAINLY THE APPEARANCE AND STRUCTURE OF IT CONVEYS A PROCESS THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S IN THE CHUTE AND ON ITS WAY TOWARD A DECISION.
AND I FIND IT UNCOMFORTABLE.
I'M WILLING TO TAKE IT WITHIN THE SPIRIT WITHIN WHICH IT'S PRESENTED.
BUT CERTAINLY CHALLENGING WHETHER OR NOT THOSE ARE THE RIGHT QUESTIONS AND WHAT THE STRUCTURE OF THAT PROCESS OUGHT TO BE IS VERY MUCH ON MY MIND.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, STEVE.
VITTORIO.
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: THANK YOU.
BOTH THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCIES WILL BE SUBMITTING FULL COMMENTS BY AUGUST 1ST.
BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE A JOINT STATEMENT NOW ON A SPECIFIC POINT THAT CAME OUT OF THE WORKSHOP WE HAD ON SUNDAY AND ON THE JOINT MEETING WE HAD ON MONDAY.
SO THIS IS ACTUALLY -- I MEAN, THIS IS A JOINT STATEMENT BY US, THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY.
SO WE RECOMMEND THAT PROCESSES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ASCII GTLDS AND IDN GTLDS SHOULD BE SEPARATED.
ADDITIONALLY, ASCII GTLDS IS A KNOWN AND STRAIGHTFORWARD PROCESS AND IS READY FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND PREDICTABLE, TRANSPARENT, AND OBJECTIVE PROCEDURES.
IDN GTLDS RAISE SOME NEW TECHNICAL PROBLEMS AND POLICY CONCERNS.
IN RESOLVING THESE ISSUES, WE STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT LOCAL LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES BE ENCOURAGED AND SUPPORTED TO TAKE A CENTRAL ROLE IN DEVELOPING POLICY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDNS.
WE STRESS THAT THE EXPEDITIOUS IMPLEMENTATION OF BOTH ASCII AND IDN TLDS IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT.
A RAPID AND PARALLEL PROCESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF BOTH IS NEEDED.
THE SEPARATION OF PROCESSES MUST NOT BECOME A REASON FOR DELAYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EITHER ASCII OR IDN GTLDS.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THAT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA.
THANK YOU.
BRET.
>>BRET FAUSETT: BRET FAUSETT.
AS SOMEONE WHO'S FOLLOWED THIS ISSUE CLOSELY OVER THE YEARS, LET ME GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHERE I THINK WE ARE RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S BEEN A PAST BOARD RESOLUTION AS WELL AS PAST GNSO COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS SAYING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE NEW GTLDS.
AND AFTER I LEAVE THE MIKE, I WILL FORWARD THE APPROPRIATE CITATIONS TO ROBERTO AS MY ALAC LIAISON, AND HE CAN CIRCULATE THEM TO THE BOARD.
NOW, WHETHER -- CERTAINLY THE BOARD CAN REVISIT THAT.
BUT I THINK THE ISSUE OF WHETHER WE HAVE NEW GTLDS HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED. AND I THINK WHERE WE'RE AT NOW IS PUTTING IN A PROCESS FOR FIGURING OUT HOW MANY AND HOW FAST.
CLEARLY, THE ISSUE OF WHETHER IT'S ONE OR TWO NEW TLDS OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS OR A THOUSAND IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS IS AN OPEN QUESTION.
BUT I THINK WE'RE PAST THE ISSUE OF WHETHER NEW TLDS ARE -- SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED.
I THINK IT'S ALSO IN THE MOU THAT THIS IS A PROCESS THAT ICANN HAS GOING FORWARD.
MY SECOND POINT WAS MORE OF A QUESTION.
AS FAR AS THE PROCESS TO MOVE FORWARD IS BEING DEFINED AT THE LUXEMBOURG MEETING, I'M UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT'S ON THE TABLE.
YOU KNOW, CLEARLY, THE GNSO HAS A ROLE TO PLAY HERE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE BOARD IS GOING TO PASS A RESOLUTION TOMORROW COMING ONE A PROCESS, I THINK THERE IS A ROLE TO PLAY.
BUT SINCE I DON'T SEE THE BOARD BEING OF ONE MIND AS TO WHERE WE ARE, I'M NOT ACTUALLY SURE WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE.
IF I HAD A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT IS BEING CONSIDERED, I THINK I AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE WOULD PROBABLY LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT.
I WONDER WHETHER THE BOARD COULD GIVE US SOME INDICATION OF WHERE IT IS AND WHAT ADVICE TO IT WOULD BE HELPFUL AS FAR AS WHAT'S GOING ON.
>>VINT CERF: I THINK THE ANSWER IS, THE BOARD IS -- I AT LEAST CONSIDER THE BOARD TO BE STILL DIVIDED ON THE QUESTION OF NEW TLDS AND HOW WE SHOULD PROCEED AND IF WE SHOULD PROCEED TO CREATE MORE OF THEM.
SO I'M NOT EXPECTING A VERY DEFINITIVE RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION, CERTAINLY NOT TOMORROW.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: CAN I ANSWER THAT QUESTION AS WELL?
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE ARE REQUIRED UNDER THE POLICY OF THE RESTRUCTURING, WHICH WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT SUBSTANTIVE POLICY-MAKING WENT ON IN THE RESPECTIVE SOS, AND BY ARTICLE 10.1 OF THE BYLAWS THAT SAYS SUBSTANTIVE POLICY IN RELATION TO THE GTLDS WILL BE MADE BY THE GNSO, THAT THIS HAS TO BE A POLICY PROCESS LARGELY MADE IN THE GNSO.
AND THE OTHER THING THAT WAS QUITE CLEAR ABOUT THE POLICY OF THE RUE STRUCTURING WAS THE INTERDEPENDENTNESS AND THE INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF THE CONSTITUENT PARTS OF ICANN.
SO THE WAY I SEE IT IS THAT WE NEED TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS OR ENCOURAGEMENT TO THE GNSO TO RUN THIS PROCESS IN SUCH A WAY THAT EVERYBODY WITH AN INTEREST IS CONSULTED.
AND I'VE ASKED THE GNSO IF THEY COULD PUT TOGETHER SOME KIND OF AN OUTLINE AS TO HOW THEY SEE THIS BEING DONE.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PETER.
I THINK THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS FOR NOW.
SO, OLOF, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT REPORT.
THE FINAL REPORT FOR THE DAY COMES FROM BARBARA ROSEMAN ON THE IANA PROCESS.
WHILE SHE'S GETTING SET UP, COULD I HAVE A SHOW OF HANDS, PLEASE, OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO ASK GENERAL QUESTIONS, OPEN MICROPHONE QUESTIONS?
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET AN IDEA OF HOW MUCH TIME WE'RE LIKELY TO HAVE TO SPEND.
I SEE THREE.
OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>BARBARA ROSEMAN: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF OUTLINE OF THIS REPORT, I'M GOING TO COVER STAFFING, CURRENT STATISTICS FOR IANA PERFORMANCE, IANA OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING OUR TEMPLATE SYSTEM, THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE, AND SOME AUTOMATION QUESTIONS.
AND THEN ASK FOR QUESTIONS AT THE END.
IN STAFFING, WE HAVE SOME QUITE GOOD NEWS.
NAELA SARRAS HAS BEGUN WORK ON 27 JUNE.
SHE'S A PROJECT SPECIALIST, WHICH IS OUR MORE SENIOR POSITION, DEDICATED TO REGISTRY OPERATIONS, ROOT, AND .INT.
SHE'S FLUENT IN ARABIC, WHICH HAS ALREADY PROVEN TO BE QUITE HELPFUL ON THE JOB.
IANA IS NOW STAFFED WITH A GENERAL MANAGER, AN OPERATIONS MANAGER, TWO PROJECT SPECIALISTS, AND A PROJECT ANALYST.
WE ALSO STILL HAVE POSITIONS OPEN FOR IANA.
LOOKING AT IANA PERFORMANCE SO FAR IN 2005, WE'RE USING NEW WORK MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES TO ADDRESS ONGOING PROBLEMS.
THE TICKETING SYSTEM WAS IMPLEMENTED IN FEBRUARY AND IS STILL BEING DEVELOPED AND IMPROVED.
WE HAVE NEW WORK PROCESSES IMPLEMENTED -- THAT WE IMPLEMENTED IN APRIL, AND THEY'RE UNDER REVIEW TO ADDRESS DEFICITS IN COMMUNICATION AND THE HANDLING OF REQUESTS.
THERE'S BEEN GRADUAL IMPROVEMENTS IN PROCESSING TIMES, BUT THIS HAS BEEN UNEVEN ACROSS THE DIFFERENT AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR IANA.
WE NEED TO BECOME MORE EFFICIENT.
INCREASED STAFFING AND MORE EXPERTISE WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THIS PROBLEM.
AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO PERFORM CONSISTENTLY FOR ALL OF OUR STAKEHOLDERS.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT AND ARE STRIVING TO ACHIEVE THAT.
THERE HAVE BEEN SOME IMPROVEMENTS IN COMMUNICATION, WITH COMMUNICATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS BEING THE KEY AREA THAT WE'RE FOCUSING ON.
AND WE HAVE DEVELOPED A SPECIAL TICKET QUEUE IN THE TICKETING SYSTEM THAT'S BEING USED TO TRACK ISSUES THAT GO BEYOND INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS.
THESE ARE ONGOING ISSUES OF MANAGING SPECIAL PROJECTS AND MANAGING OUTSIDE INCIDENTS THAT ARISE THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
FOR I.P. NUMBER RESOURCES IN IPV4 SPACE, WE'VE GIVEN OUT FIVE ALLOCATIONS THIS YEAR, AND THE AVERAGE HAS TAKEN US SEVEN DAYS TO PROCESS.
FOR IPV6, YOU CAN SEE THE FIRST TWO TOOK QUITE SOME TIME.
BUT THOSE WERE ONES WHERE WE WERE CONSULTING WITH OUTSIDE EXPERTS.
AND SINCE THAT TIME, THE PROCESSING HAS GOTTEN MUCH MORE QUICK.
FOR ROOT MANAGEMENT, THIS IS OUR ROOT MANAGEMENT QUEUE FOR THE PAST YEAR, FROM JULY OF LAST YEAR TO JUNE OF THIS YEAR.
AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A LOT OF VARIATION.
RIGHT NOW, WE'RE EXPERIENCING AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF NEW REQUESTS AND NOT INCREASING OUR OUTPUT AT THE SAME RATE.
AND SO THE QUEUE SIZE HAS GROWN.
THIS CAN ALSO BE SEEN A LITTLE BIT IN OUR PROCESSING TIMES.
WE REACHED A PEAK IN FEBRUARY OF TAKING AN AVERAGE OF 100 DAYS TO PROCESS CURRENT REQUESTS.
AND WE HAVE NOW BROUGHT THAT DOWN TO BETWEEN 50 AND 60 DAYS.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS NOWHERE NEAR WHERE WE NEED TO BE.
BUT WE DO SEE IT AS IMPROVEMENT OVERALL.
THIS IS A HISTOGRAM OF THE CURRENTLY OPEN REQUESTS.
IT'S VERY HARD TO READ IN THIS ENVIRONMENT.
THIS IS A LITTLE EASIER TO LOOK AT.
WE HAVE 30 REQUESTS THAT HAVE BEEN OPENED FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS, AND ONLY -- WELL, "ONLY" -- WE HAVE EIGHT REQUESTS THAT HAVE BEEN OPENED FOR GREATER THAN A YEAR.
OF THE REQUESTS THAT HAVE BEEN OPENED FOR GREATER THAN A YEAR, MANY OF THEM ARE DUE TO BE CLOSED WITHIN THE NEXT 60 DAYS.
AND WE EXPECT TO MOVE FORWARD ON THAT RELATIVELY QUICKLY.
FOR PROTOCOL, PORT, AND PARAMETER NUMBERS, THE ISSUE THAT WE TRACK ARE INTERNET DRAFTS IDS.
ONE OF THE REASONS WE DO THAT IS THAT IT'S VERY VISIBLE TO THE COMMUNITY AND SO THEY CAN ASCERTAIN THAT THE STATISTICS WE'RE GIVING MATCH WHAT THEY'RE SEEING.
HERE, YOU CAN SEE SOME GOOD TURNAROUND ON PERFORMANCE.
WE'VE MANAGED TO BRING THE OVERALL QUEUE, INTERNET DRAFT QUEUE, DOWN TO A VERY REASONABLE SIZE.
IT MATCHES THE INCOMING TICKETS PER MONTH.
AND OUR NEW WORK PROCESSES HAVE HAD THE MOST INFLUENCE HERE IN PROCESSING MORE REQUESTS PER MONTH.
AGAIN, THIS IS THE PROCESSING TIME OVER THE PAST YEAR.
AND ONCE WE INTRODUCED THE NEW WORK PROCESSES IN APRIL, YOU CAN SEE THAT WE'VE HAD SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT.
WE DO HAVE A TARGET AGREED TO WITH THE IETF ON HOW LONG IT SHOULD TAKE US TO PROCESS THESE REQUESTS ON AVERAGE.
WE BELIEVE THAT WE'LL BE MEETING THAT TARGET BY THE IETF MEETING IN PARIS IN TWO WEEKS.
ON THE AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE OPEN ID REQUESTS, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE OLDEST TICKET -- THE ONES IN PINK ARE THE ONES THAT ARE ON HOLD OR AT THE AUTHOR, AND SO THERE IS NO FURTHER ACTION THAT ICANN CAN TAKE TO MOVE THEM FORWARD.
THE OLDEST ONE THAT WE ARE ACTIVELY WORKING IS 45 DAYS OLD.
FOR THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE, THE FIRST SYSTEM THAT WE IMPLEMENTED WAS A VERY MINIMAL SYSTEM.
IT IS STILL BEING USED TODAY AS WE TRANSITION TO THE NEW ONE.
THE NEW SYSTEM IS DESIGNED IN-HOUSE FOR ICANN'S NEEDS, AND IT WILL BE FULLY INTEGRATED ACROSS THE ORGANIZATION.
IT'S NOT JUST BEING PREPARED FOR IANA.
THE MIGRATION OF SOME OF IANA'S FUNCTIONS IS HAPPENING NOW.
WE'VE MOVED A LOT OF THE IETF-RELATED QUEUES TO THAT NEW TICKETING SYSTEM.
AND THE ROOT MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS WILL BE THE LAST TO BE MIGRATED TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON OPEN REQUESTS.
>>VINT CERF: I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO PAUSE FOR JUST A MOMENT.
I HADN'T ANTICIPATED THAT WE WOULD MANAGE TO EXTEND THIS MEETING ALL THE WAY UNTIL THE NOONTIME IN LONDON, WHICH IS JUST ABOUT TO HAPPEN.
SO I HAVE TO ASK, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE REST OF EUROPE IS ABOUT TO OBSERVE TWO MINUTES OF SILENCE.
MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE DO SO AGAIN.
I APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING MISJUDGED THE TIME.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO DO DAMAGE TO WHAT IS CLEARLY A WIDELY HELD PLAN ON THE CONTINENT.
SO LET ME ASK YOU ONCE MORE TO STAND FOR TWO MINUTES OF SILENCE IN MEMORY OF THE PEOPLE IN LONDON.
(MOMENT OF SILENCE.)
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YOU MAY BE SEATED.
>>BARBARA ROSEMAN: I ONLY HAVE A COUPLE MORE SLIDES TO GO THROUGH.
REGARDING THE AUTOMATION OF IANA PROCESSES, ICANN IS PROCEEDING TO STREAMLINE AND PARTIALLY AUTOMATED THE IANA PROCESSES.
HOWEVER, SOME ASPECTS OF OUR FUNCTIONS STILL REQUIRE HUMAN CONFIRMATION OF THE PROCESS, PARTICULARLY ROOT MANAGEMENT.
THE ROOT HAS DIFFERENT AUTOMATION RISKS THAN OTHER REGISTRIES.
SOME OF THE CHALLENGES FOR AUTOMATING THE ROOT ZONE INCLUDE THAT THERE CAN BE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS WITH REQUESTS, THERE CAN BE REQUESTS THAT DO NOT FOLLOW BEST CURRENT PRACTICE GUIDELINES OR COMMUNITY-DEVELOPED POLICIES, SUCH AS 1591, RFC-1591, AND CREDENTIALS CAN BE MISAPPROPRIATED, SO AUTHENTICATION IS ACTUALLY QUITE DIFFICULT.
AND WE HAVE SEVERAL MEANS OF DEALING WITH THESE ISSUES, MOST OF WHICH INVOLVED A LOT OF COMMUNICATION WITH THE REQUESTER AND WITH THE TLD CONTACTS.
PART OF THE AUTOMATION PROCESS THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING IS A NEW TEMPLATE SYSTEM FOR ROOT MANAGEMENT REQUESTS.
THIS WILL ALLOW PEOPLE TO FILL OUT THEIR REQUESTS ONLINE.
IT -- WHAT -- THIS WILL AUTOMATICALLY -- THE ONLINE FORM AUTOMATICALLY FILLS IN THEIR CURRENT INFORMATION SO THERE IS MUCH LESS LIKELIHOOD OF THEIR CHANGING INFORMATION THAT THEY DIDN'T INTEND TO CHANGE.
AND THE REQUESTS ARE SUBMITTED AS A UNIQUE REQUEST, SO THEY CAN MAKE CHANGES TO NAME SERVERS OR THEY CAN MAKE CHANGES TO CONTACTS.
THEY DON'T DO BOTH ON THE SAME FORM.
WE BELIEVE THAT THAT'S GOING TO CREATE QUITE A BIT OF EFFICIENCY IN TERMS OF COMMUNICATION ABOUT WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.
WE HAVE A PROCESS WHERE IF ONE CONTACT VERIFIES THE REQUEST AND ANOTHER DOES NOT, THE REQUEST IS PUT ON HOLD UNTIL WE'RE ABLE TO SPEAK WITH BOTH OF THEM.
AND THIS IS IN BETA TESTING UNTIL 31 JULY, AND WE ANTICIPATE HAVING A FULL RELEASE OF THE SOFTWARE APPROXIMATELY 1 SEPTEMBER.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BARBARA.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR BARBARA ON THE IANA REPORT?
IN THAT CASE, THANK YOU.
YOU CAN SIT DOWN.
AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE FORMAL REPORTS THAT WERE SCHEDULED.
SO NOW I OPEN THE FLOOR FOR GENERAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENT.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I GUESS I'M FIRST.
JORDYN BUCHANAN WITH REGISTER.COM.
I'M GOING TO COMMENT BRIEFLY, MAYBE SOMEWHAT MORE THAN BRIEFLY, ON THE DOT NET PROCESS.
I KNOW THAT SOME PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE, AND I DO APPRECIATE THE ONGOING CONSULTATION THAT THE BOARD IS DOING.
I'M GOING TO TAKE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TACK IN TALKING ABOUT THIS.
ESSENTIALLY, THIS WEEK, REGISTRARS AND OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE DISCUSSED A PERCEIVED BETRAYAL OF TRUST OVER THE NEW DOT NET CONTRACT.
BASED ON SOME COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD YESTERDAY, IT SEEMS THAT SOME BOARD MEMBERS HAVE BEEN SURPRISED AND PERHAPS EVEN A LITTLE BIT PERPLEXED OVER THE ANGER AND SOMETIMES HEATED RHETORIC, BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE WORKED HONESTLY AND DILIGENTLY ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY.
SO I'D LIKE TO TALK JUST FOR A MOMENT OR TWO ABOUT WHERE THE ANGER AND FRUSTRATION IS COMING FROM.
FIRST, IT'S FRUSTRATING TO BE TOLD BY ICANN STAFF THAT THERE WAS NO BREAKDOWN IN THE PROCESS WHEN ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD SAY THERE WAS.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE BYLAWS REQUIRE THAT AGREEMENTS THAT AFFECT POLICY OR PRICE PRIOR TO THEIR APPROVAL -- BE PUBLISHED PRIOR TO THEIR APPROVAL, IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND HOW POSTING A DRAFT AGREEMENT THAT CONTAINS NO DESCRIPTION OF THE PRICE IS CONSIDERED TO BE A SUFFICIENT -- IS CONSIDERED TO BE SUFFICIENT TO FILL THAT REQUIREMENT.
ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD EXPECT A FINAL CONTRACT THAT INCLUDES PRICES TO BE POSTED FOR COMMENT.
IF THE STAFF HAD COMMITTED TO THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY THERE WOULD BE A CONSULTATION ON THE DOT NET RRA PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION, IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND HOW POSTING AN RRA AS PART OF AN EXECUTED AGREEMENT WITH A CAVEAT THAT IT DOESN'T TAKE EFFECT FOR 30 DAYS, BUT WITH NO CLEAR MECHANISM FOR CONSULTATION AND MODIFICATION, FULFILLS THAT COMMITMENT.
ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD THINK THAT CONSULTATION INVOLVES DISCUSSION WITH THE REGISTRARS WHILE THE AGREEMENT COULD STILL BE MODIFIED PRIOR TO SIGNATURE.
AND, FINALLY, IF 18 MONTHS AGO THE STAFF HAD ASKED THE GNSO COUNCIL TO DEVELOP A CONSENSUS POLICY FOR APPROVING REGISTRY SERVICES, IT'S DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE SAME STAFF CAN NOW ASSERT THAT THE APPLICATION OF THAT CONSENSUS POLICY TO A PARTICULAR REGISTRY IS NOT A MATTER OF POLICY.
I'M REMINDED OF SOMETHING THAT I'VE HEARD FROM TIME TO TIME.
"DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR OWN EYES OR DO YOU BELIEVE ME?"
I THINK MOST OF US HERE IN THE COMMUNITY BELIEVE OUR OWN EYES.
AND WHAT -- WHEN WE'RE SEEING -- WHEN ICANN STAFF TELLS US WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY, IT REDUCES ICANN'S CREDIBILITY INSTEAD OF ENHANCING IT.
MY SECOND MAIN POINT IS TO ECHO MIKE AND ROBERTO YESTERDAY.
EVEN THOUGH THE BOARD MAY DELIBERATE CAREFULLY AND INTELLIGENTLY ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY, THE COMMUNITY HAS NO INSIGHT INTO THAT PROCESS OR THE RATIONALE FOR THOSE DECISIONS.
IT MAY VERY WELL BE THAT THIS DOT NET CONTRACT IS THE BEST ONE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATED AND THAT IMPORTANT CONCESSIONS WERE OBTAINED IN EXCHANGE FOR FAVORABLE PROVISIONS FOR VERISIGN.
BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TRADEOFFS WERE MADE AND WE CAN ONLY SEE THE END RESULT.
SIMILARLY, IT MAY BE THAT THE ALTERNATIVE TO SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMUNITY REVIEW WAS EVEN WORSE.
BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT ALTERNATIVE WAS, AND CLEARLY, THE APPROACH OF SAYING, "JUST TRUST US," ISN'T WORKING.
WHEN I WAS DISCUSSING THIS TOPIC, THE TOPIC OF THE SPEECH WITH SOMEONE, HE SAID, SOUNDS LIKE AN ORGANIZATION THAT GETS SUED A LOT.
HE'S ON TO SOMETHING THERE.
AND AS WE ALL KNOW, LITIGATION HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR ICANN.
BUT WE MAY BE AT THE POINT WHERE ICANN'S BEEN OVER-LAWYERED IN A COUNTER-PRODUCE WAY.
SIMPLY PUT, SILENCE AND LEGAL NICETIES BREED ANGER AND MISTRUST IN THE COMMUNITY.
AND THIS IS A LESSON THAT OTHER INDUSTRIES HAVE BEEN LEARNING.
FOR EXAMPLE, A NUMBER OF HOSPITALS IN THE UNITED STATES, WHERE MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS ARE VERY COMMON, HAVE DISCOVERED THAT WHEN A MISTAKE IS MADE, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO COVER IT UP, TO IMMEDIATELY TELL THE PATIENT THAT A MISTAKE HAS BEEN MADE, CONSULT WITH THEM, TRY TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE, AND ALSO EVEN HELP THEM FILE CLAIMS, IS A FAR MORE SUCCESSFUL STRATEGY FOR REDUCING LEGAL COSTS THAN STONEWALLING.
BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IN THOSE SITUATIONS, ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE MORE CLAIMS, ESSENTIALLY, YOU'RE JUST FIXING THE PROBLEM, AND PEOPLE ARE GLAD TO ACCEPT A REASONABLE SETTLEMENT.
BUT IF PEOPLE DON'T TRUST YOU AND IF THEY'RE ANGRY AT YOU, THEY FILE LAWSUITS FOR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES TO PUNISH YOU FOR YOUR BAD BEHAVIOR.
AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS.
SIMILARLY, TORO, WHICH IS A LAWN MOWER MANUFACTURING COMPANY IN THE UNITED STATES, TOOK A SIMILAR APPROACH.
WHEN AND ACCIDENT CLAIM WAS FILED, INSTEAD OF HAVING A LAWYER CALL BACK, THEY SENT SOMEONE OUT TO INVESTIGATE THE PROBLEM, SEE WHAT WENT WRONG WITH THE LAWN MOWER, FIX IT, AND MAKE SURE THE PERSON WAS PROPERLY COMPENSATED.
AS A RESULT OF THAT POLICY, THEIR LEGAL FEES WENT DOWN 78%, AND THE OVERALL PAYMENTS AS A RESULT OF ACCIDENTS WENT DOWN 70%.
SO YOU'RE PROBABLY THINKING, ICANN IS NOT A HOSPITAL, ICANN'S NOT A LAWN MOWER COMPANY.
AND YOU'RE RIGHT.
THERE'S AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE.
ONLY ICANN REPRESENTS A BROUGHT COMMUNITY, AND ONLY ICANN IS FOUNDED ON A CORE BEDROCK PRINCIPLE OF OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY FOR THE COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)
>>VINT CERF: LET ME -- JOI, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT RELATED TO THIS, I ASSUME?
>>JOICHI ITO: I THINK THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT POINT, AND I THINK THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING IT INSIDE THE BOARD.
THERE ISN'T A BOARD CONSENSUS ABOUT WHETHER THE PROCESS WAS BROKEN OR NOT.
MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT ICANN'S CORE MISSION IS CONSENSUS.
I BELIEVE THAT AT LEAST -- AT LEAST MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT OUR MISSION IS THAT WE ARE THE CUSTODIANS OF THE CONSENSUS PROCESS.
AND IF A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE OR A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE VERY ANGRY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE THINK WE FOLLOWED PROCESS, IF WE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS, I THINK THAT THE PROCESS IS BROKEN IN SOME WAY.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY -- I'M NOT GOING TO BLAME ANYBODY, BUT I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE.
AND IF THE PROCESS IS BROKEN, WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FIX IT.
AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS DOT NET AGREEMENT IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT FEELS LIKE WE DON'T HAVE CONSENSUS.
SO AT LEAST MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME.
AND I THINK YOUR COMMENTS ARE GOOD COMMENTS THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
>>VINT CERF: JUST -- THANK YOU, JOI.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX SITUATION, BUT NO QUESTION IN MY MIND THAT WHEN THERE'S THIS DEGREE OF PASSION, AND LET ME EVEN SAY RHETORIC, THAT WE HAVE TO GO AND EXAMINE THIS PROCESS AND TRY TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK A LOT BETTER THAN IT APPEARS TO HAVE WORKED.
HAGEN.
>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: VERY SHORT COMMENT.
AND I SHARE THE VIEW REGARDING INFORMATION IN CASE AN ERROR HAS OCCURRED.
WHEN I DISCOVERED AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE THAT AN ERROR MAY HAVE OCCURRED, I WENT IMMEDIATELY TO MY COUNTERPARTS IN THE SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS.
ONE IS SITTING RIGHT OPPOSITE TO ME RIGHT NOW.
AND SAID, "WE MAY HAVE RUN INTO A PROBLEM.
WE MAY HAVE MADE AN ERROR."
AND I THINK WE STARTED TO TALK ABOUT HOW TO FIX IT.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY, WHO'S NEXT?
>>GRANT FORSYTH: GRANT FORSYTH FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.
MY QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK IS PROBABLY DIRECTED AT THE PRESIDENT AND REGARDS THE OPERATIONAL PLAN AND BUDGET.
DURING THE PRESENTATION, THE BOARD URGED THE COMMUNITY TO COME FORWARD WITH SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS AND VIEWS WITH REGARDS THE OPERATIONAL PLAN.
MY QUESTION, FIRSTLY, TO PAUL IS, WHAT IS GOING TO -- WHAT IS THE PROCESS, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE COMMENTS SOME OF WHICH I PERSONALLY HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED AND OTHER PEOPLE HERE HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO?
ARE WE GOING TO SEE A NEW VERSION OF THE OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR FINAL CONSULTATION PRIOR TO ANY PROPOSAL BEING PUT TO THE BOARD?
MY UNDERSTANDING IS NOT, AND THEREFORE, I'M QUESTIONING, I GUESS, THE USEFULNESS WITH WHICH THE CALL FOR COMMENTS HAS BEEN.
AND I WANT TO BE QUITE SPECIFIC IN THAT, AND I THINK PETER HAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR SPECIFIC INSTANCES. AND I TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE MATTER UNDER -- THIS IS IN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN. I'M SORRY, IT DOESN'T HAVE NUMBERING.
ON THE GLOBALIZATION ON PAGE 6 OF MY VERSION. AND THIS IS A PARAGRAPH HERE THAT READS: ICANN HAS BEEN CONTACTED BY SEVERAL GOVERNMENT AND NONGOVERNMENT -- -GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES REGARDING ESTABLISHING REGIONAL PRESENCES SLASH PARTNERSHIPS IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS. THE BUDGET CONTAINS SEED MONEY TO DEVELOP THOSE INQUIRIES.
NOW, THIS IS A MATTER WHICH I HAVE ALSO PROVIDED COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON AS IT PERTAINS OR AS IT'S NOTED IN THE STRAT PLAN. AND I NOTE THAT THE STRAT PLAN, THE LATEST VERSION, ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE MATTER OF REGIONAL PRESENCE IS ONE THAT IS, AS YET, NOT SETTLED. YET HERE I SEE IT IN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN, AND THE NICEST THING I CAN SAY IS THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION HERE AND IN THE BUDGET TO ALLOW MAY TO BE EITHER -- ANY CONCERNS I HAVE TO BE EITHER ALLAYED OR RAISED.
AND SO MY QUESTION IS, AS A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH REGARDS TO THIS ACTIVITY GIVEN THAT I HAVE RAISED IT HERE AND OTHER PEOPLE MAY RAISE OTHERS?
THANK YOU.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: I THINK THERE'S A SERIES -- THERE'S A SERIES OF QUESTIONS IMPLICIT IN WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, AND I THINK IT'S WORTH UNPACKING THEM.
FIRST OF ALL, IN STRAIGHT FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS, THE BOARD HAS TO MAKE DECISIONS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CORPORATION. AND THAT'S A SIMPLE LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF THE BOARD. AND PART OF THE GREAT CHALLENGE THAT THIS BOARD HAS, I THINK, AND THE GREAT CHALLENGE THE COMMUNITY HAS IS ACTUALLY EQUATE THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE BOTTOM-UP PROCESS AND THE DECISIONS THAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO MAKE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CORPORATION.
AND -- SO I THINK THAT'S JUST A FIRST PRINCIPLE THAT'S ACTUALLY QUITE IMPORTANT.
I THINK THE SECOND THING WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE HERE IS THAT WE ARE MAKING A TRANSITION FROM ONE FORM OF PLANNING STRUCTURE, ORIGINALLY SET UP I THINK PROBABLY MIKE ROBERTS AND ESTHER, TO ANOTHER ONE. AND IN A BOTTOM-UP PROCESS OF DOING THAT, IT'S SIMPLY TAKING TIME AND LEARNING EXPERIENCE, WHICH IS GREAT; OKAY? BUT IT'S A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE THIS YEAR BECAUSE WE'RE SHOE-HORNING FUTURE IDEAS INTO PRESENT STEPS. IN PARTICULAR, THE OPERATIONAL PLANNING PROCESS LEADING TO A BUDGET. BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING, OKAY, THERE WAS CALL FOR AN OPERATIONAL PLAN, BUT THE BUDGET TIMETABLE ALREADY IN THE BYLAWS HAD ALREADY STARTED ACCELERATING. SO THE BUDGET HAD TO BE PREPARED AT THE SAME TIME.
SO I THINK -- WE'VE OUTLINED STARTING IN JANUARY FOR THE NEXT PROCESS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE MUCH MORE DISCUSSION AROUND THE OPERATIONAL PLAN. A LOT OF THINGS YOU HAD SAID AT THE OPERATIONAL PLANNING THING ON MONDAY AFTERNOON, OTHERS HAD SAID ABOUT A PROCESS, AND PUTTING POINTS UP, BEFORE WE GET TO MONEY, WE'RE TO WORK THROUGH WHAT SORT OF PROJECTS, WHAT SORT OF THINGS, WHAT SORT OF OBJECTIVES.
I STILL MAKE THE OBSERVATION, I THINK IT'S STILL IMPORTANT TO MAKE THE OBSERVATION, THE BOARD IS GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF BALANCE BETWEEN THE BOTTOM-UP PROCESS THAT IT HEARS AND WHAT IT COMES TO ITS OWN CONCLUSIONS ARE ITS OBLIGATIONS TO ENSURE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CORPORATION. AND WE CAN'T WALK AWAY FROM THAT. IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I FIND MOST DIFFICULT. THERE'S A LOT OF GRAY AREAS, THIS IS ONE OF THE GRAY AREAS THAT'S GOING TO BE MOST DIFFICULT.
IN THE -- IN THE PROCESS NOW, THERE IS -- THE BUDGET HAD GONE THROUGH AND THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HAS APPROVED IT AND WE'RE HAVING OPERATIONAL DISCUSSIONS AROUND IT. THERE IS OPPORTUNITY FOR EXAMINING FROM THAT FEEDBACK, AND FOR INSTANCE WE CLARIFIED SEVERAL POINTS, I THOUGHT, ON MONDAY AFTERNOON, TO ADJUST THE ACTIVITIES.
ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE YOU HAVE RAISED AROUND REGIONAL PRESENCE, THE STAFF HAS MADE CLEAR SEVERAL TIMES, SO I'LL MAKE IT CLEAR AGAIN, THAT WHAT WE TOOK AWAY -- WHAT WE HAVE ASSUMED AND I THINK WHAT THE BOARD, WHEN WE TALKED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ABOUT AS WELL, ON THE REGIONAL PRESENCE CONCEPT, AT LEAST INFORMALLY, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT ACTUALLY WENT FORMAL INTO THE LAST MEETING, THERE IS A LOT OF INTEREST IN IT. THERE IS NO CERTAINTY YET PLACE BY PLACE WHAT THAT SHOULD BE.
THERE IS, WE FEEL, A VERY STRONG FEEDBACK ON THE NEED TO HAVE PEOPLE INTERACTING AT LOCAL LEVEL.
SO THE PRESENT OPERATIONAL PLANNING PROPOSAL IS TO CONTINUE WITH THE PROCESS OF APPOINTMENT OF REGIONAL LIAISONS BASED OUT OF PRESENT POSITIONS AND THEN TO WORK WITH LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND THE LOCAL REGIONS TO SEE WHAT POTENTIAL BOTTOM-UP FROM THOSE REGIONS IS USEFUL.
WE WAIT TO SEE THAT. SOME REGIONS HAVE COME BACK TO US PRIVATELY -- NOT PUBLICLY, PRIVATELY -- SAYING VERY STRONG WHAT THEY WANT. AND THAT, BY THE WAY, INCLUDES THAT THEY WANT OFFICES AND THEY'RE WILLING TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEM.
I'VE HAD TWO GOVERNMENTS COME UP TO ME, TWO GOVERNMENTS NCC COME UP TO ME IN THE LAST 48 HOURS AND MAKE FIRM PROPOSALS.
SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE THAT DECISION. WHAT WE THINK IS MUCH BETTER TO AT LEAST BE ENGAGING AT THE LOCAL REGION WITH SOME PEOPLE, BECAUSE WE NEED TO DO THAT FOR A WHOLE LOT OF REASONS, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH ARE THE IDN ISSUES THAT MOUHAMET RAISED AND THEN BE ABLE TO COME BACK TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE BOARD AND LET THE COMMUNITY BRING TO THE BOARD ANY IDEAS THAT MIGHT BE, THEY THINK, APPROPRIATE FOR THEIR PARTICULAR REGION.
SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PREJUDGE THE OUTCOME ON THIS. SO I WANTED TO BE QUITE CLEAR ON THAT.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY. I'M SORRY, MARILYN, IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE.
>>MARILYN CADE: WE JUST SWITCHED BECAUSE OF MY TOPIC.
>>VINT CERF: I'M JUST CHECKING.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M GOING TO USE AN ANALOGY QUICKLY WHICH I HADN'T INTENDED TO USE BUT IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME NOW GIVEN PAUL'S STATEMENT AND THEN I WILL MAKE THE REST OF MY STATEMENT.
HERE IS MY ANALOGY. IF I AM A SALESPERSON AND I HAVE A PACKAGE, I HAVE A CATALOGUE, THESE ARE THE THINGS I DO, THESE ARE THE SERVICES I SELL, THESE ARE THE PRODUCTS I SELL, THESE ARE THE PRODUCTS THAT CAN BE SUPPORTED. I'VE GOT TECH SUPPORT BEHIND THESE PRODUCTS, I CAN REPLACE THE PRODUCT, I'VE GOT REPLACEMENT SALESPEOPLE AND I'VE GOT MANAGEMENT BEHIND THEM.
AND IF I TAKE THAT PRODUCT SUITE AND I GO INTO A NEW TERRITORY AND I MEET WITH SOMEONE AND I SAY HERE IS WHAT I SELL, LET'S FIND SOMETHING TOGETHER THAT MEETS YOUR NEEDS, I KNOW I CAN SUPPORT IT.
IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, I GO IN TO MEET WITH A NEW CUSTOMER AND I SAY LET ME GET A PIECE OF PAPER OUT AND LET'S DESIGN WHAT YOU WANT. I BETTER BE SURE I HAVE THE BUDGET AND PROCESSES BEHIND ME TO DESIGN WHAT THEY WANT AND SUPORT IT IN A SUSTAINABLE WAY GOING FORWARD OR I'M GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF FRUSTRATED, UNHAPPY CUSTOMERS. THAT'S MY QUICK ANALOGY.
I WILL SAY THAT I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT IT'S NOT EASIER TO PROVIDE THE VERY HIGH LEVEL INFORMATION THAT I THINK WE DESERVE THAT LINKS THE OPERATIONAL PLAN WITH THE PROPOSED EXPENSES AND THE PROPOSED REVENUE. I POINT TO PAGE 3, AND I GUESS I JUST READ THINGS WRONG, BUT I POINT TO PAGE 3 OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET, AND IT DESCRIBES A BOTTOM-UP PLANNING PROCESS FOR DESIGNING THE ACTIVITIES AND THE REVENUE. BUT I CAN'T LINK THAT MYSELF, AND I WONDER WHETHER YOU CAN, TO THE EXPENSES IN THE BUDGET.
WE'RE TALKING HIGH LEVEL.
I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. AND I THINK IT'S PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO FEEL LIKE WE CAN HAVE ACCOUNTABILITY.
SO LET ME TALK ABOUT WHY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AT THIS TIME.
WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A BUDGET APPROVED NOW. IN FACT, YOU'RE ALREADY SPENDING THE BUDGET, SINCE THE BUDGET YEAR HAS ALREADY STARTED. SO WE HAVE A PRACTICAL PROBLEM.
BUT WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEGOTIATED WITH EACH OTHER TO ESTABLISH AN OPERATIONAL PLAN THAT WOULD LINK WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE BUDGET.
WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE YET. WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. WE NEED TO DO MORE WORK THERE. YOU HEARD MY COMMENTS ABOUT A LITTLE MORE LINKAGE IS NEEDED.
I CAN'T COMMENT FOR THE REGISTRARS ON THE POSITION THEY HAVE TAKEN WITH YOU ABOUT THE BUDGET, BUT I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU A CONCERN THAT I THINK YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT.
THE BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO DO A WORK-AROUND ON BUDGET APPROVAL. IF YOU DON'T GET APPROVAL FROM THE REGISTRARS, YOU CAN GO TO THE REGISTRIES.
I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT AND WHETHER THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
RIGHT NOW THE COMMUNITY THAT IS THE LARGEST COLLECTOR OF SERVICE FEES FROM THE REGISTRANTS IS THE REGISTRARS. THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES, AS THEY SAID EARLIER, AND I LISTENED TO THAT, AS THE MAJOR SOURCE OF THE COLLECTOR OF THE FEES. YET YOU'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING, I THINK, IN DIVERSIFYING THE FUNDING AND PUTTING OTHER FORMS OF REVENUE INTO A LARGER FEE IN THE REGISTRIES THEMSELVES. I MIGHT HAVE OTHER CAUTIONS ABOUT THAT AT ANOTHER TIME; IT'S NOT A GOOD TIME TO TALK ABOUT THAT NOW, BUT I DO HAVE A CONCERN.
IF YOU DECIDE YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET AGREEMENT FROM THE REGISTRARS AND YOU GO TO THE REGISTRIES, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T LEAVE THE REGISTRARS BEHIND, BECAUSE AS A REGISTRANT, THAT IS WHO I INTERFACE WITH.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MARILYN. IZUMI.
>>IZUMI AIZU: THANK YOU. I HAVE TWO DIFFERENT TOPICS THAT FOR THE INTEREST OF TIME I WOULD LIKE TO COMBINE. FIRST IS A BRIEF REPORT ABOUT AT-LARGE OR ASIA-PACIFIC RALO FORMATION . THIS MORNING 16 OR SO OF US GATHERED AND WE AGREED TO WORK ON MORE OF AN ACTION PLAN TO IMPLEMENT RALO. HOPEFULLY IF THE FORMATION DONE BY VANCOUVER THIS YEAR AND THE MOU AROUND WELLINGTON MEETING. THAT WAS THE AGREED TARGET.
WE HAD A REASONABLE, INFORMAL BUT VERY GOOD INDICATION OF SUPPORT FROM SOME TLDS LIKE . HK, .KL, .NZ AMONG OTHERS, AND WAS ENCOURAGED BY THE SUPPORT FOR FUTURE WORK.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE STILL HAVE SOME CHALLENGES AND HEADACHES AND CONCERNS TO REALLY MAKE THE GLOBAL RALO FUNCTIONAL.
IF WE GO AHEAD, BUT WHILE WE LOOK AROUND AND THERE WAS NOBODY ELSE COMING FORWARD, IT MIGHT BE VERY ODD.
SO WE HAVE SOME REAL CONCERN AND WE NEED TO BE PREPARED. WE ARE WORKING ON THAT.
AND ON A VERY DIFFERENT SUBJECT, I DON'T WANT TO BE A BAD GUY BUT I MIGHT BE CALLED LIKE THAT BECAUSE AS WE ARE ALL CURIOUSLY WAITING FOR THE RELEASE OF THE WGIG REPORT, WITHIN PERHAPS A FEW HOURS TODAY, I'D LIKE TO BRING ONE SIMPLE QUESTION WHICH I'M HOPING PAUL AND SOME OTHER BOARD MEMBERS CAN QUICKLY REPLY OR SHARE YOUR VIEWS.
AS A MEMBER OF WSIS WORKSHOP PLANNING GROUP AND A MEMBER OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS OF THE WSIS PROCESS, AND ALSO THE AT-LARGE TO BRING THE VOICE OF THE USERS, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE FOLLOWING. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THIS REPORT, THE U.S. ADMINISTRATION MADE FOUR POINT POSITION STATEMENT IN RELATION TO THE OVERSIGHT FUNCTION OVER THE ROOT ZONE FILE AND OVER ICANN AS A WHOLE, WHICH MY UNDERSTANDING IS GOOD NEWS TO KNOW, BUT I LARGELY -- THEY LARGELY CONTRADICT FROM THE PROMISED LAND OF INTERNATIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF ICANN WITH REGARD TO THE MOU BETWEEN DOC AND ICANN.
SO COULD YOU SHARE YOUR VIEWS WITH US FOR SUCH A VERY IMPORTANT MATTER TO ALL OF ICANN COMMUNITY AND ALSO TO ALL THE USERS AND/OR BENEFICIARIES OF THE SERVICE OF ICANN. THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, IZUMI.
I'D LIKE TO RESPOND WITH THE SAME -- AN ANSWER WHICH, IN THE GAC MEETING, THIS SIMILAR QUESTION WAS ASKED AND I RESPONDED IN THE FOLLOWING WAY. THIS IS MY INTERPRETATION OF THAT STATEMENT FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. OF COURSE, I'M IN NO POSITION TO SPEAK FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
THE STATEMENT READ, IN MY VIEW, AS A STATEMENT OF CURRENT FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE HAS A RELATIONSHIP WITH ICANN, AND IT WAS OUTLINED IN THOSE STATEMENTS.
IT ISN'T CLEAR TO ME THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT IN THE STATEMENT, ALTHOUGH IT CLEARLY HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY OTHERS AS REFERRING TO TIME PERIODS NOT ONLY AFTER THE WGIG REPORT IS RELEASED BUT AFTER THE WSIS PROCESS IS OVER, AND AFTER THE MOU HAS EXPIRED IN 2006.
IT'S MAY BELIEF THAT THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT OF THE STATEMENT. I THINK IT WAS SIMPLY A STATEMENT OF WHERE THINGS STAND. NO ONE KNOWS, PARTICULARLY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, HOW THE WSIS RESULTS WILL COME OUT. AND UNTIL YOU KNOW THAT, IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO TAKE A POSITION BEYOND THE POINT WHERE YOU ARE TODAY EXCEPT TO SAY THAT HERE IS WHERE WE ARE, AND WHATEVER NEGOTIATIONS FOLLOW IN THE POST WSIS PERIOD AND WHATEVER IMPACT THAT MIGHT HAVE ON THE MOU IS STILL TO BE SEEN.
BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE OTHERS WHO HAVE INTERPRETED THE STATEMENT DIFFERENTLY THAN I HAVE.
THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT I AM AWARE OF THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS COMMUNICATED WITH ICANN TO SUGGEST IN ANY WAY THAT WE ARE ON A DIFFERENT COURSE THAN WE ARE ON ON THE BASIS OF THE MOU THAT WAS SIGNED -- THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOU THAT WAS SIGNED ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.
ROBERTO HAD HIS HAND UP, AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO COMMENT.
>>ROBERTO GAETANO: I HAVE A VERY SHORT ANNOUNCEMENT THAT WAS RELATED TO THE FIRST PART OF IZUMI. TO THE AT LARGE, WE HAVE SEVERAL APPLICATIONS THAT WERE IN THE PIPELINE AND ON WHICH WE WERE VOTING THESE DAYS. THE VOTING HAS BEEN CLOSED TODAY FOR TWO OF THEM, AND SO WE HAVE TWO NEW AT-LARGE STRUCTURES, TWO NEW MEMBERS. THEY ARE THE ISOC AUSTRALIA FROM ASIA-PACIFIC, WHICH, INCIDENTALLY, IS INCREASING THE NUMBER OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC STRUCTURES. THEY ARE CATCHING UP WITH EUROPE, AND I'M PARTICULARLY UPSET ABOUT THIS. BUT WE'LL DO OUR BEST IN EUROPE TO -- BY RECRUIT -- WE HAVE USED THIS MEETING TO POTENTIALLY RECRUIT NEW MEMBERS.
AND THE SECOND ORGANIZATION IS INTERNAUTAS. IT'S AN ORGANIZATION IN ARGENTINA, SO IT'S LATIN AMERICAN (INAUDIBLE). AND THIS ORGANIZATION WAS APPROACHED -- ACTUALLY, THEY APPROACHED US DURING THE LAST MEETING IN -- IN MAR DEL PLATA.
I THINK THAT IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT I COULD ADD TO THIS, IT'S THAT THAT -- THE VALUE OF HOLDING THE ICANN MEETINGS IN DIVERSE PART OF THE WORLD, IT MEANS IT BRINGS THE ICANN CLOSER TO THE PEOPLE IN THE REGIONS. AND THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE IMMEDIATE INTEREST OF ASIAN INTEREST. AND SO THEREFORE, BY CONTINUING DOING THIS, USING THIS STRUCTURE, WE CAN GET MORE INTEREST AND MORE MEMBERS.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, ROBERTO.
I SINCERELY HOPE THAT THIS EFFORT IS SUCCESSFUL.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR?
YES.
>>MARCUS FAURE: MARCUS FAURE, THIS TIME SPEAKING FOR CORE PLUS PLUS I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW-UP ON JORDYN'S STATEMENT WHICH I SUPPORT EXCEPT HE'S WRONG ON ONE POINT. THE AGREEMENT THAT ICANN HAS SIGNED WITH VERISIGN IS NOT THE BEST DEAL THAT YOU COULD HAVE GOT. ACTUALLY, I COMMIT THAT CORE++ WILL SIGN THE DRAFT AGREEMENT AS POSTED ON THE WEB SITE WITHOUT ANY PRICE CAP REMOVALS OR GNSO INFLUENCE, LIMITATIONS OF VOLUME DISCOUNTS RIGHT AWAY. SO IF YOU CAN HAVE SOMEONE PRINT IT, WE CAN SOLVE THE ISSUE IN THE NEXT 15 MINUTES
(LAUGHTER.)
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AMADEU.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY. IT'S SOMETHING ABOUT ALSO THE NET BUT NOT FROM THE (INAUDIBLE) BUT POSSIBLE FUTURE CONCEPT. I'M NOT REPEATING SOME FRUSTRATIONS IN DIFFERENT AREAS, GNSO ADVICE OR THE REGISTRARS AND THE CONTRACT, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
THERE IS ONE THING THAT, YOU KNOW, TRY NOT TO WEAR THE HAT OF AN APPLICANT REALLY CONCERNS ME IN THE FUTURE. IT'S THE DECISION THAT POLICY COMPLIANCE PLAYING A ROLE; THAT IS, TO PUT IT SIMPLE, HAVING THE CAMERA MONITORING THE DOOR. IT'S BEEN MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN SITE FINDER, THE TWO EXTREMES, IF YOU WANT.
THE REALITY HERE IS THAT THIS MEANS THAT, YOU KNOW, BEING IN SOME REGISTRIES OR REGISTRARS BOARDS OR ADVISING THEM, VERY OFTEN WHEN YOU DO THINGS, YOU SAY THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA. OKAY. LET'S CHECK WHAT'S IN OUR AGREEMENT BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS AGREEMENT IN OPERATING THIS REGISTRY IN ONE YEAR TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, IT DOESN'T MATTER, BUT WE HAVE TO BEHAVE. BUT WHAT WE'RE SHOWING HERE IS THE BEHAVING HAS NO ADVANTAGE. QUITE THE CONTRARY. COMPLETELY MISBEHAVING ON THE POLICY AREA, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, SUING PEOPLE PAYS. AND THIS IS A VERY BAD MESSAGE FOR ALL THE OTHER GTLD OPERATORS THAT ARE OUT THERE.
I UNFORTUNATELY DON'T HAVE THE SEATING ON THE BOARD OF THE PIR WHICH IS A NOT-FOR-PROFIT REGISTRY THAT TRIES TO BE AN EXEMPLARY REGISTRY AND WORK FOR THE BEST PROFIT OF THE USERS OF THE INTERNET. IT'S NOT PROFIT DRIVEN. SO WE MAY RESIST THE TEMPTATION OF DOING THESE THINGS. IF I WAS ON THE BOARD OF ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL FOR-PROFIT REGISTRY, I CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE NO MORAL AUTHORITATIVE TO TELL THE STAFF THAT WE SHOULD LOOK TWICE FOR ANY SERVICE OR ANY BEHAVIOR, BECAUSE WHAT I WOULD ONLY TELL THEM IS GO AHEAD WHEREVER YOU WANT, YOU WILL HIRE SOME LAWYERS IN WASHINGTON WHEN THE TIME ARRIVES. THIS, I THINK IS A VERY BAD EXAMPLE WE SET FOR THE FUTURE, BECAUSE ICANN, AS A REGULATOR, IS BETWEEN WEAK AND NONEXISTENCE. ICANN HAS SOME TOOLS WHICH ARE BASICALLY CONTRACTS. IT IS THE ONLY THING IT HAS. THE INCENTIVE FOR HAVING A TLD AND, THEREFORE, THE RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT IS THE MAIN TOOL IT HAS FOR CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR OF THE REGISTRIES AND ALSO THE REGISTRARS IN HAVING A BE!
TTER DNS.
AND IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE ABANDONED ONCE MORE THIS TOOL. AND I THINK IT IS A SAD THING.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, AMADEU.
MILTON.
>>MILTON MUELLER: YES, I'D LIKE TO FIRST PRESENT YOU WITH SOME FACTS ABOUT THE ROOT SITUATION. I THINK THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN A SLIGHTLY CONFUSING WAY, AND THEN I WILL DISAGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE STATEMENT, AND PARTICULARLY REGARDING THE TENSE, PRESENT VERSUS FUTURE, OF THAT STATEMENT.
THE ACTUAL CONTROL OF THE ROOT ZONE FILE, DOES NOT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ICANN'S MOU WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. IT IS, IN FACT, AN OUTGROWTH OF A CONTRACT WITH WHAT IS NOW VERISIGN. AND IF YOU WANT TO FIND THE EXACT DATE, TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED ITS CONTROL OVER THE ROOT, THE DATE IS OCTOBER OF 1998, AND IT'S IN AMENDMENT 11, 11, OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND NSI. AND THERE'S A VERY EXPLICIT DISCUSSION OF THE CONDITIONS, AND THERE'S ALSO IN THERE A CLAUSE WHICH DOESN'T COMMIT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO ANYTHING BUT SAYS IT MAY TRANSFER THIS CONTROL TO A NEWCO AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE.
SO THE EXPIRATION OF THE MOU DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE TRANSFER OR CONTROL OF THE ROOT.
NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE RECENTLY RELEASED U.S. PRINCIPLES, I THINK I DO FIND A CHANGE IN POLICY HERE, A VERY IMPORTANT ONE. LET ME JUST READ YOU A FEW RELEVANT CLAUSES. I'LL TRY TO MAKE THIS BRIEF. U.S. GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO PRESERVE, THAT STRIKES ME AS FUTURE ORIENTED, THE SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE INTERNET AND DOMAIN ADDRESSING SYSTEM. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IT REMAIN STABLE AND SECURE, AGAIN FUTURE ORIENTED. AS SUCH, THE UNITED STATES IS COMMITTED TO TAKING NO ACTION THAT WOULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO ADVERSELY AFFECT -- TO ADVERSELY IMPACT THE EFFICIENT OPERATION OF DNS AND WILL, THEREFORE, MAINTAIN ITS HISTORIC ROLE IN AUTHORIZING CHANGES OR MODIFICATION TO THE AUTHORITATIVE ROOT ZONE FILE.
IT SEEMS TO ME THE WORDS "WILL THEREFORE MAINTAIN" STRIKE ME AS EXTREMELY FUTURE ORIENTED, AS ASSERTING AS AN INDEFINITE PRINCIPLE INTO THE FUTURE THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WILL CONCEIVE SOME SORT OF LINK BETWEEN ITS ROLE AND THE SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE INTERNET. I HOPE THEY DON'T VIEW IT THIS WAY. I'M JUST TELLING YOU THAT'S SURE THE WAY IT LOOKS HERE.
AND OF COURSE WE MIGHT POINT OUT THAT ITS HISTORIC ROLE IS EXACTLY SEVEN YEARS OLD.
>>VINT CERF: THERE YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO INTERPRET POTENTIALLY AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE, AND IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT THE MATERIAL WAS DRAFTED PRECISELY FOR THE VALUE OF ITS AMBIGUITY.
AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE ANY INSIDE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.
NEXT, AND PERHAPS THE LAST COMMENT.
>>YUMI OHASHI: THANK YOU, I'M YUMI FROM JAPAN. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF THE OUTREACH IN APTLD, ASIA-PACIFIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN ASSOCIATION.
MY COMMENT IS ABOUT THE -- THE TALK MADE BY THE MR. PRESIDENT A WHILE AGO, ABOUT THE -- THAT YOU HAVE BEEN APPROACHED BY SOME GOVERNMENTS AND CCS WHO POINT OUT THE NEED OF ICANN'S REGIONAL PRESENCE. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST HERE THAT ICANN STAFF TO SHARE WITH THE CCNSO, GAC, ALAC, REGIONAL ORGANIZATION, AND WHATEVER, THE LIST OF THE NEEDS POINTED OUT SO FAR BY THESE PARTIES AND SERVICES THAT ICANN STAFF, SO FAR, REGARDS AS NECESSARY.
AND THEN WE CAN THEN TOGETHER CATEGORIZE THE ITEMS ON THE LIST AND ICANN AND OTHER CONCERNED PARTIES WILL BE ABLE TO BE MORE CONCRETE AND CLEAR ABOUT WHO SHOULD CONDUCT WHICH REGIONAL WORK.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
PETER.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: YES, JUST A STATEMENT FROM THE WSIS WORKING PLANNING GROUP, WORKSHOP PLANNING GROUP THAT TENDS TO CONTINUE ITS WORK, AND WE'LL BE ORGANIZING A SESSION FOR VANCOUVER AND SEEKS INPUT FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY TO MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP.
>>VINT CERF: PAUL.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: JUST IN RESPONSE TO THAT LAST QUESTION, I JUST WANT TO MAKE QUITE CLEAR, THE STAFF HAS NOT SAID ANYTHING ABOUT REQUIREMENTS, NEEDS, OR OTHERWISE.
AND WHEN BEEN APPROACHED, THE RESPONSE HAS SIMPLY BEEN, "THANK YOU FOR THE ADVICE."
SO THAT'S THE -- I CAN GIVE THE ANSWER VERY QUICKLY.
THAT'S THE CASE AT THE MOMENT.
AND THE PROCESS I OUTLINED BEFORE I THINK SHOULD REMAIN THE PROCESS, WHICH IS THE LIAISONS TALKING AND IF THE COMMUNITIES WANT SOMETHING, THEN THEY WILL COME TOGETHER AND BRING UP.
OKAY?
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PAUL.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR?
FROM THE BOARD?
IF NOT, I'LL -- I SEE A HAND WAVING.
PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT THE SCRIBES KNOW WHAT YOUR NAME IS.
>> ANDREAS BARTELS: MY NAME IS ANDREAS BARTELS FROM DEUTSCHE TELEKOM.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE BOARD.
YOU ARE CREATING SEVERAL NEW TLDS, MAY BE IT BE STLDS OR GTLDS.
WHAT I AM MISSING IS SOME KIND OF COMPETITION POLICY WITHIN ICANN.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE DOT NET BIT, I DON'T WANT TO MENTION IT IN TOO MUCH DETAIL.
IS -- YOU CREATE VIRTUAL MONOPOLIES.
AND THESE KIND OF MONOPOLIES -- MONOPOLIES NEED SOME KIND OF REGULATION, MAY BE COMPETITION POLICY OR PRICE POLICY.
EVEN IF IT'S NOT ICANN'S ROLE, SOMEONE HAS -- SORRY -- TO USE THIS, HAS TO FULFILL THIS ROLE OF REGULATING THIS KIND OF VIRTUAL MONOPOLIES.
AND CONCERNING NEW STLDS AND GTLDS, DID YOU EVER MAKE SOME KIND OF MARKET RESEARCH?
IS THERE ANY DEMAND FOR NEW TLDS?
AND THE NEXT QUESTION IS CONCERNING THE MARKET DEMAND.
WHAT HAPPENS IF ONE OF THESE NEW TLDS GOES BANKRUPT?
DID YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT IT?
SO IF THERE IS NO DEMAND, IN THE END, THE REGISTRY WILL GO BANKRUPT AND WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE REGISTRANTS?
AND IF I SEE THE NEW TLDS, THERE ARE MANY TLDS WHERE I DON'T REALLY SEE A DEMAND.
SO MAYBE -- THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION, MAYBE NOT THE OPINION OF MY COMPANY.
BUT I DOUBT THAT FOR SOME TLDS THERE IS REALLY A DEMAND.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: STEVE.
THANK YOU, STEVE CROCKER.
>>STEVE CROCKER: VERY QUICKLY, ON THE SINGLE AND NARROW POINT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF A REGISTRY FAILS, PARTICULARLY AS WE EXPAND THE NUMBER, OR IF WE DO EXPAND, THE ANSWER IS, YES, THAT'S A QUESTION THAT'S GOTTEN VERY SPECIFIC AND DIRECT ATTENTION AND IS GETTING MORE ATTENTION.
SO I WOULD EXPECT THAT IF THERE IS AN EXPANSION, THERE WILL BE PROVISIONS OF ONE SORT OR ANOTHER TO DEAL WITH THAT POTENTIAL EVENTUALITY.
>>VINT CERF: TWO OTHER COMMENTS, FIRST OF ALL, TO DEAL WITH DEMAND.
WHEN WE HAVE OFFERED TO CONSIDER NEW TLDS, PEOPLE HAVE COME TO CREATE THEM.
I REALIZE THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY EQUATE TO PEOPLE WANTING TO USE THEM.
SO THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT KINDS OF DEMANDS TO CONSIDER.
SECOND, THE TERM "MONOPOLY" GETS USED IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS.
I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT WHILE IT'S TRUE THAT A TLD IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF DOMAIN NAMES WITHIN THAT TLD, THE REGISTRANTS HAVE THE CHOICE OF DIFFERENT TLDS.
AND SO IN ONE SENSE, ONE CAN SPEAK OF COMPETITION BETWEEN TLDS AT THE POINT WHERE CHOICES ARE MADE.
I'M CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO CLAIM TO BE AN ECONOMIST.
AND AS YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY MANY TIMES, I AM NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT THE RATIONALE IS FOR CREATING NEW TLDS, REGARDLESS OF THE MOU'S STATEMENT THAT WE SHALL DO SO.
SO I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THAT SAME QUESTION, GETTING ANSWERS TO THAT SAME QUESTION.
BUT THERE ARE MANY, MANY OTHER ISSUES SURROUNDING THE MATTER OF TLD CREATION, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED TODAY AND WE'LL NO DOUBT BE DISCUSSING THE NEXT TIME WE MEET, IN VANCOUVER.
SO LET ME DRAW THIS SESSION TO A CLOSE.
I THANK ALL OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE BOARD FOR THEIR CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE.
AND WE WILL BE RECONVENING AGAIN TOMORROW AT 8:30 FOR THE BOARD -- REGULAR BOARD MEETING, AT WHICH TIME WE WILL CONSIDER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
SO UNTIL THEN, WE'LL SEE YOU IN THE MORNING.
THIS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED.
(APPLAUSE.)

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers